Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Economic Inequality  (Read 132309 times)

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #850 on: January 14, 2024, 11:16:17 PM »
Quote
Quote
Please show me one country where the US has a huge advantage economically and is colonizing them?
More mental illness, accusing the US of doing what is being done to them by the Chinese, EU and everyone else.

Central America and the case of a banana company in the US getting help from the US military to remove politicians who wanted to shut down the banana business.

That is a simple, of the top example, but there are dozens more that can be given.

What are you talking about, except ancient history when the US tried to keep Communists from taking over poor countries in South and Central America .

Please show me again all these countries the US is running a positive ledger with , colonialism, if it exists has to show profit, if not, I think the word you are looking for is trading partner.
So, let’s look at trade, trade is a two way street, for everything you bring into your country ( not stolen)
There is a plus column and a minus column.To make a long story short, Rich nations like the US theoretically become richer through trade, they gain about $7 for every dollar lost, poor countries gain about $95 for every dollar lost through trade, sounds like a pretty good deal for the poorer countries .

Your Leftist talking points need to be backed up, where are all these America colonies that the US is running a positive cash flow with , forget the foreign aid we send them directly or through the UN or International Monetary Fund which is mostly funded by the US , the U.S runs a negative balance of payments with all of them , our goods are too expensive and if we do sell them things , we often manufacture them in those locals providing good jobs.

I think the country that you mean when you are talking unfair trade or colonialism is CHINA but that’s OK because they are a Communist dictatorship mostly who has added some capitalism because they were tired of starving.

<Edit Neven: fixed quote tags>

You don't understand your countries history at all.

There are numerous countries in South America where elections were held, democratically elected leaders were put into power, and the US swoops in and removes them only to replace them with dictators that do the bidding of the US.

Many are obvious. A quick google search with bring up a bunch of them.

Some less obvious (Australia is one example where the CIA maneuvered a disobedient leader and them replaced with another... one is provable, the other a little harder to prove, and Australia a an ally lol)

The problem with you is, even if I presented the information, and, ironically, I have, as has SeanAU, you keep wanting more proof.

If google is too hard, scroll up this thread and you will find plenty of examples.

Even you banana example is warped.
The country elected someone into power who wanted to remove the US owned businesses and replace them with local farmers.

Do you understand that a country has a right to do what THEY WANT in their OWN COUNTRY?
And why did the US interfere with that process?
To keep a banana business empire running on the cheap for a few US senators with influence.
So, they removed the democratically elected leader, replaced them with a dictator and kept the banana business open at the expense of much pain and suffering for the locals.

So... the US dictated the situation for their own profit and who gives a fuck about the democratically elected leaders, the rights of a country to decided what happens in their own borders... the US WANTED their resources, so they took them.

Defend away one eyed Larry

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #851 on: January 15, 2024, 05:00:24 AM »
<snip>

Defend away one eyed Larry

Curious. Why do you even bother?
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #852 on: January 15, 2024, 11:22:24 PM »
<snip>

Defend away one eyed Larry

Curious. Why do you even bother?

I really don't know.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #853 on: January 17, 2024, 10:01:22 PM »
 Pluralistic: The super-rich got that way through monopolies

Everyone – even the World Economic Forum – says that wealth inequality is a serious problem, corroding our politics and our social cohesion. What this report does is link that inequality to monopolies, which produce the billionaires who are wrecking the world.

The rise of monopolies over the past 40 years came about as the result of specific, deliberate policy choices. As the report documents, the wealthiest people in America funneled a fortune into neutering antitrust enforcement, through the "consumer welfare" doctrine.

This is an economic theory that equates monopolies with efficiency: "If everyone is buying the same things from the same store, that tells you the store is doing something right, not something criminal." 40 years ago, and ever since, the wealthy have funded think-tanks, university programs and even "continuing education" programs for federal judges to push this line:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/13/post-bork-era/#manne-down

They didn't do this for ideological reasons – they were chasing material goals. Monopolies produce vast profits, and those profits produce vast wealth. The rise and rise of the super rich cannot be decoupled from the rise and rise of monopolies.

If you're new to this, you might think that "monopoly" only refers to a sector in which there is only one seller. But that's not what economists mean when they talk about monopolies and monopolization: for them, a monopoly is a company with power. Economists who talk about monopolies mean companies that "can act independently without needing to consider the responses of competitors, customers, workers, or even governments."

One way to measure that power is through markups ("the difference between the selling price of goods or services and their cost"). Very large companies in concentrated industries have very high markups, and they're getting higher. From 2017-22, the 20 largest companies in the world had average markups of 50%. The 100 largest companies average 43%. The smallest half of companies get average markups of 25%.

