A Dilemma for Humanity: Stark Inequality or Total War - Polidicks

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/business/economy/a-dilemma-for-humanity-stark-inequality-or-total-war.html[/url] [IMG]https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/12/07/business/07PORTER3/07PORTER3-master675.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Is there nothing to be done about galloping inequality? ... History — from Ancient Rome through the Gilded Age; from the Russian Revolution to the Great Compression of incomes across the West in the middle of the 20th century — suggests that reversing the trend toward greater concentrations of income, in the United States and across the world, might be, in fact, nearly impossible. That’s the bleak argument of Walter Scheidel, a professor of history at Stanford, whose new book, “The Great Leveler” (Princeton University Press), is due out next month. He goes so far as to state that “only all-out thermonuclear war might fundamentally reset the existing distribution of resources.” If history is anything to go by, he writes, “peaceful policy reform may well prove unequal to the growing challenges ahead.” Professor Scheidel does not offer a grand unified theory of inequality. But scouring through the historical record, he detects a pattern: From the Stone Age to the present, ever since humankind produced a surplus to hoard, economic development has almost always led to greater inequality. There is one big thing with the power to stop this dynamic, but it’s not pretty: violence. The big equalizing moments in history may not have always have the same cause, he writes, “but they shared one common root: massive and violent disruptions of the established order.” The collapse of the Roman Empire in the second half of the fifth century, reinforced by a bubonic plague pandemic, brought about Western Europe’s first great leveling. Productivity collapsed and the aristocracy’s far-flung assets were expropriated, while Rome’s trade networks and fiscal structures were destroyed. Inequality bounced back, of course. By 1300 the richest 5 percent of people had amassed nearly half the wealth in the cities of Italy’s Piedmont. But another bubonic plague known in history as the Black Death changed all that, killing a quarter of Europe’s population in the 14th century and cutting the share of wealth of Piedmont’s rich to under 35 percent. Mr. Scheidel’s depressing view is bound to upset liberal politicians and social scientists, who quite naturally might prefer to live in a world in which events might move political and social systems to figure out a more equitable way to distribute the fruits of growth without the plague, the guillotine or state collapse. ... Robert J. Gordon, the economic historian at Northwestern University who recently published “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” (Princeton), also argues that Mr. Scheidel’s view is too narrow. Big shocks might be needed to shake societies and their political systems to counteract widening income disparities, he acknowledges, but violence is hardly indispensable. President Franklin D. Roosevelt introduced the New Deal as a huge public effort to restore employment and raise incomes and spending in response to the Depression of the 1930s, not war, Professor Gordon points out. “It takes a big shock to create the right political situation, but it is the underlying politics that change things,” he said. “The Great Depression created a political opportunity, like the assassination of President Kennedy created a big political moment for Lyndon Johnson.” Still, violence does seem to pack more punch than other crises. The New Deal did provide a big equalizing push — increasing union membership, providing employment for the less educated and raising tax rates. But World War II was much more of a game changer. For one thing it significantly improved the earnings of those at the bottom of the social system by vastly raising demand for unskilled labor to serve the war effort. The sense of social cohesion and sacrifice inspired by the war also underpinned an egalitarian social ethos that supported higher taxes and discouraged titanic profits and pay for chief executives. Between 1939 and 1945 the income share of the richest 10 percent dropped by more than 10 percentage points. And it did not start inching back up until the 1980s. But whatever was holding large-scale inequality in check, it is now spent. Many social scientists — not to say left-leaning politicians — would like to believe that there are ways to push back: higher minimum wages, perhaps a universal basic income to help curb poverty; sharply higher income tax rates for the rich along with a wealth tax; a weakening of intellectual property rules, curbs on monopolies and coordination of labor standards around the world; maybe a dollop of capital given to each citizen so all can benefit from the high returns on investment. Dream on. As Professor Scheidel bluntly puts it: “Serious consideration of the means required to mobilize political majorities for implementing any of this advocacy is conspicuous by its absence.” So what does this leave us with? Another world war, with or without thermonuclear weapons? Let’s hope not. State collapse looks highly unlikely outside of some bits of sub-Saharan Africa. Revolution? Little chance, given the absence of any powerful ideological challenge to capitalism. “The world of the future is likely to be quite stable and have very high inequality,” Mr. Scheidel told me. [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuP6KbIsNK4"]Maybe we should just learn to stop worrying and love it.[/URL][/QUOTE] Rest is in the article itself.

