4 ms·
That's a perfectly valid reason for leaving Asia/Africa out of the 200-year long timeseries. Nevertheless, a discussion of inequality which doesn't even acknowl
by yummyfajitas 13y ago
That's a perfectly valid reason for leaving Asia/Africa out of the 200-year long timeseries. Nevertheless, a discussion of inequality which doesn't even acknowledge the vast gaps between a Yank/Frenchy/Brit and an Indian/Chinese/Nigerian is woefully incomplete almost to the point of dishonesty.
(I say "almost" because I've met enough ignorant westerners to realize that dishonesty is not the only explanation for this. I don't understand it myself, but some people's vision truly does stop at the border. )
- vanderZwan 13y agoFair point, but I think we're drifting away from the issue that the book is trying to address, which is the consequence of capitalist economic policy on inequality. Not inequality in general. Of course countries that have different economic policies are very interesting for comparison and to find better ways of addressing the issues with capitalism, but they are not necessary to answer that question.
- yummyfajitas 13y agoThe effect of capitalistic economic policy has been drastic reductions in global inequality as China/India/others have become wealthier. Immigration (at least in the short run [1]) has even larger effects. [1] In the long run I'd be concerned about the damage immigrants might do in the voting booth, but that's a non-economic problem.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- chongli 13y agocapitalistic economic policy has been drastic reductions in global inequality Do you have any data to support this claim?