Those markups rose steeply during the covid lockdowns – and so did the wealth of the billionaires who own them. Tech billionaires – Bezos, Brin and Page, Gates and Ballmer – all made their fortunes from monopolies. Warren Buffet is a proud monopolist who says "the single most important decision in evaluating a business is pricing power… if you have to have a prayer session before raising the price by 10 percent, then you’ve got a terrible business."

We are living in the age of the monopoly. In the 1930s, the top 0.1% of US companies accounted for less than half of America's GDP. Today, it's 90%. And it's accelerating, with global mergers climbing from 2,676 in 1985 to 62,000 in 2021.

Monopoly's cheerleaders claim that these numbers vindicate them. Monopolies are so efficient that everyone wants to create them. Those efficiencies can be seen in the markups monopolies can charge, and the profits they can make. If a monopoly has a 50% markup, that's just the "efficiency of scale."

But what is the actual shape of this "efficiency?" How is it manifest? The report's authors answer this with one word: power.

Monopolists have the power "to extract wealth from, to restrict the freedoms of, and to manipulate or steer the vastly larger numbers of losers." They establish themselves as gatekeepers and create chokepoints that they can use to raise prices paid by their customers and lower the payout to their suppliers:

https://chokepointcapitalism.com/

These chokepoints let monopolies usurp "one of the ultimate prerogatives of state power: taxation." Amazon sellers pay a 51% tax to sell on the platform. App Store suppliers pay a 30% tax on every dollar they make with their apps. That translates into higher costs. Consider a good that costs $10 to make: the bottom 50% of companies (by size) would charge $12.50 for that product on average. The largest companies would charge $15. Thus monopolies don't just make their owners richer – they make everyone else poorer, too.

This power to set prices is behind the greedflation (or, more politely, "seller's inflation"). The CEOs of the largest companies in the world keep getting on investor calls and bragging about this:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/11/price-over-volume/#pepsi-pricing-power

The food system is incredibly monopolistic. The Cargill family own the largest commodity trader in the world, which is how they built up a family fortune worth $43b. Cargill is one of the "ABCD" companies ("Archer Daniels Midland, Bunge, Cargill and Louis Dreyfus") that control the world's food supply, and they tripled their profits during the lockdown.

Monopolies gouge everyone – even governments. Pfizer charged the NHS £18-22/shot for vaccines that cost £5/shot to make. They took the British government for £2bn – that's enough to pay last year's pay hike for NHS nurses, six times over,

But monopolies also abuse their suppliers, especially their employees. All over the world, competition authorities are uncovering "wage fixing" and "no poaching" agreements among large firms, who collude to put a cap on what workers in their sector can earn. Unions report workers having their pay determined by algorithms. Bosses lock employees in with noncompetes and huge repayment bills for "training":

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/04/its-a-trap/#a-little-on-the-nose

Monopolies corrupt our governments. Companies with huge markups can spend some of that money on lobbying. The 20 largest companies in the world spend more than €155m/year lobbying in the US and alone, not counting the money they spend on industry associations and other cutouts that lobby on their behalf. Big Tech leads the pack on lobbying, accounting for 82% of EU lobbying spending and 58% of US lobbying.

One key monopoly lobbying priority is blocking climate action, from Apple lobbying against right-to-repair, which creates vast mountains of e-waste, to energy monopolist lobbying against renewables. And energy companies are getting more monopolistic, with Exxonmobil spending $65b to buy Pioneer and Chevron spending $60b to buy Hess. Many of the world's richest people are fossil fuel monopolists, like Charles and Julia Koch, the 18th and 19th richest people on the Forbes list. They spend fortunes on climate denial.

When people talk about the climate impact of billionaires, they tend to focus on the carbon footprints of their mansions and private jets, but the true environmental cost of the ultra rich comes from the anti-renewables, pro-emissions lobbying they buy with their monopoly winnings.

The good news is that the tide is turning on monopolies. A coalition of "businesses, workers, farmers, consumers and other civil society groups" have created a "remarkably successful anti-monopoly movement." The past three years saw more regulatory action on corporate mergers, price-gouging, predatory pricing, labor abuses and other evils of monopoly than we got in the past 40 years.

The business press – cheerleaders for monopoly – keep running editorials claiming that enforcers like Lina Khan are getting nothing done. Sure, WSJ, Khan's getting nothing done – that's why you ran 80 editorial about her:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/14/making-good-trouble/#the-peoples-champion

(Khan's winning like crazy. Just last month she killed four megamergers:)

https://www.thesling.org/the-ftc-just-blocked-four-mergers-in-a-month-heres-how-its-latest-win-fits-into-the-broader-campaign-to-revive-antitrust/

The EU and UK are taking actions that would have been unimaginable just a few years ago. Canada is finally set to get a real competition law, with the Trudeau government promising to add an "abuse of dominance" rule to Canada's antitrust system.

