4 ms·
> Most live in poverty or close to it. This presumes that the poverty of 1920 is comparable to the poverty of today, which is obviously false. What Keynes an
by akira2501 3y ago
> Most live in poverty or close to it.
This presumes that the poverty of 1920 is comparable to the poverty of today, which is obviously false.
What Keynes and this author both ignore is that the technological advancements did happen, and quality of life did improve, but most of the gains were monopolized into the hands of the few. There are no natural pressures to turn these productivity gains back over to the people who created them.
This author toys with the gig economy but entirely fails to notice that it too is being held in the hands of the few rather than the many.
What bothers me about the insights of Marx is a capitulation to monopolies but instead of allowing capital to control them it imagines a central party is the best mechanism to control it. In both cases, the obvious answer is to get of centralization in all it's forms.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago> but most of the gains were monopolized into the hands of the few. Virtually everyone I know my age (from the US) has been to Europe multiple times. Very few people I know my parents age have been to Europe. This idea that life only got better for Bill Gates is ridiculous. Sure, the average person's lives probably haven't improved as much as the .1% - but you're still FAR better off today (on average) than you were in the 1920s, and the 1960s, too. Home ownership rates (by age) have declined - but nowhere near as much as most people in The California Bubble seem to think.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- akira2501 3y ago> but you're still FAR better off today That's the point. It is better, just not by the margin Keynes predicted, I'm merely attempting to account for this difference.
- silverquiet 3y agoYour experience of which generation travels to Europe is the exact inverse of mine.
- pessimizer 3y ago> Virtually everyone I know my age (from the US) has been to Europe multiple times. I hate to tell you this, but your experiences may not generalize.
- nkurz 3y agoWhile there is probably a bubble effect happening, he's right that younger generations seem more likely to travel abroad. Slightly over half of Americans under 30 have a current passport (essentially required for travel outside the US) while only about 1/3 of 45-64 year-olds do: https://today.yougov.com/travel/articles/46028-adults-under-30-more-likely-have-us-passport https://today.yougov.com/travel/articles/46028-adults-under-....
- leereeves 3y agoTravel is cheap. Homes are unaffordable. That's not a good trade and certainly not a reason to claim that younger generations are better off.
- rmbyrro 3y agoKeynes did predict great technological advances: http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf