Wealth & Income Inequality

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/20/opinion/climate-capitalism-crisis.html

Although those who write about environmental change like to add notes of false personalization around this point — “My children will be x years old when catastrophe y happens” — there is really no good way of acclimating the mind to facts of this magnitude. However, the cause of the disaster that, by all indications, we are already living through should be clearer. It is not the result of the failure of individuals to adopt the moralizing strictures of “green” consciousness, and it is a sign of just how far we have to go that some still believe reusable shopping bags and composting (perfectly fine in their own right) are ways out of this mess.

It is also not the deceit of specific immoral companies that is to blame: We like to pick out Volkswagen’s diesel scandal, but it is only one of many carmakers that
"deliberately exploit lax emissions tests.” Nor does the onus fall on the foundering of Social Democratic reforms and international cooperation: Even before the United States backed out of the Paris Accord, we were well on our way to a 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit temperature rise by 2100, “a temperature that at times in the past has meant no ice at either pole.”

The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability. So long as this order is in place, the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault.

As an increasing number of environmental groups are emphasizing, it’s systemic change or bust. From a political standpoint, something interesting has occurred here: Climate change has made anticapitalist struggle, for the first time in history, a non-class-based issue.

There are many reasons we do not typically talk about climate change in this way. The wealthy are holding fast to theirs. Bought politicians and state violence are on their side. Eco-apartheid is not yet seen as full-on apartheid. Everyday people have plenty to keep up with, and they don’t want to devote their precious time off work to often tedious political meetings. The inertia, it is sad to say, makes enough sense.

Perhaps the most common belief about this problem is that it is caused by widespread ignorance — even outright “stupidity” — and that its solution lies in its opposite, intelligence. This belief is neatly expressed in progressive opposition to Donald Trump and his administration.
...
When a company makes a decision that is destructive to the environment, for instance, it is not because there are bad or unintelligent people in charge: Directors typically have a fiduciary responsibility that makes the bottom line their only priority. They serve a function, and if they don’t, others can take their place. If something goes wrong — which is to say, if something endangers profit making — they can serve as convenient scapegoats, but any stupid or dangerous decisions they make result from being personifications of capital.

The claim here is not that unintelligent people do not do unintelligent things, but rather that the overwhelming unintelligence involved in keeping the engines of production roaring when they are making the planet increasingly uninhabitable cannot be pinned on specific people. It is the system as a whole that is at issue, and every time we pick out bumbling morons to lament or fresh-faced geniuses to praise is a missed opportunity to see plainly the necessity of structural change.
Click to expand...
 
Eboue said:
Click to expand...


I mean, for as much as I absolutely agree that capitalism is the most prevalent factor when it comes to climate change and that we need to look beyond what capitalism offers us as society moves forward, a simple and somewhat reasonable counter to that tweet would be that the brief period in which we've had capitalism has resulted in a highly improved quality of life in almost every respect in large portions of the world compared to what typically went before.
 
Cheesy said:
I mean, for as much as I absolutely agree that capitalism is the most prevalent factor when it comes to climate change and that we need to look beyond what capitalism offers us as society moves forward, a simple and somewhat reasonable counter to that tweet would be that the brief period in which we've had capitalism has resulted in a highly improved quality of life in almost every respect in large portions of the world compared to what typically went before.
Click to expand...

ok but we are literally going to destroy the planet in the near future and capitalism is by design unable to do anything about it
 
Eboue said:
ok but we are literally going to destroy the planet in the near future and capitalism is by design unable to do anything about it
Click to expand...

Yes, as I say, I agree with that. And we need to look past capitalism and to future alternatives which are more sustainable.

But framing it from the perspective of how little of human history we've had it seems like a poor way of going about things, because ardent capitalists will use it as a barometer to say how much human progress has been achieved under it in so little time, relatively speaking. There are much better arguments against it as an economic system (especially heading towards the future) than its timeframe.

And even then it's arguably intellectually dishonest. Capitalism on a global scale may have only been a named concept for a few centuries but its roots and basic principles trace back much further than that in many respects.
 
Cheesy said:
Yes, as I say, I agree with that. And we need to look past capitalism and to future alternatives which are more sustainable.

