Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Global inequality has been horrific for a long time, think first world vs third world.
Not to be blunt, but what is new here?
Good point. Interestingly, this is the only area where inequality has decreased - third world vs. first world. Thanks to globalization the working / middle classes in China or India are now closer to their US or European counterparts. In part because they rose up in emerging countries and declined in rich countries,
But within each country of the world the differences get bigger and bigger, quite dramatic so.
Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" (2014) comes to the same conclusion. Picketty is a French economist and his book had the economics world spinning its head in 2014.
The key point Piketty makes is: capitalism is inherently structured towards creating and increasing inequality over time, with the rate of return on capital (r) generally being greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over time. Using a unique and exhaustive array of data and statistics Piketty systematically demonstrates how those who possess capital — defined here as all assets that have value — have historically seen their fortunes grow faster than the incomes of the societies of which they are a part.
With the exception of the four decades following the First World War, in which this ‘law’ did not hold due to the destruction of extant stocks of capital by war, Piketty shows how an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor has characterized the world’s economies for the last 200 years, and that this tendency is only likely to be exacerbated in the years ahead, particularly given the low rates of growth that currently characterize the advanced industrialized economies.
WWI destroyed monarchy, which had been the primary cause of income inequality throughout history. The world then went into free-fall as it struggled to decide what would replace monarchy. Income moved all around as a result. In 1945, a new norm was established.
Thanks to globalization the working / middle classes in China or India are now closer to their US or European counterparts.
But within each country of the world the differences get bigger and bigger, quite dramatic so.
So, I think most would agree that the first sentence of your quote above is a good thing.
But then we have the second sentence.
Thinking in terms of the poorest third world countries, would "four horsemen" occurrences in any or all parts of the first world somehow alleviate this poverty? It would drive the first world down, yes, but would that do anything at all helpful for the third world?
Likely this is discussed in books mentioned, I will study one or both of them.
The problem with reading these type of books is that it starts with a theory first, and then attempts to justify it via selective pickings from history. I am sure Walter Scheidel is a good historian but I tell everyone to stick to history as a collection of interconnected events, not to use it as a social history to define modern times.
Most scholars agree that inequalities was much greater in ancient times than it is today, although it's difficult to define in terms of metrics. I would refer instead of the OP's book, an older book named "Power and Privledge" by Gerard Lewinski. Lewinski argues that inequalities are determined by surpluses in resources, and in the power structure of the time - eclipsing in agrarian societies and in medieval society monarchies. Technology and social awareness - industrial revolution and the political enlightment that followed, took care of that. Globalization is taking care of the rest. Today I saw with my own eyes growing middle classes in China and India. While salaries may be eroding in the US, they are growing in developing countries. The playing field is being leveled. The world is getting better in terms of equality, all at a time that is probably the most peaceful in world history. It may not seem like it to those used to the "doom and gloom" discourse in social media, but it is.
Yeah you had wars and famine but really how drastically did they change things? What did 20 years of war in the early 19th century, proclaiming the social ideals of the French revolution, prove and change? France went back to a monarchy, essentially where they started, the industrial revolution and sanity changed the rest. What did the revolutionary equality concepts of communism teach us in the 20th century besides the death of 100 million humans as a result of this failed system? Ask N. Korea or Cuba, the only true communist states that still exist. Now it's a dead relic of a previous century.
No great calamity is needed, you don't need revolution, you need evolution.
Thomas Picketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" (2014) comes to the same conclusion. Picketty is a French economist and his book had the economics world spinning its head in 2014.
The key point Piketty makes is: capitalism is inherently structured towards creating and increasing inequality over time, with the rate of return on capital (r) generally being greater than the rate of economic growth (g) over time. Using a unique and exhaustive array of data and statistics Piketty systematically demonstrates how those who possess capital — defined here as all assets that have value — have historically seen their fortunes grow faster than the incomes of the societies of which they are a part.
