3 ms·

IMHO The idea that the the current economic order is the most efficient is... idealistic > "over there" who look and/or talk different that it separately does

IMHO The idea that the the current economic order is the most efficient is... idealistic > "over there" who look and/or talk different that it separately doesn't matter if they starve. The global economy is about expanding the wealth and consumption of the.01% while maintaining a standard of living well enough that the next 20% won't murder them and guard then from the bottom 80% > is growing enough food for 7b people We're well well beyond this capability. Westerners need to eat less meat, waste less electricity (more fuel for fertilizer etc). Most westerner economies are rentier economies. They need more wealth taxes and more antitrust. Rishi Sunak, the billionaire banker, conservative leader of the UK himself said that cutting corporate tax doesn't result in more productive investment

antupis 4y ago
It is best what we have and doing pretty good job https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/03/Famine-death-rate-since-1860s-revised.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/03/Famine-death-rate... and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-world-population https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-w...
harry8 4y ago
>The idea that the the current economic order is the most efficient is... idealistic Nope. It's a fact that the current world economy is the most efficient yet seen. Imagination is not implementation. There remains plenty to discuss on how to do it better going forward. >The global economy is about expanding the wealth and consumption of the.01% while maintaining a standard of living well enough that the next 20% won't murder them and guard then from the bottom 80% Not worth arguing with it goes nowhere interesting, the gloabl economy isn't designed. Billionaire influence is quite limited for we rail that it exceed our own. Whatever. And yet somehow, despite what you think and I think about the global economy structure the bottom %80, hell the bottom 20% are objectively much better off in terms of food and health than Mill's time. While the sheer numbers of people have expoded. We've never had so many in absolute numbers and perecentage lifted out of sickness and poverty. That isn't nothing. Continue hating billionaires by all means. I do. >We're well well beyond this capability. So by design or accident even you acknowledge it has "worked" for those who would otherwise be sick and hungry. >Westerners need to eat less meat, waste less electricity (more fuel for fertilizer etc). Maybe? Why not? This has absolutely nothing to do with feeding 7billion and treating their diseases. Really. Nothing at all. >Rishi Sunak Who? Be careful whose leadership you follow. I somehow doubt you'd accept him as an authority on anything you didn't like the sound of. Myself, I sure wouldn't on anything at all... Billionaire by marriage or not adds nothing to the quality or thought.
- diordiderot 4y ago
  I'm not saying we haven't progressed. what I mean to say is that, at the moment, we could have an _even more_ efficient economy if we had more competition and less rent seeking. Less propping up of 'zombie companies' and more 'creative destruction' > isn't designed You're right. A more nuanced way to say this is 'emerged' from power structures and incentives. Economics is the study of a world where all political problems have been solved. e.g. a convoluted and overburdening tax system ... not properly managing negative externalities ... money in politics > the bottom 20% are objectively much better off in terms of food and health than Mill's time. I agree but 'what got us here, wont get us there' especially if we wind up in a 'distributed tech neo-feudal system' where 'lords' own so much of the means of production (was land now IP stocks etc) they cannot be outcompeted / supplanted without violence. > percentage lifted out of sickness and poverty. China? > I somehow doubt you'd accept him as an authority on anything you didn't like the sound of. Don't we all have our biases
- diordiderot 4y ago
  Also if you're interested worth checking out the cantillon effect https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-cantillon-effect-why-wall-street https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-cantillon-effect-why-... I'm no economist but I have a sense that too much capital going to 'capitalists' inflates asset prices without increased productivity/growth/efficiency. > goes nowhere interesting :(

antupis 4y ago

It is best what we have and doing pretty good job https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/03/Famine-death-rate-since-1860s-revised.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/03/Famine-death-rate... and https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-world-population https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/literate-and-illiterate-w...

harry8 4y ago

>The idea that the the current economic order is the most efficient is... idealistic Nope. It's a fact that the current world economy is the most efficient yet seen. Imagination is not implementation. There remains plenty to discuss on how to do it better going forward. >The global economy is about expanding the wealth and consumption of the.01% while maintaining a standard of living well enough that the next 20% won't murder them and guard then from the bottom 80% Not worth arguing with it goes nowhere interesting, the gloabl economy isn't designed. Billionaire influence is quite limited for we rail that it exceed our own. Whatever. And yet somehow, despite what you think and I think about the global economy structure the bottom %80, hell the bottom 20% are objectively much better off in terms of food and health than Mill's time. While the sheer numbers of people have expoded. We've never had so many in absolute numbers and perecentage lifted out of sickness and poverty. That isn't nothing. Continue hating billionaires by all means. I do. >We're well well beyond this capability. So by design or accident even you acknowledge it has "worked" for those who would otherwise be sick and hungry. >Westerners need to eat less meat, waste less electricity (more fuel for fertilizer etc). Maybe? Why not? This has absolutely nothing to do with feeding 7billion and treating their diseases. Really. Nothing at all. >Rishi Sunak Who? Be careful whose leadership you follow. I somehow doubt you'd accept him as an authority on anything you didn't like the sound of. Myself, I sure wouldn't on anything at all... Billionaire by marriage or not adds nothing to the quality or thought.

diordiderot 4y ago
I'm not saying we haven't progressed. what I mean to say is that, at the moment, we could have an _even more_ efficient economy if we had more competition and less rent seeking. Less propping up of 'zombie companies' and more 'creative destruction' > isn't designed You're right. A more nuanced way to say this is 'emerged' from power structures and incentives. Economics is the study of a world where all political problems have been solved. e.g. a convoluted and overburdening tax system ... not properly managing negative externalities ... money in politics > the bottom 20% are objectively much better off in terms of food and health than Mill's time. I agree but 'what got us here, wont get us there' especially if we wind up in a 'distributed tech neo-feudal system' where 'lords' own so much of the means of production (was land now IP stocks etc) they cannot be outcompeted / supplanted without violence. > percentage lifted out of sickness and poverty. China? > I somehow doubt you'd accept him as an authority on anything you didn't like the sound of. Don't we all have our biases
diordiderot 4y ago
Also if you're interested worth checking out the cantillon effect https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-cantillon-effect-why-wall-street https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/the-cantillon-effect-why-... I'm no economist but I have a sense that too much capital going to 'capitalists' inflates asset prices without increased productivity/growth/efficiency. > goes nowhere interesting :(