5 ms·

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 4

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that you claim they're failing on a "scientific" basis.

beat 8y ago
I both agree and disagree. I agree that the world is getting much better, very rapidly. I disagree that this is a consequence of neoliberal economic policies. Rather, it's a consequence of technological advances that have little to do with economics. Vaccination isn't a neoliberal triumph.
Fnoord 8y ago
It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA [1] It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA [2] It is about tax avoidance in the USA, and increasing taxation for the very rich, and how the discussion about it is being avoided as recently happened on Fox News or at the conference in Davos, Switzerland [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [3] https://twitter.com/rcbregman https://twitter.com/rcbregman
- charliesharding 8y ago
  1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.
  - Fnoord 8y ago
    1) Ah, the "the rich will leave!" card. The rich won't leave if you fight the problem under an international flag, and all their businesses will be accounted for. Even if all the rich want to live solely in the Bahama's or Cayman Islands, let them be. If large countries plot together its not like you can't boycott such small countries. Just like almost the entire world has copyright laws. See also #3. 2) The problem is that large companies such as Amazon don't pay tax which by itself is unfair. On top of that, the side effect is that small and medium businesses [on a worldwide scale] cannot compete with them, leading to less competition which is bad for the customer and bad for the economy. And it isn't just Amazon. It is also for example Starbucks, who pay no tax whatsoever whilst local coffee shops diminish. 3) Not addressing the topic of tax avoidance is political unwillingness kept intact by the rich world elite who give breadcrumbs to servants such as Tucker Carlson. 4) Given the conference was visited by billionaire philanthropists who avoid taxes, it was a highly insightful and appropriate comment. > it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity. If you give me billions of USD I can also promise you I will be a pillar of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity. The lack of these is caused by the inequality. If people wouldn't live in poverty, their happiness would increase, and they'd be more productive in society; not less. Instead, they're being squeezed out.
    - charliesharding 8y ago
      1 - Ok, so abolish the free market worldwide? Not sure what you're suggesting. Removing incentive structures and high taxation does cause the wealthy to leave. It's happening in the U.K. right now. Who does this hurt? Everyone but the rich. 2,3 - I think we agree here. Unfair loopholes should be closed as they are found on an individual case basis and I even think that Amazon should be broken up on anti-monopoly grounds. 4 - They didn't come by their wealth through forcibly taking it from poor people. The free market dictates voluntary exchange of goods and services. They are wealthy through a long series of voluntary transactions with the public.
      - Fnoord 8y ago
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Your comment is severely lacking in numbers that would indicate market-friendly policies have been a "failure". > It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA How has this number changed over time, compared to previous time periods? > It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA How has the actual income of poor people changed in the same time period? > It is about tax avoidance in the USA Please explain how the statement "tax avoidance in the USA" proves market-friendly policies have been a "failure".
  - orwin 8y ago
    > Please explain how the statement "tax avoidance in the USA" proves market-friendly policies have been a "failure". This one i can explain. Whether its ordo-liberalism, social liberalism or any kind of post-1929 liberalism, a market-friendly policy aim to brake cartels, monopolies and remove unfair advantages, and help new companies start even in an already competitive field. You can easily see how tax avoidance, easier to avoid for big, international, old companies is a failure of "market-friendly" policies. This is not the only point where those policies fail, but this one of the most obvious. Sadly i don't have any english papers on this, but even really old-school liberals (like the ones you can proably see on fox, although i don't know if they invite PhD or lobbyists there) are saying this is becoming an issue. Also income inequality should never be a problem. Wealth inequality, however, especially when more money is gained from wealth than from work, is. And its easy to fix: less tax on work income, more taxes on wealth/wealth income. There.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      I don't see how anything you said proves "tax avoidance" is a consequence of market-friendly policies. If anything, it's an indication the tax code should be streamlined and simplified, which itself would also be market-friendly.
charliesharding 8y ago
I agree but I understand where they were coming from. It's easy to point out flaws in any system and it's something I'm seeing more and more in politics and religion. People are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's easy to become blind to the benefits of the system you are raised within until the revolutionaries tip the scales and then the system resets through widespread suffering.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Poverty and inequality have increased sharply in the US during that period. It's wonderful that the global average is improving, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Poverty [has] increased sharply in the US during that period. Do you have numbers for that? > that doesn't mean you can just ignore problems affecting hundreds of millions of people That's just a straw man.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    US poverty rates have hovered around 11%-15% since the '70s, my bad. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... Income inequality has, however, increased substantially (I assume you agree since you edited that part out). It seems clear enough, therefore, that the financial policies of the last 40 years have at best not helped, and have made some things worse. > That's just a straw man. That's not a straw man. Here's a straw man: On an article about US economic policy, Beat claimed that '80s US economic policy had failed. You disputed that based on global economic outcomes since then, refuting an argument that no one had actually made.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > I assume you agree since you edited that part out I edited it out because I find it, for the most part, irrelevant. I'd rather live in a world where everyone is better off to different extents than one where everyone is equally poor and miserable, as in post-reform vs. pre-reform China. Do you prefer the latter? > It seems clear enough, therefore, that the financial policies of the last 40 years have at best not helped, and have made some things worse. Non sequitur. > That's not a straw man. Weighing the costs and benefits by analyzing the bigger picture is not "ignoring problems affecting hundreds of millions of people". That's just plain stupid. > On an article about US economic policy... Proof that you didn't read the article, because it discusses other countries and international trade. > Beat claimed that '80s US economic policy had failed Where did beat say "US" in their comment?

beat 8y ago

I both agree and disagree. I agree that the world is getting much better, very rapidly. I disagree that this is a consequence of neoliberal economic policies. Rather, it's a consequence of technological advances that have little to do with economics. Vaccination isn't a neoliberal triumph.

