A Global Picture Of Income Inequality

[WIP]

From an Oxfam report on the costs of inequality, if growing income and wealth inequality wasn't bad enough on a national level, it's even worse if we examine what the global one percenters: "the incomes of the top 1% of the world’s population have increased 60% in the past twenty years." An analysis at CounterPunch of the report, adds related information on how the growing wealth gap degrades democratic government and increases energy consumption and environmental degradation:

Last year alone, the world’s 100 richest people earned a combined additional income of $241 billion. According to new calculations, redistributing just a quarter of this vast quantity of money would enable governments to wipe out extreme poverty for an entire year. Unfortunately for the

40,000 people who die needlessly every day

from poverty-related causes, these billionaires are as unlikely to share their earnings voluntarily as governments are to enact policies that redistribute their excessive incomes more fairly across society.

Also highlighted in the Oxfam briefing is the way extreme wealth can damage democracy, especially through the enormous influence over the political process that money and power can buy. Many billions of dollars are spent each year by the financial industry and large corporations in lobbying politicians to pursue a market friendly agenda – the same neoliberal policies that have widened inequalities and eventually led to a global financial collapse in 2008.

Policies that exaggerate inequality have also been a key driver of environmental degradation, as people in rich nations consume far more than their fair share of the earth’s finite resources. As Oxfam also previously highlighted in a discussion paper on

planetary boundaries

, it will be impossible to address ecological and social crises unless we share available resources more equitably and sustainably. The aim of development and environmental policy must be to ensure that people in all nations can secure their basic needs without transgressing environmental limits.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, within countries inequality is increasing however global trade is bringing millions from sustenance living to a higher state - http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTABCDE/Resources/7455676-1292528456380/7626791-1303141641402/7878676-1306270833789/Parallel-Session-6-Francois_Bourguignon.pdf .

World Hunger is decreasing, and wealth is increasing overall. Global Trade is the way, there's no turning back. There are additional benefits in international interdependence and dialogue as well.

The problem is that the economic game allows multinationals to play countries off against each other. If we're really removing national borders, we need to harmonize minimum levels of care and allow labour to move so that power is balanced. But there's no turning back the clock on Global Trade - unless you have something new and specific to suggest.

[TimG]

If we're really removing national borders, we need to harmonize minimum levels of care and allow labour to move so that power is balanced.

This can never happen because different countries have different desires when it comes to paying for a social safety net and social safety nets mean that labour migration must be restricted to prevent the nets from being overloaded by migrants.

[Michael Hardner]

This can never happen because different countries have different desires when it comes to paying for a social safety net and social safety nets mean that labour migration must be restricted to prevent the nets from being overloaded by migrants.

Harmonize doesn't mean equalize. Also, some things aren't a matter of paid benefits, but rights.

If migration is a problem for people, isn't that just a reflection of a skewed market ?

[TimG]

Harmonize doesn't mean equalize. Also, some things aren't a matter of paid benefits, but rights.

That does not change the fact that there is no political desire to 'harmonize' minimum levels of care unless you are talking about the lowest common denominator. And even then, countries will no effective court system would not be able to promise that these levels will be enforced.

If migration is a problem for people, isn't that just a reflection of a skewed market?

That is my point. Free migration of labour is not an option on the table.

[Michael Hardner]

That does not change the fact that there is no political desire to 'harmonize' minimum levels of care unless you are talking about the lowest common denominator. And even then, countries will no effective court system would not be able to promise that these levels will be enforced.

Well, the future is for change - we can do it.

That is my point. Free migration of labour is not an option on the table.

It's definitely talked about and on the radar.

[TimG]

Well, the future is for change - we can do it.

Except no one wants the change that you describe.

It's definitely talked about and on the radar.

Really? Where? It is certainly not on the agenda of any major country (unless you are talking about moves to further restrict labour mobility).

[Michael Hardner]

Except no one wants the change that you describe.

Hundreds of millions of Chinese don't want the right to decide on their leadership ? People in Asia and worldwide don't want to live the American way ?

Really? Where? It is certainly not on the agenda of any major country (unless you are talking about moves to further restrict labour mobility).

You're correct.

[TimG]

Hundreds of millions of Chinese don't want the right to decide on their leadership ? People in Asia and worldwide don't want to live the American way?

What do these things have to do with 'harmonizing minimum levels of care'? To me this implies EU style regulations that force countries to adopt the same levels of social support. As desire for democracy or more wealth does not equate with a desire to give up the right to decide on 'minimum levels of care'. Edited January 25, 2013 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

What do these things have to do with 'harmonizing minimum levels of care'? To me this implies EU style regulations that force countries to adopt the same levels of social support. As desire for democracy or more wealth does not equate with a desire to give up the right to decide on 'minimum levels of care'.