As long as a significant majority of our voting population remains uneducated and easily swayed by Reaganism, ignoring social science and the evidence of growing inequality we will be stuck like this. People are becoming more aware of the major flaws of our system, and maybe eventually something will come of it, but corporate news and lobbying with politicians having dominance over the minds of people who don't know what is really happening rampant inequality will remain our future.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51582324]As long as a significant majority of our voting population remains uneducated and easily swayed by Reaganism, ignoring social science and the evidence of growing inequality we will be stuck like this. People are becoming more aware of the major flaws of our system, and maybe eventually something will come of it, but corporate news and lobbying with politicians having dominance over the minds of people who don't know what is really happening rampant inequality will remain our future.[/QUOTE] Feed the lower class the stream of media they're usually fed, pass the blame away from the hoarders and onto immigrants or whatever scapegoat they can find, distract them with fancy toys and gadgets that don't improve their lives but distract from the poverty they're contained in and you continue to have a passive lower class that also won't rebel against the chains they're kept in.

You don't really need an ideological challenge to spark a revolution. You just need a small group of individuals to act where their actions and the response to their actions from the establishment would bolster dissent. Revolutions are often nebulous disorganized discontent that's later taken over by interests.

People will scream for equality and at the end of the day will sit in front of their TV and watch multimillionaires run after a ball.

Actually I wouldnt be surprised if mass migration and economic problems caused by climate change ends up creating enough of a crisis to push toward equality

[QUOTE=Fhenexx;51582583]Actually I wouldnt be surprised if mass migration and economic problems caused by climate change ends up creating enough of a crisis to push toward equality[/QUOTE] If resources are more scarce then people are perhaps less likely to cooperate and less likely push toward equality.

I don't think we'll see a great upheaval until the damage from climate change sets in during the next couple of decades. It'll take something big like that to shake the apathy away. Even if the rich try to flee to tax-havens with their family and fortune, the effects will be global, there'll be nowhere for them to run eventually. Neither dictatorships or democracies can avoid it, and when the deniers and the rich in charge are proven to have done their best to avoid addressing it, [I]everyone[/I] is going to be pissed at them (more than we are, anyway). This isn't just an issue for the US, even if they are in the spotlight right now. Unfortunately, I also think the damage from climate change will lead to a similar situation as during the Black Death, in that millions (probably hundreds of millions this time) of people will be displaced, generally lack in food and water, and die. As the article says, natural "culling" of the human population have been depressingly common throughout history, and I don't think that is likely to change. But the situation would force us to cooperate by necessity. Racism, prejudice and inequality become kinda meaningless in the face of possible extinction. Whether this'll end up in nuclear war or something better, I don't know. I sincerely hope the people in charge has enough decency left not to end humanity because their personal power is threatened, but you never know. But something has to give eventually. "Learn to love it" is bullshit.

[QUOTE=torres;51582639]I sincerely hope the people in charge has enough decency left not to end humanity because their personal power is threatened[/QUOTE]nice to see that someone has a little bit of optimism left, because i gave up that hope a while ago.

Quite a shame that social democracy can't even be relied upon to work long-term, due to globalism. You also can't turn to nationalism, because that will leave you so comparatively non-competitive that you'll be worse off. But it's sad that even right now we can't improve things because people are made into bootlickers by being presented with legitimizing propaganda and myths. Most Americans are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires you know.

[QUOTE=Fhenexx;51582583]Actually I wouldnt be surprised if mass migration and economic problems caused by climate change ends up creating enough of a crisis to push toward equality[/QUOTE] If not equality, then there will at the least be revolution attempting to destroy the old order of things. It's probably not going to happen now in spite of how much social and political tension there is; people are unfortunately still being entertained, fed, and spoiled, and that's enough to keep them in line. But when they can't afford to live and their jobs are terrible, when they're desperate for food and water, and when they're truly sick of politics, that's when it'll happen. And it [i]will[/i] happen eventually-- it's the inevitable cycle of history. It happened in France, it happened in Russia, it will happen here someday. Climate change will likely be the most significant factor that forces it to occur, for reasons which others have already pointed out. Having said that, with Trump's administration apparently going to take the reigns and undo/damage decades of climate change research and policy, it's clear we're not going to rise to the task of fighting it effectively. It's going to hit us. We need to begin preparing for this now while there's still time for us to plan and organize. It's going to be a brutal future, but that's because we allowed things to get this far out of control-- whether we're talking overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources, our ridiculous politics, our carefree behavior and intellectual laziness as a culture, etc. We need to be ready for it if we want to survive. If we can't rely on our government and officials for protection and common sense, then we must begin to rely on ourselves. And we also need to begin focusing on how exactly we're going to work together. Groups need to start forming for us to find our places in, the sooner the better. The only way we're going to get through it and enjoy some degree of civilization is if we try to work together.

