4 ms·

I thought this question was a joke based on the title. Our economic system itself creates inequality between nations. It's in the best interest of wealthy count

by leshow 4y ago

I thought this question was a joke based on the title. Our economic system itself creates inequality between nations. It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. I wasn't aware the question had 'vexed economists for decades'. You can say the same of inequality within a country. Wealth accumulates because we have an economic system where the few are able to extract value out of the many and are protected in their position both with prevailing ideology and state power.

naikrovek 4y ago
> It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. it really bothers me that people think this is an OK thing to do. We can choose to improve both the importing and exporting countries when these negotiations are set up, but we don't, because it's cheaper to turn people into slaves and drive them into the grave. There are exactly zero people on this planet (or any other) who could convince me that collective altruism would not benefit everyone both immediately and in the long term, yet every single politician or statesman or business owner from any country seem to think that domination is the best option. The amount of suffering that happens in this world because of money just stuns me every time I think about it. We are a garbage species, doomed to self-destruction, because of money and our apparently inextinguishable desire to have more than everyone else. I will never understand the species or the society I was born into.
- leshow 4y ago
  I sympathize with the sentiment, although I don't blame the issues on a dearth of altruism. If you grew up in the 1400's could you expect widespread equality during feudalism? It doesn't matter how magnanimous a king was, inequality was built into society. The question then becomes, IMO, what sort of economic organization would help solve these issues?
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    there is no economic system which treats people equally, and there never will be, because it is the creation and use of money which turns good people into bad people. money is Aladdin's Lamp; money grants wishes, and no matter who you are or what you have, you will always want more. there will always be a non-zero number of people who want "more" enough that they feel it is ok that others suffer so that it be obtained. humans create economies wherever they go, and they always have. money takes no action on its own, so humans are the problem. we will be our own demise. our end will not be due to a supernova or space aliens or anything outside of our own control. we will destroy ourselves unless we somehow change ourselves enough that Aladdin's Lamp no longer holds sway over our lives. that will not happen for 100,000,000 generations of humanity, if it ever happens. it is in our very being to destroy things or people for personal gain, and everyone who thinks they are entitled to do it will do it. we may never truly fail as a species (though that is definitely within our reach today) but we will not succeed as a species, either. Aladdin's Lamp is always too close.
    - imtringued 4y ago
      This may interest you: https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html
    - leshow 4y ago
      Money has existed for a long time, but only recently has the pursuit of profit become preeminent. I'm of the opinion that democracy and universal suffrage creates as equal a system as we can hope for, my issue isn't with money or economies per say... the subject I was trying to broach was democratic ownership.
      - naikrovek 4y ago
        to be clear, I don't care if people are allowed to get rich. that's fine. If you're skilled enough to get rich, then you should be allowed to get rich. I hope that rich people are altruistic, and some are, but most aren't. whatever. what really, really rubs me raw is that we let people fall out of society and into nothingness. livable minimum wage should not even be a discussion. Free physical and mental healthcare should not even be a discussion. affordable housing should not even be a discussion - these are all table stakes for a society that is worthy of existing. No one should be left behind. be as rich as you like; just don't be so greedy that you take someone's ability to live freely away from them because you don't pay them enough, and now they can't afford rent or gas for their car. I guess that makes me either a socialist or someone in favor of very strong welfare policies, but whatever you want to call it, it's the bare minimum that a society should offer its citizens, imo. the whole point of a society or of a nation is that the citizens are taken care of, be it from foreign invader, or domestic threat. those kinds of things are why the collective resources of the people are pooled. that's the whole reason. i see no difference between people dying of poverty and people dying because of bombardment.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Well, I agree but the problem is the nature of money itself. So far no country has adopted a neutral money system. If you give people a different money system e.g. like the Chiemgauer, they suddenly behave very differently. That kind of questions the whole human nature is the problem thing, if human nature is this fluid or whether there is a government monopoly that forces a specific "human nature" onto people. It sounds like just how communism dooms a country to self harm, capitalism forces people to do self harm of a different kind.