Care as in consideration. As I said, it's not about cutting a cheque. If individual countries continue the trend of competing for capital instead of competing for people, then people will push back one way or another.

[WIP]

Yes, within countries inequality is increasing however global trade is bringing millions from sustenance living to a higher state - http://siteresources...Bourguignon.pdf .

World Hunger is decreasing, and wealth is increasing overall. Global Trade is the way, there's no turning back. There are additional benefits in international interdependence and dialogue as well.

The problem is that the economic game allows multinationals to play countries off against each other. If we're really removing national borders, we need to harmonize minimum levels of care and allow labour to move so that power is balanced. But there's no turning back the clock on Global Trade - unless you have something new and specific to suggest.

That report isn't worth the paper it's written on....or server space....since reducing starvation and malnutrition depends on increasing the global food supply....since population is still increasing. These kind of reports are like driving along looking through your rearview mirror, rather than at what's coming up ahead. Globalization has been the source of increases in wealth and poverty around the world. And globalization has been the tool for agribusiness -- which has provided short term increases in agricultural production at a very high long term cost; because Big Ag depends on using up land and water at an unsustainable rate that will leave nothing but dry, empty fields even if there are still oil-based fertilizers at low cost. Local, traditional agriculture was already struggling to feed 3 billion people in the world, but rather than the route we followed over the last 40 years, the emphasis should have been put on maintaining the hard limits to population growth, rather than feeding 7 billion people with food that cannot be produced for long term. Local agriculture was more resilient to weather and climate changes, as we are finding out now with the disasters occurring in the areas of intense monoculture farming that are hit with floods, droughts and record temperature changes. These new hybrid plants were designed for very specific growing conditions, which are changing right before our eyes.

Along with rising population, climate disruptions are causing higher crop losses from floods, fires and droughts around the world. It will be awhile yet before the impacts on agriculture from the latest record-breaking heat waves in Australia can be factored in, but in the last few years it's been one disaster after another, that has taken Australia out as a major grain exporter. Their contributions were factored in to grain harvest projection in the coming decades. As climate change increases in intensity, we can expect the same food growing disaster stories occurring more often in the more temperate growing regions like the U.S., Canada and Russia. And there is that other problem with agribusiness -- the overshooting of available water and topsoil depletion. Eventually these debts to nature have to be payed! On the current track, water use for human consumption, agriculture, industry and mining, has doubled every 20 years. How long can this be expected to go on for? The growth in global inequality indicates that the future will have less sharing of food and other resources, so I don't see any path to reducing hunger....it is actually not declining right now, and will soon begin to rise dramatically as grain prices rise.

[Michael Hardner]

That report isn't worth the paper it's written on....or server space....since reducing starvation and malnutrition depends on increasing the global food supply....since population is still increasing.

These kind of reports are like driving along looking through your rearview mirror, rather than at what's coming up ahead. Globalization has been the source of increases in wealth and poverty around the world. And globalization has been the tool for agribusiness -- which has provided short term increases in agricultural production at a very high long term cost; because Big Ag depends on using up land and water at an unsustainable rate that will leave nothing but dry, empty fields even if there are still oil-based fertilizers at low cost. Local, traditional agriculture was already struggling to feed 3 billion people in the world, but rather than the route we followed over the last 40 years, the emphasis should have been put on maintaining the hard limits to population growth, rather than feeding 7 billion people with food that cannot be produced for long term. Local agriculture was more resilient to weather and climate changes, as we are finding out now with the disasters occurring in the areas of intense monoculture farming that are hit with floods, droughts and record temperature changes. These new hybrid plants were designed for very specific growing conditions, which are changing right before our eyes.

Yes, it's kind of a general pessimism that I don't really understand. Population increase is slowing, and at a certain point it will slow even more quickly. There's also a kind of refusal to acknowledge improvements that goes with this perspective of misery. Not that the globalist perspective of shiny future is any more realistic - really they're bookends with a generally optimistic future lying between them.

[Canuckistani]

Wow, maybe read what WIP wrote again.

[Michael Hardner]

Wow, maybe read what WIP wrote again.

It can be best summarized with

Eventually these debts to nature have to be payed!

...which I heard in a different form in the 1970s, and world hunger is much less of a problem then it was then.

Like I say, optimism and pessimism are the outer markers of the reality here.

[eyeball]

Michael is definitely the happiest frog in the pot.

[Michael Hardner]

Michael is definitely the happiest frog in the pot.

Your analogy fails - the frogs don't know they're in the pot.

[Guest Manny]

Michael is definitely the happiest frog in the pot.

Sounds like a bunch of hope and change hooey to me. Democracy doesn't bring equality, just changes the rules of the game a bit for the elite. But in no case are they ever denied their pounds of flesh. You can call it democracy, or anything else. It's just a nice word. You can call it "Peggy Sue".