Even more exciting are the moves in the global south. In South Africa, "competition law contains some of the most progressive ideas of all":

    It actively seeks to create greater economic participation, particularly for ‘historically disadvantaged persons’ as part of its public interest considerations in merger decisions.

Balzac wrote, "Behind every great fortune there is a crime." Chances are, the rapsheet includes an antitrust violation. Getting rid of monopolies won't get rid of all the billionaires, but it'll certainly get rid of a hell of a lot of them."

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/17/monopolies-produce-billionaires/#inequality-corruption-climate-poverty-sweatshops

https://www.balancedeconomy.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Davos-Taken-not-Earned-full-Report-2024-FINAL.pdf

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9503
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1336
  • Likes Given: 618
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #854 on: January 17, 2024, 11:08:43 PM »
Quote
The good news is that the tide is turning on monopolies. A coalition of "businesses, workers, farmers, consumers and other civil society groups" have created a "remarkably successful anti-monopoly movement." The past three years saw more regulatory action on corporate mergers, price-gouging, predatory pricing, labor abuses and other evils of monopoly than we got in the past 40 years.

If this were so, it should visibly result in wealth deconcentration, given that the argument is that monopolies are caused by wealth concentration.

But I don't believe that this is the case, as shown by Oxfam's yearly Davos report:

Quote
The past three years’ supercharged surge in extreme wealth has solidified while global poverty remains mired at pre-pandemic levels. Billionaires are $3.3 trillion richer than in 2020, and their wealth has grown three times faster than the rate of inflation.

So, what to think of this final sentence:

Quote
Getting rid of monopolies won't get rid of all the billionaires, but it'll certainly get rid of a hell of a lot of them.

Getting rid of some buillionnaires is almost certainly turning the remaining ones into trillionnaires even faster, which is the definition of wealth concentration.

My question then is: Do you solve this by 'fighting' monopolies? Or would it make more sense to put a cap on how much an individual is allowed to own?

What is the best way to slow down, halt and reverse wealth concentration?
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #855 on: January 21, 2024, 11:30:53 PM »
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin died 100 years ago today at the age of 53.

Brian Becker of the ANSWER coalition recently did a 3 part series on the life and legacy of Lenin.
Near the end of Class 3 (@ 1:39) Becker gets into Putin’s criticism of Lenin.

Part 1 of 3
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #856 on: January 23, 2024, 11:12:52 PM »
The Rise of the American Oligarchy

What targeting Russia’s wayward billionaires revealed about our own.

(...)
 This American oligarchy offers a twist on the pilfering of the commons that produced Russia’s. It is built on a different kind of resource, not nickel or potash, but you—your data, your attention, your money, your public square. These men (mostly) exalt in their almost godlike status over the politicians they fund, the platforms they own, and the industries they’ve effectively monopolized. They are prone to grandiose proclamations about outer space and immortality. But the day-to-day effect of their power is felt less in the glitter than in the gravity it exerts on everything else—the accumulated burden and strain that hardening political and economic inequality puts on public services, on policy, and on the places we live and work. This world ropes you in with its yachts and private jets, but the story of American oligarchy is not just about the spoils. It’s about what everyone else is losing in the process.
(more)

 https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/01/american-oligarchy-introduction-essay-russia-ukraine-capitalism/

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #857 on: February 03, 2024, 05:49:18 AM »

Limitarianism : The Case Against Extreme Wealth Hardback
by Ingrid Robeyns

We all notice when the poor get poorer: when there are more rough sleepers and food bank queues start to grow.

But if the rich become richer, there is nothing much to see in public and, for most of us, daily life doesn't change. Or at least, not immediately. In this astonishing, eye-opening intervention, world-leading philosopher and economist Ingrid Robeyns exposes the true extent of our wealth problem, which has spent the past fifty years silently spiralling out of control.

In moral, political, economic, social, environmental and psychological terms, she shows, extreme wealth is not only unjustifiable but harmful to us all - the rich included. In place of our current system, Robeyns offers a breathtakingly clear alternative: limitarianism.

