This is why I’m not particularly optimistic about a revolution, even if it was completely successful in overthrowing the current system. A significant and vocal part of the population seems to have a very odd idea of what a just society should look like.
Do you ever wonder what the suicide rate was in “hunter-gatherer” societies?
Here’s the problem with failing to “switch horses”: capitalism is based on perpetual exponential growth. And that’s obviously not physically possible in a relatively closed system.
There’s significant grounds for believing that we’re rapidly approaching a point of no-return in carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. Following current trends, we’re expecting a rise of a few degrees Celsius in coming decades, which will devastate coastal areas where the majority of the human race currently lives, and radically reshape climates to the extent that industrial agriculture may no longer be possible. Worse, if the clathrate gun hypothesis is correct, we may face a scenario in which rapid climate change will result in the extinction of most life on Earth.
At this point, by the best case scenarios, in the coming century, we’re looking at massive population dislocations, massive famines, and cultural crises unparalleled in human history. And given the total unwillingness of the elites to take any meaningful action to address climate change – in fact, the US actually increased carbon production 2% last year – we are not going to experience the best case scenario.
Assuming that somehow, we manage to overcome the danger of severe climate, there are other long-term problems that will emerge if we continue to follow this insane model of exponentially increasing production: other forms of pollution and resource depletion.
Having been a radical leftist for my entire adult life, I am mourning the fact that our social critiques and our visions of the future were not nearly radical enough. There will be radical change, whether we like it or not, and at this point, it will almost certainly be change we do not like.
Where there’s life, there’s hope. But I have very little source for hope beyond that any more.
4 Likes
A big part of the problem is runaway corporations. If you want to put a burr in Monsantos saddle, sign the petition to stop them in Sweden.
thinkingaboot.blogspot.ca/2014/01/a-chance-to-block-monsanto-gmo-foods-in.html
We all know what has to happen. Top tier tax rates need to go back to 90%. Do that and the government can pay for all the military it wants, new roads, healthcare, etc.
Of course some will argue that they will simply reduce their income to a lower tier. That’s good too. Then that money would go to other things like employees, R&D, charity, etc.
The problem is that the people writing our tax laws are in the pockets of the same people who need to be taxed more.
It all comes back to the same irreducible issue with US politics. Until there is real and meaningful campaign finance reform, then the system will remain a tool of the wealthy and we will continue to live in an oligarchy pretending to be a republic.
7 Likes
If there were 2 rich people and 98 poorer people, and the 2 rich people had 2 kids and passed on their wealth, and the 98 poorer people had 186 kids and passed on their wealth, the 196 would have half of what their parents had, and be poorer, and the 2 rich kids would have way more proportionally.
So is that a factor in this if 3rd world countries experience massive population growth but don’t grow economically?
You are correctly differentiating wealth from income. Even though the top 1% pays the lion’s share of taxes, they are still massively wealthy.
The problem is that there just are not enough taxpayers in that cohort to balance the budget through the tax system, much less increasing spending in any significant way, even if you take 80% of their income.
Notice that none of the “let’s reduce income inequality” pols ever mention confiscating wealth, only tinkering with the tax system.
If they ever got serious about the former, you’d see all the Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and Hollywood one-percenters turn libertarian in a split second.
1 Like
I watched Inequality for All last night, and loved it. Have always loved Robert Reich. Appreciate the person up above in the thread who made the suggestion.
Not only should income tax and capital gains tax go way way up, but I think there’s a good argument to be made for taxing someone’s savings in a progressive fashion (whether liquid or not) in order to encourage spending of wealth, and not just hoarding. This seems like it would have a very positive effect on the economy and jobs.
I should add that I’m in the US tax bracket range that gets relatively hosed. My effective income tax rate will be close to 25% for 2013, which of course doesn’t count state income tax, social security, and Medicare, which are a pretty big chunk of my income as well, as I’m not rich per se. But I don’t complain about having to pay taxes, and would gladly pay more, IF I felt they were going to good use, such as a high speed rail system in the Northeast, universal healthcare, other infrastructure improvements, general science research – and not a bunch of idiotic wars, subsidizing fossil fuels, etc. I think people need to get the hell over the “taxes = bad” thing and look deeper into how society itself should function. I’m perfectly happy to accept big government, in fact I think government can be a wonderful tool for the people at large.
How long before this inequity provokes a rich folks duck hunt? There is no space station they can retreat to, and when 2/3 of the human race realizes that you are the instrument of their oppression there is nowhere to hide on this planet.
1 Like
would gladly pay more, IF I felt they were going to good use
Problem is that given current trends, in a few more decades the federal budget will entirely consist of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and debt service.
What can’t continue, won’t. The question is how that non-continuance will come to pass.
Here’s another way to look at it. If half the world’s population have no assets, then even I have more assets than half the world’s population. I think this is a bit sensational.
1 Like
Almost everyone has one asset of at least a little value - their labour. It’s incredible to think that what 85 people own/contribute is somehow comparable to the same measure of half the world’s population. For me, it is exactly sensational, in that it arouses a sensation of nausea. If by sensational you meant ‘sensationalised’, well, you’re entitled to that view.
1 Like
No defense spending? What is it this year, $600bn?
1 Like
No, we’ve implemented democratic structures in our political system. Our economy still consists almost solely of extractive structures designed to funnel wealth to the relatively small group in control of them.
Edit: For an example of how this might work, google Mondragon. It’s not a perfect system, but it is a huge step in the right direction. And most importantly, virtually all participants are also primary beneficiaries, in stark contrast to the vampire squid model that most of us live under.
3 Likes
As far as I’m concerned, the very real issues facing social security and healthcare costs can be solved by taking the bulk of the military budget, and funnel it toward science and technology research and development efforts of a non-military variety. We also need to tackle unhealthy lifestyles, and on a more base level, our ridiculous fear of death, which leads to is pumping ludicrous amounts of money into extending life at the last couple of years or even months or weeks of a lifetime.
1 Like
Someone should make a movie about that, already.
What with private armies, genetic plagues, biological, chemical and otherwise technologically advanced weaponry; I have a hard time believing that any kind of a physical uprising wouldn’t just splinter into the wind without the backing of the military industrial complex.
1 Like
I will surmise my current attitude to the situation with two quotes from the article. A summary of Oxfams stated position and a quote. Perhaps you will be able to ascertain the source of my consternation.
Oxfam also argues that this is no accident either, saying growing inequality has been driven by a “power grab” by wealthy elites, who have co-opted the political process to rig the rules of the economic system in their favour.
Oxfam called on attendees at this week’s World Economic Forum to take a personal pledge to tackle the problem by refraining from dodging taxes or using their wealth to seek political favours.
facepalm.jpg
1 Like
Yeah, I hadn’t ever really thought about it that way either, but it makes a disturbing amount of sense…
Don’t forget that the 2 rich kids enslaved the 186 poor kids and took 4/5 of their earnings in the form of taxes and overpriced goods essential to their survival.
2 Likes