With the exception of the four decades following the First World War, in which this ‘law’ did not hold due to the destruction of extant stocks of capital by war, Piketty shows how an ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor has characterized the world’s economies for the last 200 years, and that this tendency is only likely to be exacerbated in the years ahead, particularly given the low rates of growth that currently characterize the advanced industrialized economies.
Interesting. Scheidel who is professor for ancient history also cites the Roman or Chinese empires. So the effect seems universal across cultures and times. It is NOT an effect of modern capitalism. This is where I think Piketty focuses too narrowly.
The problem with reading these type of books is that it starts with a theory first, and then attempts to justify it via selective pickings from history. I am sure Walter Scheidel is a good historian but I tell everyone to stick to history as a collection of interconnected events, not to use it as a social history to define modern times.
Most scholars agree that inequalities was much greater in ancient times than it is today, although it's difficult to define in terms of metrics. I would refer instead of the OP's book, an older book named "Power and Privledge" by Gerard Lewinski. Lewinski argues that inequalities are determined by surpluses in resources, and in the power structure of the time - eclipsing in agrarian societies and in medieval society monarchies. Technology and social awareness - industrial revolution and the political enlightment that followed, took care of that. Globalization is taking care of the rest. Today I saw with my own eyes growing middle classes in China and India. While salaries may be eroding in the US, they are growing in developing countries. The playing field is being leveled. The world is getting better in terms of equality, all at a time that is probably the most peaceful in world history. It may not seem like it to those used to the "doom and gloom" discourse in social media, but it is.
Yeah you had wars and famine but really how drastically did they change things? What did 20 years of war in the early 19th century, proclaiming the social ideals of the French revolution, prove and change? France went back to a monarchy, essentially where they started, the industrial revolution and sanity changed the rest. What did the revolutionary equality concepts of communism teach us in the 20th century besides the death of 100 million humans as a result of this failed system? Ask N. Korea or Cuba, the only true communist states that still exist. Now it's a dead relic of a previous century.
No great calamity is needed, you don't need revolution, you need evolution.
I agree there is a problem but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater... there are lessons from history to be learned for the present, as fragmented as human history is. It sure is not like math where from a few basic concepts you can deduct almost everything. History is messy, agreed 100%.
I'm also not trying to alarm but paint a realistic picture. This entails no hope for real wage growth for the lower 70%ile in developed countries - which isn't great but it's also not the end of the world and much better than war, pestilence or bloody revolutions.
Folks, thanks for the lively and civilized discussion. Let's also look at this from a different perspective:
In peaceful times, society becomes more complex. We get more divisions of labor, more specialists, more services and products etc. Just a bunch of good and normal developments.
Complex systems are often governed by power laws. Power laws include extreme distributions of events. Take, for example, earth quakes: we get on average one 9+ super catastrophic earth quake per decade, but we get many small earth quakes any given day. As we add complexity to human society in peaceful times we give rise to the power law that dictates an extremely unequal distribution of income and wealth.
Was anyone else shocked by this thesis / analysis? - I sure was and still am. I mean we can all observe the trend towards inequality on a global scale (except for between developed and emerging countries). But I thought we went too far and will revert again. Well, think again. It will get much more unequal from here, everywhere.
Inequality is natural and good. The best people will always do better. That is fair and just and natural and moral and correct. Equality should not be a goal at all. In fact, it shouldn't even be an issue. Your income is your own problem. To increase it, become more valuable to others. Envy and complaining and "noticing" inequality will not address one's own lack of it.
Inequality is natural and good. The best people will always do better. That is fair and just and natural and moral and correct. Equality should not be a goal at all. In fact, it shouldn't even be an issue. Your income is your own problem. To increase it, become more valuable to others. Envy and complaining and "noticing" inequality will not address one's own lack of it.
On the other hand, were the 1950s as probably the most equal decade in US history really that bad, or "immoral"? We had:
- income tax rates up to 94% redistributing income on a massive scale
- strong labor unions watching over the spread between CEO and average worker pay
- pension plans protecting workers from the first day of work until death; allowing safe retirement at 65
- strong GDP growth and the benefits of this shared much more equally
I can't find anything wrong economically nor morally with this situation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