But framing it from the perspective of how little of human history we've had it seems like a poor way of going about things, because ardent capitalists will use it as a barometer to say how much human progress has been achieved under it in so little time, relatively speaking. There are much better arguments against it as an economic system (especially heading towards the future) than its timeframe.

And even then it's arguably intellectually dishonest. Capitalism on a global scale may have only been a named concept for a few centuries but its roots and basic principles trace back much further than that in many respects.
Click to expand...

there are much better arguments on practically every subject on platforms other than twitter. but most people dont read studies or longform articles or whatever. so you communicate as you can. and i think a good way to frame it is that capitalism is not essential like some say it is and it is rapidly killing the planet.
 
I don't necessarily have a problem with capitalism, just our current version of it. Imo the main problem are mega companies who have so much market capital and political influence that they are practically too big to fail. In Germany it's our car industry, so much depends on it that they can get away with anything with just a little slap on the wrist and a minor scolding.

Other industries got to the same status and it's imo become a danger to the very system it's built on. It's also frustrating because a main corner stone of capitalism is competition and competition needs to encouraged and protected and not eliminated like politicians and the biggest parts of our industry did so successfully in most parts of the world, now there only seems to be left the competition between countries and it's mainly based on which big corporation, from which country, gets the most protection against competition from other countries through their government and exploits more workers to create cheaper products.

But I reckon it's a development that is inevitable when it comes to capitalism because it's natural for every company to try and dominate the market, because it gives them a bigger share of the revenue that is to be made in a certain area and since those with money always had a bigger say in democracy, the laws and narrative of will follow whatever is good for those few people who hold the most assets and money in their hands.
 
Eboue said:
there are much better arguments on practically every subject on platforms other than twitter. but most people dont read studies or longform articles or whatever. so you communicate as you can. and i think a good way to frame it is that capitalism is not essential like some say it is and it is rapidly killing the planet.
Click to expand...

I'm sure your right but I did, lots of good articles throughout the thread. So cheers @oneniltothearsenal and @berbatrick
 
Silva said:
Extreme talent? One of them just made a website in the mid-2000s when millions of people were making websites :lol:
Click to expand...

Don’t be daft man. ‘Just made a website’ is grossly understating what he has done.
 
Eboue said:
ok but we are literally going to destroy the planet in the near future and capitalism is by design unable to do anything about it
Click to expand...
Sorry but no, we won't destroy the planet. We could very well destroy the human race, and many forms of life but the planet will carry on without us
 
ti3f9hc44id11.jpg
 
"Television shows which glamourise fame, luxury, and wealth accumulation such as Made in Chelsea or Keeping Up With The Kardashians, make viewers cold-hearted towards the poor, a new study suggests.

New research from the London School of Economics (LSE) found that even 60 seconds of exposure to materialistic media is enough to significantly increase anti-welfare sentiment.

Study author Dr Rodolfo Leyva of LSE’s Department of Media and Communications said: “Humans are inherently materialistic but also very social and communal.

“The way this is expressed depends on our culture. If there is more emphasis on materialism as a way to be happy, this makes us more inclined to be selfish and anti-social, and therefore unsympathetic to people less fortunate."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...s-may-make-viewers-cold-hearted-towards-poor/
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
"Television shows which glamourise fame, luxury, and wealth accumulation such as Made in Chelsea or Keeping Up With The Kardashians, make viewers cold-hearted towards the poor, a new study suggests.

New research from the London School of Economics (LSE) found that even 60 seconds of exposure to materialistic media is enough to significantly increase anti-welfare sentiment.

Study author Dr Rodolfo Leyva of LSE’s Department of Media and Communications said: “Humans are inherently materialistic but also very social and communal.

“The way this is expressed depends on our culture. If there is more emphasis on materialism as a way to be happy, this makes us more inclined to be selfish and anti-social, and therefore unsympathetic to people less fortunate."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...s-may-make-viewers-cold-hearted-towards-poor/
Click to expand...
As if we needed science to prove it. Seems common sense to me.
 
Sparky_Hughes said:
Considering the vapid clueless self absorbed dimwits on those shows I'd have thought it would have made people anti wealthy :)
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is the people watching are also vapid clueless self absorbed dimwits.


Remind me of the time I tried reading Fifty Shades to see what was the fuss all about. It was so bad I gave up after 4-5 pages but back then you see a couple in a carriage with a woman completely absorbed in it.
 