Fnoord 8y ago

It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA [1] It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA [2] It is about tax avoidance in the USA, and increasing taxation for the very rich, and how the discussion about it is being avoided as recently happened on Fox News or at the conference in Davos, Switzerland [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [3] https://twitter.com/rcbregman https://twitter.com/rcbregman

charliesharding 8y ago
1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  1) Ah, the "the rich will leave!" card. The rich won't leave if you fight the problem under an international flag, and all their businesses will be accounted for. Even if all the rich want to live solely in the Bahama's or Cayman Islands, let them be. If large countries plot together its not like you can't boycott such small countries. Just like almost the entire world has copyright laws. See also #3. 2) The problem is that large companies such as Amazon don't pay tax which by itself is unfair. On top of that, the side effect is that small and medium businesses [on a worldwide scale] cannot compete with them, leading to less competition which is bad for the customer and bad for the economy. And it isn't just Amazon. It is also for example Starbucks, who pay no tax whatsoever whilst local coffee shops diminish. 3) Not addressing the topic of tax avoidance is political unwillingness kept intact by the rich world elite who give breadcrumbs to servants such as Tucker Carlson. 4) Given the conference was visited by billionaire philanthropists who avoid taxes, it was a highly insightful and appropriate comment. > it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity. If you give me billions of USD I can also promise you I will be a pillar of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity. The lack of these is caused by the inequality. If people wouldn't live in poverty, their happiness would increase, and they'd be more productive in society; not less. Instead, they're being squeezed out.
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    1 - Ok, so abolish the free market worldwide? Not sure what you're suggesting. Removing incentive structures and high taxation does cause the wealthy to leave. It's happening in the U.K. right now. Who does this hurt? Everyone but the rich. 2,3 - I think we agree here. Unfair loopholes should be closed as they are found on an individual case basis and I even think that Amazon should be broken up on anti-monopoly grounds. 4 - They didn't come by their wealth through forcibly taking it from poor people. The free market dictates voluntary exchange of goods and services. They are wealthy through a long series of voluntary transactions with the public.
    - Fnoord 8y ago
antidesitter 8y ago
Your comment is severely lacking in numbers that would indicate market-friendly policies have been a "failure". > It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA How has this number changed over time, compared to previous time periods? > It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA How has the actual income of poor people changed in the same time period? > It is about tax avoidance in the USA Please explain how the statement "tax avoidance in the USA" proves market-friendly policies have been a "failure".
- orwin 8y ago
  > Please explain how the statement "tax avoidance in the USA" proves market-friendly policies have been a "failure". This one i can explain. Whether its ordo-liberalism, social liberalism or any kind of post-1929 liberalism, a market-friendly policy aim to brake cartels, monopolies and remove unfair advantages, and help new companies start even in an already competitive field. You can easily see how tax avoidance, easier to avoid for big, international, old companies is a failure of "market-friendly" policies. This is not the only point where those policies fail, but this one of the most obvious. Sadly i don't have any english papers on this, but even really old-school liberals (like the ones you can proably see on fox, although i don't know if they invite PhD or lobbyists there) are saying this is becoming an issue. Also income inequality should never be a problem. Wealth inequality, however, especially when more money is gained from wealth than from work, is. And its easy to fix: less tax on work income, more taxes on wealth/wealth income. There.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    I don't see how anything you said proves "tax avoidance" is a consequence of market-friendly policies. If anything, it's an indication the tax code should be streamlined and simplified, which itself would also be market-friendly.

charliesharding 8y ago

I agree but I understand where they were coming from. It's easy to point out flaws in any system and it's something I'm seeing more and more in politics and religion. People are willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because it's easy to become blind to the benefits of the system you are raised within until the revolutionaries tip the scales and then the system resets through widespread suffering.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

Poverty and inequality have increased sharply in the US during that period. It's wonderful that the global average is improving, but that doesn't mean you can just ignore problems affecting hundreds of millions of people.

antidesitter 8y ago
> Poverty [has] increased sharply in the US during that period. Do you have numbers for that? > that doesn't mean you can just ignore problems affecting hundreds of millions of people That's just a straw man.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  US poverty rates have hovered around 11%-15% since the '70s, my bad. https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... Income inequality has, however, increased substantially (I assume you agree since you edited that part out). It seems clear enough, therefore, that the financial policies of the last 40 years have at best not helped, and have made some things worse. > That's just a straw man. That's not a straw man. Here's a straw man: On an article about US economic policy, Beat claimed that '80s US economic policy had failed. You disputed that based on global economic outcomes since then, refuting an argument that no one had actually made.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > I assume you agree since you edited that part out I edited it out because I find it, for the most part, irrelevant. I'd rather live in a world where everyone is better off to different extents than one where everyone is equally poor and miserable, as in post-reform vs. pre-reform China. Do you prefer the latter? > It seems clear enough, therefore, that the financial policies of the last 40 years have at best not helped, and have made some things worse. Non sequitur. > That's not a straw man. Weighing the costs and benefits by analyzing the bigger picture is not "ignoring problems affecting hundreds of millions of people". That's just plain stupid. > On an article about US economic policy... Proof that you didn't read the article, because it discusses other countries and international trade. > Beat claimed that '80s US economic policy had failed Where did beat say "US" in their comment?