[QUOTE=Joazzz;51582655]nice to see that someone has a little bit of optimism left, because i gave up that hope a while ago.[/QUOTE] Well, even if the politicians give the order, it is still ordinary human beings who'll have to press the button. (Not counting Deadman's Hand systems, which is designed for when there's no humans left anyway.) What if they simply don't listen, don't acknowledge the politicians authority? I don't think most of our soldiers are much more happy with the system than we are, and their outlook will change if there's no external enemy, but rather the people, their friends and family in the crowd outside. It'll take a very special kind of person to pull the trigger then.

[QUOTE=torres;51582685]I don't think most of our soldiers are much more happy with the system than we are, and their outlook will change if there's no external enemy, but rather the people, their friends and family in the crowd outside. It'll take a very special kind of person to pull the trigger then.[/QUOTE] If they're desperate enough, they'll do it. That's the one thing that concerns me more than anything about the military and police/security forces: I know that many will defect either on the side of the people or will go their own way and abandon everybody else altogether, but there will still be a lot who choose to remain because of the quality of life that kind of service promises them. That's especially going to be problematic with climate change. If they're being fed, watered, given some degree of power to enjoy, and entertained, it could very well be a different story. There will certainly be in that situation plenty who remain loyal and will fight to destroy any attempts at revolution.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51582452]People will scream for equality and at the end of the day will sit in front of their TV and watch multimillionaires run after a ball.[/QUOTE] Reminds me of how every time I enter the team room at my work, someone's always left the TV on something like the game show Family Feud, this really shallow drama called Home & Away, or any of those channels which regularly feature infomercials. The episode 'Fifteen Million Merits' of the series Black Mirror is also a very relevant episode to what you're saying.

[QUOTE=Govna;51582694]If they're desperate enough, they'll do it. That's the one thing that concerns me more than anything about the military and police/security forces: I know that many will defect either on the side of the people or will go their own way and abandon everybody else altogether, but there will still be a lot who choose to remain because of the quality of life that kind of service promises them. That's especially going to be problematic with climate change. If they're being fed, watered, given some degree of power to enjoy, and entertained, it could very well be a different story. There will certainly be in that situation plenty who remain loyal and will fight to destroy any attempts at revolution.[/QUOTE] Certainly a possibility. I just think that the damage from climate change will be severe enough that they simply can't ignore it. When the money the top supplies them with is simply being taken and redistributed by accountants in the right places, when food-suppliers ignore them, when everyone they rely on to keep them where they are turn on them, when they can't "bribe" the military back in line, how long long does said military keep dying for the boss before joining the crowd? Even if they don't, they're far fewer than the general population. And I imagine it is downright terrifying to face down a truly desperate population so mad they do not consider their own survival as long as they get a piece of the top. The military are people too. In a situation like that, I don't think the top will retain control for very long. We do live in interesting times, and the situation we face (collapse of the ecosystem) is quite unlike anything we've faced before. I'm not sure normal behaviour can be applied when people realize the extent of the situation. I think we'll see something new. Which is worrying in and of itself.

[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51582672]Quite a shame that social democracy can't even be relied upon to work long-term, due to globalism. You also can't turn to nationalism, because that will leave you so comparatively non-competitive that you'll be worse off.[/QUOTE] On the contrary, we're seeing a very strange brand of Nationalism due to globalism (real globalism, economic and social cooperation). With inter-connectivity due to the internet and travel, Nationalists are supporting each other in separate countries, rather than competing. Instead of putting the blame for their problems on other countries, they seat the blame on what they portray as an Illuminati-like organization, the Globalists. Key people like George Soros and Barrack Obama are blamed for every social and economic problem their countries are facing, and they promote far-right wing candidates in every country in order to fight this perceived evil organization. Far-righters in Europe cheer for Trump, far-righters in America cheer for Le Pen, etc.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51583027]On the contrary, we're seeing a very strange brand of Nationalism due to globalism (real globalism, economic and social cooperation). With inter-connectivity due to the internet and travel, Nationalists are supporting each other in separate countries, rather than competing. Instead of putting the blame for their problems on other countries, they seat the blame on what they portray as an Illuminati-like organization, the Globalists. Key people like George Soros and Barrack Obama are blamed for every social and economic problem their countries are facing, and they promote far-right wing candidates in every country in order to fight this perceived evil organization. Far-righters in Europe cheer for Trump, far-righters in America cheer for Le Pen, etc.[/QUOTE] More like you're seeing only white nationalist movements cooperating with each other, you're not really seeing nationalistic movements in asia or africa cooperating with european ones for instance, only white nationalists, also this happened before WW2(and not only white nationalists), so it's not like it's a surprise, they would turn on each other eventually, as they always do(try asking what ukranian nationalists think of russian ones for instance at the moment), what makes the far-right dangerous is that they tend to unite in a single block against anything remotely left, but after they win(or at least think they won) they fracture and start fighting with each other again, always. Because nationalism by definition begets conflict.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51583027]On the contrary, we're seeing a very strange brand of Nationalism due to globalism (real globalism, economic and social cooperation). With inter-connectivity due to the internet and travel, Nationalists are supporting each other in separate countries, rather than competing. Instead of putting the blame for their problems on other countries, they seat the blame on what they portray as an Illuminati-like organization, the Globalists. Key people like George Soros and Barrack Obama are blamed for every social and economic problem their countries are facing, and they promote far-right wing candidates in every country in order to fight this perceived evil organization. Far-righters in Europe cheer for Trump, far-righters in America cheer for Le Pen, etc.[/QUOTE] Well, I was more just saying about feasibility long term. Of course people are going to lash out and try to retreat to the past.