The answer to so many of the problems posed by neoliberal capitalism - and the opportunity for a vastly better world - lies in placing a hard limit on the wealth that any one person can accumulate. Because nobody deserves to be a millionaire. Not even you.

https://www.hive.co.uk/Product/Ingrid-Robeyns/Limitarianism--The-Case-Against-Extreme-Wealth/28866492

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #858 on: February 28, 2024, 07:41:29 PM »
(amazing and historic)

Starbucks Stops Opposing Its Baristas’ Union

In a historic breakthrough, Starbucks and its workers announce they’ve come together

https://prospect.org/labor/2024-02-27-starbucks-stops-opposing-baristas-union-master-contract/


“This is what we’ve always wanted,” says Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks barista who’s been with the company since 2010 and works at the Buffalo outlet that was the first to vote to go union, back in 2021. “We wanted Starbucks to actually be the company they always said they were.”

On Tuesday, Starbucks may have finally become just that. In a joint announcement released by both Starbucks and Workers United, the baristas’ union that is part of SEIU, the company agreed “to begin discussions on a foundational framework designed to achieve … collective bargaining agreements for represented stores and partners.”
(snip)
This is why Tuesday’s announcement is the single most important breakthrough American workers have achieved in a very long time. Until Tuesday, workers in industries such as fast-food or other parts of the service sector appeared to be all but unorganizable, so fierce and successful (and routine) was management’s opposition to such initiatives. It certainly was fierce at Starbucks so long as the company founder, Howard Schultz, called the shots. During the more than two years since the Buffalo baristas voted to go union (since followed by baristas at nearly 400 other Starbucks, out of the 9,000 that the company owns), the company has faithfully followed the union-buster’s playbook, firing workers who led organizing campaigns, refusing to bargain with workers who’d voted to go union (who now total roughly 10,000), and withholding raises from them.

Despite that, the workers persisted. In recent weeks, baristas at 21 outlets all filed for unionization elections on the same day, and a slate of three pro-worker notables (including Wilma Liebman, who chaired the NLRB during the Obama presidency) have been running for Starbucks board director seats at the company’s annual shareholders’ meeting, to be held two weeks from tomorrow. In recent weeks as well, the company, now led by post-Schultz CEO Laxman Narasimhan, released a statement suggesting it was willing to alter its course, though no tangible course alterations were apparent until Tuesday.
(more)

zenith

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2659
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #859 on: March 01, 2024, 08:13:19 PM »
"conservative about everything except social democracy".

Putin, state of the nation and the Global Majority
Where is reality? Can you show it to me? - Heinz von Foerster

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #860 on: March 02, 2024, 12:38:26 AM »
That Putin, he's a dirty rotten USSR Communist through and through ... evil I say, pure evil!

/sarc
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #861 on: March 10, 2024, 09:29:24 PM »
Major US corporations threaten to return labor to ‘law of the jungle’

Trader Joe’s and SpaceX are among businesses challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/mar/10/starbucks-trader-joes-spacex-challenge-labor-board

Upset by the surge in union drives, several of the best-known corporations in the US are seeking to cripple the country’s top labor watchdog, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), by having it declared unconstitutional. Some labor experts warn that if those efforts succeed, US labor relations might return to “the law of the jungle”.

In recent weeks, Elon Musk’s SpaceX as well as Amazon, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s have filed legal papers that advance novel arguments aimed at hobbling and perhaps shutting down the NLRB – the federal agency that enforces labor rights and oversees unionization efforts. Those companies are eager to thwart the NLRB after it accused Amazon, Starbucks and Trader Joe’s of breaking the law in battling against unionization and accused SpaceX of illegally firing eight workers for criticizing Musk.

Roger King, a longtime management-side lawyer who is senior labor counsel for the HR Policy Association, said “it will be a lose-lose” if the federal courts overturn the 89-year-old National Labor Relations Act, which has governed labor relations since Franklin Roosevelt was president. “We’ll have the law of the jungle, the law of the streets,” King said. “It will be who has the most power. It’s potential for chaos.”
(more)

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #862 on: March 12, 2024, 12:20:54 AM »
Major US corporations threaten to return labor to ‘law of the jungle’

Trader Joe’s and SpaceX are among businesses challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board

..... It’s potential for chaos.”  (more)

And well deserved. It's part of what the US needs to cure the patient.

So I hope they win their case and reap the more dire consequences longer term.
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #863 on: March 12, 2024, 11:22:37 PM »
Major US corporations threaten to return labor to ‘law of the jungle’

Trader Joe’s and SpaceX are among businesses challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board

..... It’s potential for chaos.”  (more)

And well deserved. It's part of what the US needs to cure the patient.

So I hope they win their case and reap the more dire consequences longer term.

Can you explain your line of thinking a bit more?

As a slight aside, Musk has asked the Govt to put tariffs on Chinese electric cars so Tesla can remain price competitive.

The irony of this is the capitalistic model is always a race to the bottom and is why Musk et el always want to pay less wages to the workers.

What I find funny is the US capitalists don't want their economic model when it works against them when others pop up and are more competitive.