by leshow 4y ago

naikrovek 4y ago

> It's in the best interest of wealthy countries to keep developing countries poor so we can continue extractive processes for their resources. it really bothers me that people think this is an OK thing to do. We can choose to improve both the importing and exporting countries when these negotiations are set up, but we don't, because it's cheaper to turn people into slaves and drive them into the grave. There are exactly zero people on this planet (or any other) who could convince me that collective altruism would not benefit everyone both immediately and in the long term, yet every single politician or statesman or business owner from any country seem to think that domination is the best option. The amount of suffering that happens in this world because of money just stuns me every time I think about it. We are a garbage species, doomed to self-destruction, because of money and our apparently inextinguishable desire to have more than everyone else. I will never understand the species or the society I was born into.

leshow 4y ago
I sympathize with the sentiment, although I don't blame the issues on a dearth of altruism. If you grew up in the 1400's could you expect widespread equality during feudalism? It doesn't matter how magnanimous a king was, inequality was built into society. The question then becomes, IMO, what sort of economic organization would help solve these issues?
- naikrovek 4y ago
  there is no economic system which treats people equally, and there never will be, because it is the creation and use of money which turns good people into bad people. money is Aladdin's Lamp; money grants wishes, and no matter who you are or what you have, you will always want more. there will always be a non-zero number of people who want "more" enough that they feel it is ok that others suffer so that it be obtained. humans create economies wherever they go, and they always have. money takes no action on its own, so humans are the problem. we will be our own demise. our end will not be due to a supernova or space aliens or anything outside of our own control. we will destroy ourselves unless we somehow change ourselves enough that Aladdin's Lamp no longer holds sway over our lives. that will not happen for 100,000,000 generations of humanity, if it ever happens. it is in our very being to destroy things or people for personal gain, and everyone who thinks they are entitled to do it will do it. we may never truly fail as a species (though that is definitely within our reach today) but we will not succeed as a species, either. Aladdin's Lamp is always too close.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    This may interest you: https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/suhr/nngengl.html
  - leshow 4y ago
    Money has existed for a long time, but only recently has the pursuit of profit become preeminent. I'm of the opinion that democracy and universal suffrage creates as equal a system as we can hope for, my issue isn't with money or economies per say... the subject I was trying to broach was democratic ownership.
    - naikrovek 4y ago
      to be clear, I don't care if people are allowed to get rich. that's fine. If you're skilled enough to get rich, then you should be allowed to get rich. I hope that rich people are altruistic, and some are, but most aren't. whatever. what really, really rubs me raw is that we let people fall out of society and into nothingness. livable minimum wage should not even be a discussion. Free physical and mental healthcare should not even be a discussion. affordable housing should not even be a discussion - these are all table stakes for a society that is worthy of existing. No one should be left behind. be as rich as you like; just don't be so greedy that you take someone's ability to live freely away from them because you don't pay them enough, and now they can't afford rent or gas for their car. I guess that makes me either a socialist or someone in favor of very strong welfare policies, but whatever you want to call it, it's the bare minimum that a society should offer its citizens, imo. the whole point of a society or of a nation is that the citizens are taken care of, be it from foreign invader, or domestic threat. those kinds of things are why the collective resources of the people are pooled. that's the whole reason. i see no difference between people dying of poverty and people dying because of bombardment.
imtringued 4y ago
Well, I agree but the problem is the nature of money itself. So far no country has adopted a neutral money system. If you give people a different money system e.g. like the Chiemgauer, they suddenly behave very differently. That kind of questions the whole human nature is the problem thing, if human nature is this fluid or whether there is a government monopoly that forces a specific "human nature" onto people. It sounds like just how communism dooms a country to self harm, capitalism forces people to do self harm of a different kind.