buy a gun and learn how to use it

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51582324]As long as a significant majority of our voting population remains uneducated and easily swayed by Reaganism, ire.[/QUOTE] You re part of the problem. By falling for the false left right divide you are propping up the system you despise

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51583167]buy a gun and learn how to use it[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Again, start preparing now before things get really bad. Better to be ready for it than caught by surprise. [editline]26th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Guriosity;51583233]You re part of the problem. By falling for the false left right divide you are propping up the system you despise[/QUOTE] It really isn't a false divide; this polarization exists. It was originally created as a false dichotomy to keep the people under control, but it is a very real thing today: Democrats vs. Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, blue states vs. red states, etc. We are very much divided, and the backwards mindset which a lot of people have is exactly to blame for it.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;51582452]People will scream for equality and at the end of the day will sit in front of their TV and watch multimillionaires run after a ball.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty fucking gross simplification my man.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51583635]What does this imply?[/QUOTE] It implies that if/when everything goes "bad" (whatever this badness ends up being is personal preference) being able to provide your own food or self defense for you and yours is a worthwhile endeavor.

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51583635]What does this imply?[/QUOTE] know how to defend yourself and you'll be prepared for what may happen

[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;51583707]Do you have a non-vague example?[/QUOTE] in the instance of civil unrest causing a disruption in the movement of supplies or the protection afforded by police agencies, it is smart to be able to fend for yourself. additionally, in case you are drafted for some sort of resource war it is good to have a handle on how to shoot before getting thrown into combat

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;51582324]As long as a significant majority of our voting population remains uneducated and easily swayed by Reaganism,[/QUOTE] Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] Lol what the fuck, social security, universal healthcare, public infrastructures don't improve the situation of the lower class? Taxation never encourage growth? Pretty sure there are situations where increasing wages lead to a boost in growth. You know what else discourages growth? Austerity. Oddly enough when people struggle to survive they aren't particularly motivated to consume more and stimulate the economy with money they don't have. Not to mention that sole growth doesn't really help the lower class when the rich are the ones who profit the most from it. When you've got constant growth but stagnant wages it becomes rather deluded to claim it's the sole criteria to follow to give your constituents a better quality of life. You want historical precedence? How about examples that work [I]right now?[/I] Pretty sure you're much better off living in Sweden as a poor person rather than the fucking US. I hope for your sake that you're either rich or regularly pray to the altar of the invisible hand, because otherwise public defunding isn't going to do you any favor.

[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;51583829]in the instance of civil unrest causing a disruption in the movement of supplies or the protection afforded by police agencies, it is smart to be able to fend for yourself. additionally, in case you are drafted for some sort of resource war it is good to have a handle on how to shoot before getting thrown into combat[/QUOTE] And what if I don't have the ability or mentality needed?

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] lol taking money away from the economy what, are the poors not part of the economy or something?

[QUOTE=space1;51584943]Okay doctor, show me your PHD in economics and show me where in history where taking money away from the economy will somehow improve the situation for the lower class. ALL taxes discourage growth, and nobody can argue that somehow by taxing the rich we're better off economically. The reason why there's brackets at all is because taxes have always been shown to disproportionately affect the lower order.[/QUOTE] taxes can be used to redirect resources to certain areas you can improve things a lot by taxing the wealthy to pay for public programs that benefit all because the wealthy can afford the loss