The capitalist model says that the most competitive company wins and survives and the others fail because they arent as competitive.... which is what is happening to Musk and electric cars but the Govt has to keep stepping into save their asses.

Same thing for big banks, oil companies and many others.... government hand outs to bad businesses. Corporate welfare.


interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #864 on: March 13, 2024, 12:17:11 AM »
China has a two currency system. Normally as demand for a countries products increase their is increased demand for their currency making their products more expensive for foreigner's. China has two separate currencies. You can't spend the foreign currency inside the country and you can't spend the domestic currency outside of the country with China being the only one allowed to exchange the two. So China sends so much foreign currency into the world that their products remain cheap despite heavy demand for their currency. If the domestic currency was the same as foreign currency than the people could not survive and would demand a raise. Since that is not the case they can buy the goods from inside the country they need to survive. Foreign products are very expensive because of the exchange rate between currencies. Normally without this manipulation the cost of foreign goods would become cheap and trade would naturally rebalance.


This imbalance has to go somewhere and China has to stockpile foreign currencies to keep this scheme working. If they did not and instead spent them trade would rebalance itself and Chinese goods would no longer be cheap on the world market. If the US did this it would encourage domestic consumption and discourage foreign consumption and the US would become a net exporter of goods and importer of foreign currency. Of course this would create problems for other countries who would probably do the same. The Chinese complain that they have all this foreign currency but that is just gaslighting they do it to protect their own markets. I think many assumed that China would start spending the reserves when their country became developed but they really can't without reducing the trade imbalance.


The price of Chinese cars would more than double without their currency manipulations and the rest of the world should create dual currencies to fight the Chinese imbalance. The rest of the world can't afford to let China destroy their industries and tariffs create other problems.

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #865 on: March 13, 2024, 01:33:30 AM »
Major US corporations threaten to return labor to ‘law of the jungle’

Trader Joe’s and SpaceX are among businesses challenging the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Board

..... It’s potential for chaos.”  (more)

And well deserved. It's part of what the US needs to cure the patient.

So I hope they win their case and reap the more dire consequences longer term.

Can you explain your line of thinking a bit more?



Sure. The 'chaos' (longer term social/business disruptions) will be well deserved by those bringing the case to change the protections for workers and socially accepted standards of how people are treated .... ethics and all that.

It is well deserved by those in society leadership positions who have willingly allowed things get to this point. And the people in general who have washed their hands of any responsibility - mind you not much the avg person could have done anyway. But their time will come soon enough to step up.

So I'm saying I hope they win the case in the short term, so that later the IMPLICATIONS / RESULTS leads to mass chaos and social disruptions to a point where these demigods lose everything from their businesses to their overinflated egos.

I am hoping winning this case will add to the end result of pitchforks and revolution and a re-balancing of society and the end of Capitalism as God and these assholes as the Bishops who rule over everyone else's lives. I cannot see it being rectified by meetings, but by mass demonstrations and some degree of violence .... 1968 Dem convention level etc. or Google / Amazon HQ being burnt to the ground

To be explicit - It's sick, these narcissists are not "god's gift to the world" but mentally unstable psychopaths, and it's an evil pestilence upon the world at large. see Daniel Schmachtenberger:  for alternative approaches to Life and Human Traditions of Wisdom

Hyperbolically Yours.

PS is Musk also speaking about the Tesla's that are made in China? :)
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #866 on: March 13, 2024, 01:35:43 AM »
China has a two currency system. Normally as demand for a countries products increase their is increased demand for their currency making their products more expensive for foreigner's. China has two separate currencies. You can't spend the foreign currency inside the country and you can't spend the domestic currency outside of the country with China being the only one allowed to exchange the two. So China sends so much foreign currency into the world that their products remain cheap despite heavy demand for their currency. If the domestic currency was the same as foreign currency than the people could not survive and would demand a raise. Since that is not the case they can buy the goods from inside the country they need to survive. Foreign products are very expensive because of the exchange rate between currencies. Normally without this manipulation the cost of foreign goods would become cheap and trade would naturally rebalance.


This imbalance has to go somewhere and China has to stockpile foreign currencies to keep this scheme working. If they did not and instead spent them trade would rebalance itself and Chinese goods would no longer be cheap on the world market. If the US did this it would encourage domestic consumption and discourage foreign consumption and the US would become a net exporter of goods and importer of foreign currency. Of course this would create problems for other countries who would probably do the same. The Chinese complain that they have all this foreign currency but that is just gaslighting they do it to protect their own markets. I think many assumed that China would start spending the reserves when their country became developed but they really can't without reducing the trade imbalance.