Is it not hypocritical when you want people you perceived as wealthy (e.g. billionaires) to share their assets but you are in no way OK with people who perceived you to be wealthy (e.g. homeless people) wanting to share your assets?
 
Listar said:
Is it not hypocritical when you want people you perceived as wealthy (e.g. billionaires) to share their assets but you are in no way OK with people who perceived you to be wealthy (e.g. homeless people) wanting to share your assets?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. Especially considering how many people of average wealth there are with thousands of pounds worth of goods they don’t really need. In the U.K alone you’d most likely get to the 100’s of billions which could be redustributed to those who actually need it.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Well, the problem is the people watching are also vapid clueless self absorbed dimwits.


Remind me of the time I tried reading Fifty Shades to see what was the fuss all about. It was so bad I gave up after 4-5 pages but back then you see a couple in a carriage with a woman completely absorbed in it.
Click to expand...

In stark contrast to football fans like us.
 
Listar said:
Is it not hypocritical when you want people you perceived as wealthy (e.g. billionaires) to share their assets but you are in no way OK with people who perceived you to be wealthy (e.g. homeless people) wanting to share your assets?
Click to expand...

I'd need further context.

InfiniteBoredom said:
Last I check we don’t model our lives on that of footballers.

(Not applicable for all, especially CR’s worshippers)
Click to expand...

:lol:
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Well, the problem is the people watching are also vapid clueless self absorbed dimwits.


Remind me of the time I tried reading Fifty Shades to see what was the fuss all about. It was so bad I gave up after 4-5 pages but back then you see a couple in a carriage with a woman completely absorbed in it.
Click to expand...
Depressing but sadly true, I got a little further, I made it to 9 pages :lol:
 
Regarding full equality as I have recently been in a discussion with a mate regarding similar topic, does anyone really want all people to have equal income? I don’t think that would be a goal for anybody, there needs to be clear distance between the top and bottom earners that reflects their competencies.

It’s the inequality of chances which is a big thing in the modern world that is the biggest issue. Not even the wealth accumulated by billionaires IMO is as much of a problem as this.
 
Sarni said:
Regarding full equality as I have recently been in a discussion with a mate regarding similar topic, does anyone really want all people to have equal income? I don’t think that would be a goal for anybody, there needs to be clear distance between the top and bottom earners that reflects their competencies.

It’s the inequality of chances which is a big thing in the modern world that is the biggest issue. Not even the wealth accumulated by billionaires IMO is as much of a problem as this.
Click to expand...
The two go hand in hand.
 
Sweet Square said:
The two go hand in hand.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are related for sure but I am kind of taking a different angle here. There is a small number of billionaires and multimillionaires in the world, their kids and relatives will have a big advantage over others and they will have a lot of money that they don't use which is basically kept outside of economy. The bigger issue, at least where I live, is that people whose parents are reasonably well off (not millionaires but well above the average - kids of doctors, lawyers etc.) have a massive advantage over kids who were born into families that are below average. And it's not even that bad in Poland because the access to education is still similar (it's mostly the access to extra curricular activities), there are countries where it creates a much bigger discrepancy because you need to pay for top level education.

I can speak from the point of view of where I live and I think the biggest problem is that people who are above average at a very young age but come from poor families often end up not making the best of their above average intelligence/talent and end up short of their potential because they hardly get any support.
 
Sarni said:
Yes, they are related for sure but I am kind of taking a different angle here. There is a small number of billionaires and multimillionaires in the world, their kids and relatives will have a big advantage over others and they will have a lot of money that they don't use which is basically kept outside of economy. The bigger issue, at least where I live, is that people whose parents are reasonably well off (not millionaires but well above the average - kids of doctors, lawyers etc.) have a massive advantage over kids who were born into families that are below average. And it's not even that bad in Poland because the access to education is still similar (it's mostly the access to extra curricular activities), there are countries where it creates a much bigger discrepancy because you need to pay for top level education.

I can speak from the point of view of where I live and I think the biggest problem is that people who are above average at a very young age but come from poor families often end up not making the best of their above average intelligence/talent and end up short of their potential because they hardly get any support.
Click to expand...

So basically there should be an equality of opportunity but not necessarily an equality of outcome.
 
