6 ms·

I am not sure this is a fair comparison. Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?

lukan 2y ago
"Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?" Technically not in socialist soviet union for example. (But de facto the top party members did control way more wealth than common people.)
lores 2y ago
Wouldn't the opposite be expected, an aristocratic caste system less equal than an ostensibly democratic society ostensibly based on fairness and human rights?
- guerrilla 2y ago
  No, I would expect exactly what we have because both debt and capital accumulation are positive feedback loops.
  - lores 2y ago
    You're talking about expectations from economic theory, while I'm talking about expectations from societal values; or, in other words, the economy defining society, vs society defining the economy. Obviously the first is factually correct in the US at the moment, but I think the second is what most people believe/wish for. Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops, they're not inherent to the system.
    - fransje26 2y ago
      > Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops Seeing how the wealth gap is increasing between them and the US, most politicians and wealthy individuals are doing all they can to remove those brakes, pushing evermore to follow the US. Defund, privatize, deregulate.
    - guerrilla 2y ago
      I understand. You mean why would a liberal democracy choose the system with the positive feedback loops, right?
    - NoGravitas 2y ago
      What you're describing is "idealism" - the idea that people's ideas are not conditioned by the material conditions of their lives. That doesn't seem to be true. Instead, "The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas". Most people believe the things that are necessary in order for the conditions they live under to perpetuate themselves. People's ideas change mostly as a result of change in their material conditions. After the Great Depresson and the second world war, most capitalist countries put brakes on those feedback loops in order to keep the whole system functional, especially in view of the apparent success of a socialist alternative. But those brakes have been in the process of being gradually stripped away since the 1970s, and even faster since the failure of the Soviet Union.
pwillia7 2y ago
the real unfairness is they didn't have Netflix and dairy queen -- just brioche
- fransje26 2y ago
  Let them binge-watch Netflix.
wongarsu 2y ago
[1] has some actual numbers to answer that question, with e.g. [2] for modern US numbers (since [1] has only Europe). The wealth gap peaked in 1910, took a nose dive until the late 1960s (though much more pronounced in Europe than in the US) and is on the rise since then. The post-industrial US dipped as low as ~1300 or ~1650 Europe, but is now back to levels Europe only reached in 1750, well on track to repeating the rising inequality during industrialization. Sweden is still at 1280/1600 Europe numbers, better than 1960s USA. Actually it probably has risen a bit more since then since those are 2010 numbers, hence the comparison of US numbers to the French Revolution 1: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-history-1300-present-day https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-hist... 2: https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624e06a809504835aacbd4.gif https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624...
- fransje26 2y ago
  From [2], why is there a huge drop globally following 1910?
  - froidpink 2y ago
    World Wars
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    From what I gather a number of factors. As one article puts it: "Social solidarity engendered by the wars, wartime experience of governing the economy, unemployment in the 1930s and the rise of socialist ideas." Both pension systems and labor unions were first created in the late 1880s/1890s and got a lot of steam in the early 1900s. Similarly with the modern iteration of minimum wages. Both the Nordic Model and Rhein Capitalism were created in the 1930s. On the more extreme spectrum, the Russian Revolution brought communism to Russia in 1917. In a way you can see this as the fruits of the critique of capitalism by Marx in the 1840s. They grew and took root in light of rising unsustainable inequality and lead to mostly positive reforms that brought down inequality even in societies that retained capitalism at the core. Then the trend reverses as the US starts their war on Socialism and Communism, and Reganomics and Thatcherism become dominant.
spl757 2y ago
If you think the system is designed to do anything but transfer wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, then you should seriously do some critical thinking on the subject.

lukan 2y ago

"Wouldn't this be true if we compare any pre-industrial society with any post-industrial society?" Technically not in socialist soviet union for example. (But de facto the top party members did control way more wealth than common people.)

lores 2y ago

Wouldn't the opposite be expected, an aristocratic caste system less equal than an ostensibly democratic society ostensibly based on fairness and human rights?

guerrilla 2y ago
No, I would expect exactly what we have because both debt and capital accumulation are positive feedback loops.
- lores 2y ago
  You're talking about expectations from economic theory, while I'm talking about expectations from societal values; or, in other words, the economy defining society, vs society defining the economy. Obviously the first is factually correct in the US at the moment, but I think the second is what most people believe/wish for. Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops, they're not inherent to the system.
  - fransje26 2y ago
    > Worth noting that other capitalist countries put better brakes on those feedback loops Seeing how the wealth gap is increasing between them and the US, most politicians and wealthy individuals are doing all they can to remove those brakes, pushing evermore to follow the US. Defund, privatize, deregulate.
  - guerrilla 2y ago
    I understand. You mean why would a liberal democracy choose the system with the positive feedback loops, right?
  - NoGravitas 2y ago
    What you're describing is "idealism" - the idea that people's ideas are not conditioned by the material conditions of their lives. That doesn't seem to be true. Instead, "The ideas of the ruling class are, in any age, the ruling ideas". Most people believe the things that are necessary in order for the conditions they live under to perpetuate themselves. People's ideas change mostly as a result of change in their material conditions. After the Great Depresson and the second world war, most capitalist countries put brakes on those feedback loops in order to keep the whole system functional, especially in view of the apparent success of a socialist alternative. But those brakes have been in the process of being gradually stripped away since the 1970s, and even faster since the failure of the Soviet Union.

pwillia7 2y ago

the real unfairness is they didn't have Netflix and dairy queen -- just brioche

fransje26 2y ago
Let them binge-watch Netflix.

wongarsu 2y ago

[1] has some actual numbers to answer that question, with e.g. [2] for modern US numbers (since [1] has only Europe). The wealth gap peaked in 1910, took a nose dive until the late 1960s (though much more pronounced in Europe than in the US) and is on the rise since then. The post-industrial US dipped as low as ~1300 or ~1650 Europe, but is now back to levels Europe only reached in 1750, well on track to repeating the rising inequality during industrialization. Sweden is still at 1280/1600 Europe numbers, better than 1960s USA. Actually it probably has risen a bit more since then since those are 2010 numbers, hence the comparison of US numbers to the French Revolution 1: https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-history-1300-present-day https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/top-rich-europe-long-run-hist... 2: https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624e06a809504835aacbd4.gif https://www.blogscapitalbolsa.com/media/images/69b536a604624...

fransje26 2y ago
From [2], why is there a huge drop globally following 1910?
- froidpink 2y ago
  World Wars
- wongarsu 2y ago
  From what I gather a number of factors. As one article puts it: "Social solidarity engendered by the wars, wartime experience of governing the economy, unemployment in the 1930s and the rise of socialist ideas." Both pension systems and labor unions were first created in the late 1880s/1890s and got a lot of steam in the early 1900s. Similarly with the modern iteration of minimum wages. Both the Nordic Model and Rhein Capitalism were created in the 1930s. On the more extreme spectrum, the Russian Revolution brought communism to Russia in 1917. In a way you can see this as the fruits of the critique of capitalism by Marx in the 1840s. They grew and took root in light of rising unsustainable inequality and lead to mostly positive reforms that brought down inequality even in societies that retained capitalism at the core. Then the trend reverses as the US starts their war on Socialism and Communism, and Reganomics and Thatcherism become dominant.

spl757 2y ago

If you think the system is designed to do anything but transfer wealth from the poorest to the wealthiest, then you should seriously do some critical thinking on the subject.