The price of Chinese cars would more than double without their currency manipulations and the rest of the world should create dual currencies to fight the Chinese imbalance. The rest of the world can't afford to let China destroy their industries and tariffs create other problems.

I hear BRICS is a gold based currency... maybe everyone should use that?
(said with tongue in cheek)

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #867 on: March 13, 2024, 02:58:56 AM »
BRICS is not gold based you heard wrong. Everyone has some gold that does not make it gold based.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #868 on: March 13, 2024, 09:10:45 AM »

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #869 on: March 13, 2024, 07:43:38 PM »
BRICS is not gold based you heard wrong. Everyone has some gold that does not make it gold based.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2024/01/24/brics-making-good-progress-on-their-golden-path/?sh=7ecb1635549b
They are talking about setting up a gold market as an intermediary for exchanging fiat currencies instead of using USD or Euros. The currencies themselves are not backed by gold they are still fiat currencies. A gold based currency is a bad idea. In addition they are discussing these things as in it has not happened yet. The author also suggests creating a gold bank account but again that is not a currency just a way to convert currency to a gold account and back again.

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #870 on: March 13, 2024, 08:45:06 PM »
Ghaddafi was working on a gold based clearance bank for Africa , based in Libya.
 France didn't like that too much.
The diplomatic cables released show that this was the major factor in bringing down the wrath on him.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #871 on: March 13, 2024, 11:45:53 PM »
BRICS is not gold based you heard wrong. Everyone has some gold that does not make it gold based.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2024/01/24/brics-making-good-progress-on-their-golden-path/?sh=7ecb1635549b
They are talking about setting up a gold market as an intermediary for exchanging fiat currencies instead of using USD or Euros. The currencies themselves are not backed by gold they are still fiat currencies. A gold based currency is a bad idea. In addition they are discussing these things as in it has not happened yet. The author also suggests creating a gold bank account but again that is not a currency just a way to convert currency to a gold account and back again.

This is still better than using another currency like the USD. At least gold is neutral and has value in th economy.

The only reason purely gold-backed currencies are bad is because the West doesn't want it to happen... which begs the question of why is that the case.

House of Cards?

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #872 on: March 14, 2024, 10:09:05 PM »
No, it's just that there is not enough phys gold to actually run a country, let alone a global financial clearance machine. All the phys gold today is still only a cube 50m on a side.

"A cube made of 171,300 tonnes would be about 20.7m (68ft) on each side. Or to put it another way, it would reach to 9.8m above ground level if exactly covering Wimbledon Centre Court.

But not everyone agrees with the GFMS figures.

Estimates range from 155,244 tonnes, marginally less than the GFMS figure, to about 16 times that amount - 2.5 million tonnes.

That bigger figure would make a cube of sides 50m (166ft) long, or a column of gold towering 143m above Wimbledon centre court."

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21969100


interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #873 on: March 15, 2024, 06:31:42 AM »
BRICS is not gold based you heard wrong. Everyone has some gold that does not make it gold based.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2024/01/24/brics-making-good-progress-on-their-golden-path/?sh=7ecb1635549b
They are talking about setting up a gold market as an intermediary for exchanging fiat currencies instead of using USD or Euros. The currencies themselves are not backed by gold they are still fiat currencies. A gold based currency is a bad idea. In addition they are discussing these things as in it has not happened yet. The author also suggests creating a gold bank account but again that is not a currency just a way to convert currency to a gold account and back again.

This is still better than using another currency like the USD. At least gold is neutral and has value in th economy.

The only reason purely gold-backed currencies are bad is because the West doesn't want it to happen... which begs the question of why is that the case.

House of Cards?
I acknowledge that for those countries opposed to the US and the west as whole it make sense to trade in currencies other then the US dollar. To a lesser degree the Euro is an option though if you oppose the rule of law or democracies than the Euro is not an option. The BRIC nations are generally looking for alternative and a basket of currencies or communally held gold make a good intermediary to avoid western sanctions. There is logic in this and it looks like an alternative that could work for them to achieve their goals.

A gold based currency as you recommend is entirely different and countries dropped it for very good reasons. It is a physical asset that increases depending on mining not economic activity. Using it tends to severely limit economic growth. The last time it was used as a basis not just a backstop for currencies economies were largely static. I do not know maybe that is your goal but most in power would not accept this. The notion of interest on a gold account as described by the author of your article shows he or she does not understand economics of currency as well as she or he thinks. Unless someone comes up with a physics breaking way to breed gold the system will eventually fail. It also defeats the main purpose of gold based economics. Supporters of gold systems mainly argue for gold because it is an asset that does not loose value over time. Ignoring mining and market dynamics this more or less holds true. If you bury a gold coin in your backyard for 50 years it will still have roughly the same value again ignoring mining and markets. If you do that with currency ignoring potential numismatic value it will lose much if not most of its value. You can not in the long term pay interest on physical gold because in essence the amount of gold does not increase. You would have to take someone else gold to pay the interest. That other person would object. You could take the gold and spend it to do something that would result in more gold over time but that is different it carries risk and requires giving the gold to someone else not keeping it in a vault. A fiat currency can adjust to changes in economic activity allowing it to adjust when there are more people working for example. The choice for how much currency to add impacts it value which more often than not acts as a tax on holding it is another matter. Those who  control the money supply always add more currency to the money supply than is warranted by increases in economic activity. This is what causes inflation which is what gold advocates despise. 

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #874 on: March 15, 2024, 10:00:33 AM »
BRICS is not gold based you heard wrong. Everyone has some gold that does not make it gold based.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanlewis/2024/01/24/brics-making-good-progress-on-their-golden-path/?sh=7ecb1635549b
They are talking about setting up a gold market as an intermediary for exchanging fiat currencies instead of using USD or Euros. The currencies themselves are not backed by gold they are still fiat currencies. A gold based currency is a bad idea. In addition they are discussing these things as in it has not happened yet. The author also suggests creating a gold bank account but again that is not a currency just a way to convert currency to a gold account and back again.

This is still better than using another currency like the USD. At least gold is neutral and has value in th economy.

The only reason purely gold-backed currencies are bad is because the West doesn't want it to happen... which begs the question of why is that the case.

House of Cards?
I acknowledge that for those countries opposed to the US and the west as whole it make sense to trade in currencies other then the US dollar. To a lesser degree the Euro is an option though if you oppose the rule of law or democracies than the Euro is not an option. The BRIC nations are generally looking for alternative and a basket of currencies or communally held gold make a good intermediary to avoid western sanctions. There is logic in this and it looks like an alternative that could work for them to achieve their goals.

A gold based currency as you recommend is entirely different and countries dropped it for very good reasons. It is a physical asset that increases depending on mining not economic activity. Using it tends to severely limit economic growth. The last time it was used as a basis not just a backstop for currencies economies were largely static. I do not know maybe that is your goal but most in power would not accept this. The notion of interest on a gold account as described by the author of your article shows he or she does not understand economics of currency as well as she or he thinks. Unless someone comes up with a physics breaking way to breed gold the system will eventually fail. It also defeats the main purpose of gold based economics. Supporters of gold systems mainly argue for gold because it is an asset that does not loose value over time. Ignoring mining and market dynamics this more or less holds true. If you bury a gold coin in your backyard for 50 years it will still have roughly the same value again ignoring mining and markets. If you do that with currency ignoring potential numismatic value it will lose much if not most of its value. You can not in the long term pay interest on physical gold because in essence the amount of gold does not increase. You would have to take someone else gold to pay the interest. That other person would object. You could take the gold and spend it to do something that would result in more gold over time but that is different it carries risk and requires giving the gold to someone else not keeping it in a vault. A fiat currency can adjust to changes in economic activity allowing it to adjust when there are more people working for example. The choice for how much currency to add impacts it value which more often than not acts as a tax on holding it is another matter. Those who  control the money supply always add more currency to the money supply than is warranted by increases in economic activity. This is what causes inflation which is what gold advocates despise.

Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.

In fact, a decent portion of BRICS expansion is the rest of the world is tired of the US abusing their Dollar position via sanctions and outright theft.

You mention how gold puts limits on economic activities and removes interest.

I hadn't considered this before but now you mention it, I like that.

We need to put the breaks on economic activity for the sake of the planet, anything that achieves that end should be done. We cant keep expanding forever even though we are trying... that needs to stop and if gold makes that happen, I am all for it.

WHen you look at what happened after the USD was detached from gold back in the 70s, that was when the wealth gaps increased and more things like that. The wealthy became wealthier fast and fast and now we have such a wide disparity between those with wealth and those without it is beyond comprehension to me.

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #875 on: March 15, 2024, 10:54:03 PM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.



Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #876 on: March 16, 2024, 02:30:01 AM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.

SeanAU

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2871
    • View Profile
    • Meta-Crisis
  • Liked: 118
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #877 on: March 16, 2024, 03:07:09 AM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.

What interstitial means is that losers need to know their place. And stay there or else!
It's wealth, constantly seeking more wealth, to better seek still more wealth. Building wealth off of destruction. That's what's consuming the world. And is driving humans crazy at the same time.

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #878 on: March 16, 2024, 11:19:16 AM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.
says you.