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds like a bunch of hope and change hooey to me. Democracy doesn't bring equality, just changes the rules of the game a bit for the elite. But in no case are they ever denied their pounds of flesh. You can call it democracy, or anything else. It's just a nice word. You can call it "Peggy Sue".

Hmmm. Democracy doesn't bring equality ? This helps make my case for blind pessimism.

[Guest Manny]

Hmmm. Democracy doesn't bring equality ? This helps make my case for blind pessimism.

I guess it depends on how we slice it up and define "equality". But even so, in any society there are elements who do not want equality. Democracy does not remove their power or influence.

In fact one could argue that inequality is the driving engine of our system.

[Canuckistani]

I guess it depends on how we slice it up and define "equality". But even so, in any society there are elements who do not want equality. Democracy does not remove their power or influence.

In fact one could argue that inequality is the driving engine of our system.

I agree, and within limits that's a good thing. People striving to get ahead of others is a prime motivator - without it we would still be grovelling in the mud. Grog discovers fire - what do you think he's doing it for? He wants to have his genes passed on, by attracting women and giving his kids a better chance of survival. The thing is that Grog already knew something some of us forget these days - cooperating with others can also give your own genes a better chance of survival. We'll never have true equality because people are just not equal. But the smart ones have learned to also put limits on this striving to better the other, because with limits we have a win win situation. So for our modern economies, the Scandinavian countries seem to have figured out the right balance more than anybody else.

But what WIP was talking about was Grog's and our drive to pass on those genes even when the environment won't support it. Like yeast in a sugar solution, say, or the Easter Islanders, or the Hare Lynx cycle. What keeps species from crashing are natural limits to their growth. We as humans act as if those limits don't apply, and have found ways to subvert those limits. We won't be able to keep that up for ever.

[TimG]

So for our modern economies, the Scandinavian countries seem to have figured out the right balance more than anybody else.

No. The Scandinavian countries have found a model that works for small homogeneous countries. It is not a model that can be adopted by different countries with different geography and different ethnic make up.

We as humans act as if those limits don't apply, and have found ways to subvert those limits. We won't be able to keep that up for ever.

However, the world has consistently proven doomsayers like WIP wrong. There comes a time when doomsayers become too tedious to listen to. Edited January 27, 2013 by TimG

[WIP]

Yes, it's kind of a general pessimism that I don't really understand. Population increase is slowing, and at a certain point it will slow even more quickly. There's also a kind of refusal to acknowledge improvements that goes with this perspective of misery. Not that the globalist perspective of shiny future is any more realistic - really they're bookends with a generally optimistic future lying between them.

There was a study that came out last year which found most people are unreasonably or even irrationally optimistic. Optimism starts becoming delusional when it gets in the way of taking serious actions to deal with problems. We could say that people living in flood plains, who keep rebuilding their houses after they are periodically flooded out are also optimists, but that kind of optimism is not very helpful.

These issues of overpopulation, environmental degradation and over-exploitation of resources, have been mostly understood for more than 40 years now. There has been an assumption by optimistic forecasters that when things really get bad, people will be shaken out of their complacency en mass, and demand action to be taken to solve the problem But the reality is that, as the crisis gets closer, optimists go along with putting short term gain ahead of long term risk of damage, and go with the theory that someone will come along with an invention or some great idea that will solve all of our problems.

[WIP]

However, the world has consistently proven doomsayers like WIP wrong. There comes a time when doomsayers become too tedious to listen to.

And there comes a time when those in love with oil, and deniers of global warming, become too tedious to listen to.

[WIP]

Sounds like a bunch of hope and change hooey to me. Democracy doesn't bring equality, just changes the rules of the game a bit for the elite. But in no case are they ever denied their pounds of flesh. You can call it democracy, or anything else. It's just a nice word. You can call it "Peggy Sue".

Democracy certainly encourages equality; and that may be one of the prime reasons why conservatives are so hostile to democracy. Their goal of creating an authoritarian society makes it essential to weaken or cripple democratic institutions, so that the ruling class doesn't have to take the great unwashed masses seriously.

[WIP]

But what WIP was talking about was Grog's and our drive to pass on those genes even when the environment won't support it. Like yeast in a sugar solution, say, or the Easter Islanders, or the Hare Lynx cycle. What keeps species from crashing are natural limits to their growth. We as humans act as if those limits don't apply, and have found ways to subvert those limits. We won't be able to keep that up for ever.

That's true. But the problem is that the way we have been subverting the limits is by overshooting renewable resources like water and topsoil, and using up so many non-renewables that most are already past peak production. Eventually nature will reign us in, just like it does with rabbits or deer who live in isolated, protected areas with no predators, and eat up all the available food. We're supposed to be the animals who can plan for the future....but so far, there's no sign of it.