Capitalism Killed Our Climate Momentum, Not “Human Nature”
WHEN I DELVED into this same climate change history some years ago, I concluded, as Rich does, that the key juncture when world momentum was building toward a tough, science-based global agreement was 1988. That was when James Hansen, then director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified before Congress that he had “99 percent confidence” in “a real warming trend” linked to human activity. Later that same month, hundreds of scientists and policymakers held the historic World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto, where the first emission reduction targets were discussed. By the end of that same year, in November 1988, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the premier scientific body advising governments on the climate threat, held its first session.

But climate change wasn’t just a concern for politicians and wonks — it was watercooler stuff, so much so that when the editors of Time magazine announced their 1988 “Man of the Year,” they went for “Planet of the Year: Endangered Earth.” The cover featured an image of the globe held together with twine, the sun setting ominously in the background. “No single individual, no event, no movement captured imaginations or dominated headlines more,” journalist Thomas Sancton explained, “than the clump of rock and soil and water and air that is our common home.”
...
Rich concludes, while offering no social or scientific evidence, that something called “human nature” kicked in and messed everything up. “Human beings,” he writes, “whether in global organizations, democracies, industries, political parties or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations.” It seems we are wired to “obsess over the present, worry about the medium term and cast the long term out of our minds, as we might spit out a poison.”

When I looked at the same period, I came to a very different conclusion: that what at first seemed like our best shot at lifesaving climate action had in retrospect suffered from an epic case of historical bad timing. Because what becomes clear when you look back at this juncture is that just as governments were getting together to get serious about reining in the fossil fuel sector, the global neoliberal revolution went supernova, and that project of economic and social reengineering clashed with the imperatives of both climate science and corporate regulation at every turn.
...
I wrote a 500-page book about this collision between capitalism and the planet, and I won’t rehash the details here. This extract, however, goes into the subject in some depth, and I’ll quote a short passage here:

We have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism, the reigning ideology for the entire period we have been struggling to find a way out of this crisis. We are stuck because the actions that would give us the best chance of averting catastrophe — and would benefit the vast majority — are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets. That problem might not have been insurmountable had it presented itself at another point in our history. But it is our great collective misfortune that the scientific community made its decisive diagnosis of the climate threat at the precise moment when those elites were enjoying more unfettered political, cultural, and intellectual power than at any point since the 1920s. Indeed, governments and scientists began talking seriously about radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in 1988 — the exact year that marked the dawning of what came to be called “globalisation.”

Why does it matter that Rich makes no mention of this clash and instead, claims our fate has been sealed by “human nature”? It matters because if the force that interrupted the momentum toward action is “ourselves,” then the fatalistic headline on the cover of New York Times Magazine – “Losing Earth” — really is merited. If an inability to sacrifice in the short term for a shot at health and safety in the future is baked into our collective DNA, then we have no hope of turning things around in time to avert truly catastrophic warming.

If, on the other hand, we humans really were on the brink of saving ourselves in the ’80s, but were swamped by a tide of elite, free-market fanaticism — one that was opposed by millions of people around the world — then there is something quite concrete we can do about it. We can confront that economic order and try to replace it with something that is rooted in both human and planetary security, one that does not place the quest for growth and profit at all costs at its center.
Click to expand...
 
Vitro said:
So basically there should be an equality of opportunity but not necessarily an equality of outcome.
Click to expand...
That's how I feel but I think we're a lot further from the former than I think people are willing to admit.
 
Vitro said:
So basically there should be an equality of opportunity but not necessarily an equality of outcome.
Click to expand...

Is anyone really arguing in favour of the latter these days? It should just be assumed that people are arguing for opportunities at this point, arguing against equality of outcome just seems disingenuous to me. A pointless tangent to avoid dealing with the arguments for equality of opportunities.
 
berbatrick said:
“We Rise Together, Homie”
AN INTERVIEW WITH
ANTOINE DANGERFIELD

An interview with Antoine Dangerfield, whose video of an Indianapolis wildcat strike went viral this week — and led to his firing. He doesn't regret it, though.

https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/wildcat-strike-indianapolis-shut-down
Click to expand...

I liked that they offered him 250 quid to 'take it down' after it had reached 2m odd views or something. The dissonance of their views about tech and social media with reality is funny
 
You must log in or register to reply here.