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #879 on: March 16, 2024, 12:27:17 PM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.
says you.

Not just me lol.... now you are being silly.

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #880 on: March 18, 2024, 04:13:17 AM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.
says you.

Not just me lol.... now you are being silly.
Maybe I was being silly with that last but I am bored with the counter claims. I do not accept your claims and could counter with claims of my own but that would be pointless. Since your not going to convince me and I am unlikely to convince you. I prefer actual discussion so I will stop this now. 

Rodius

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2171
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 648
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #881 on: March 18, 2024, 05:07:44 AM »
Rules based system.... the USA doesn't follow the rules. They break them all the time so that premise is incorrect.
Both sides make that claim.

The problem with that statement is only one side makes the rules and abuses them without consequence.... the West abuse their power and that power is reducing because, in part, they abuse their power.

It is a difficult argument to say the victims of abuse of power are to blame for wanting to change the system.
says you.

Not just me lol.... now you are being silly.
Maybe I was being silly with that last but I am bored with the counter claims. I do not accept your claims and could counter with claims of my own but that would be pointless. Since your not going to convince me and I am unlikely to convince you. I prefer actual discussion so I will stop this now.

This is a discussion.... the issue is that the US abuses its power, doesn't follow its own rules, and does so many things that are abhorrent as to fill many books worth, but you don't want to truly acknowledge this fact and prefer to talk about what others do to counter the wrongs of the US.

It isn't about convincing the other side... it is about accepting the fact that the US is a global force that abuses its power at the expense of others.

For example, the US used China to manufacture a lot and the US benefited from that. Today, that is no longer of benefit to the US so the US now tries to undermine the efforts of China to the point of militarily surrounding the country and provoking China via Taiwan... which basically is agreed to be part of China.

Or Russia... surrounds them, sanctions them, provokes them and when Russia takes action via Ukraine, the US abuses its power by stealing Russia's USD.. which is against the rules the US is supposed to follow.

You can counter some of these things with justifications, but in the end, the actions of the US were done and they are not following the rules that the US make.

People, as in the rest of the world, are tired of it and are now setting up alternative money processes to sidestep the US controls.

Unless people accept the provable actions of the US that don't follow the rules based system the US purports to follow, then there is no point talking about it because those who ignore the actions because it doesn't fit their worldview are not able to adapt their thinking.

This isn't to say I am right and you are wrong... but for my part, if someone can show me where I am wrong, I will change my mind and adapt accordingly. You have shared such information with me before that has meant I changed my mind or added to the complexities... in this case, you haven't done that but walking away as if neither of us will change our minds is a bad reason to walk away

interstitial

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2899
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 574
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #882 on: March 18, 2024, 05:17:53 AM »
The discussion I was having was about gold and alternate currencies not complaining about the US. I am no longer interested in having anti-US discussions. Many of the statements about the US you made I believe to be false or at least misleading. We have both been fed different narratives about world events. There is little point in discussing them because each sides narrative makes that side right and the other wrong. I do not believe the US is the bad guys but I can accept that others do not. I prefer to exchange information in discussions not political narratives. It can be a fine line at times but when I notice the descent into politics I look for the exit because I personally see little value in those discussions.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2024, 06:04:55 AM by interstitial »

morganism

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1764
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 218
  • Likes Given: 128
Re: Economic Inequality
« Reply #883 on: April 13, 2024, 12:31:54 AM »
American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 2021, 13(3): 63–102
https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.2020029563

The Labor Market for Teachers under Different Pay Schemes†

Compensation of most US public school teachers is rigid and solely
based on seniority. This paper studies the effects of a reform that
gave school districts in Wisconsin full autonomy to redesign teacher
pay schemes. Following the reform some districts switched to flex-
ible compensation. Using the expiration of preexisting collective
bargaining agreements as a source of exogenous variation in the
timing of changes in pay, I show that the introduction of flexible
pay raised salaries of high-quality teachers, increased teacher
quality (due to the arrival of high-quality teachers from other dis-
tricts and increased effort), and improved student achievement.

Teachers are a key input for the production of student achievement and their impact persists through
adulthood. Attracting and retaining high-quality teachers to the profession can have far-reaching, positive effects on students. More attractive compensation packages are sometimes proposed
as a tool to achieve this goal. The salary schemes used in most US public schools,
however, do not allow for the payment of financial rewards for effectiveness. If
allowed to determine salaries in a more flexible way, could school districts improve
the quality of their teaching workforce? Answering this question has been challeng-
ing because variation in compensation schemes among public school districts is rare.
The vast majority of districts pay teachers according to lock-step schedules, often
very similar within a state. 1 This implies that all teachers with the same seniority
(more)

https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/pol.20200295