Egalitarian poverty
A report came out showing an increased "wage gap" from the "top 20%" and those lower.
Inequality is growing in all parts of the country," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, which conducted the study along with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Found URL: http://www.epinet.org/
No real time to coment but I am curious about the bigger trend than recent globalization towards likely relocatization in the future as fossil fuels begin to fail to keep up with world demand and prices continue sky-rocketing.
Cheap energy seems to me to be the primary mover that has "raised all boats". A good analysis would not compare wealth to 50 years ago in the peak of U.S. power but perhaps better to 150 years ago, even if the U.S. may be too young for that analysis, but even so, how about Europe faired then under the industrial revolution. Maybe there's no backwards-vision that can enlighten our future post-industrial age when energy can't play the role its played to bring us here.
Still, it makes sense that declining resources will as likely as not continue increasing the "wage gap". Democracy works at least partly because a wide variety of people can participate, but as times get tougher, those with money will simply continue more influence and will reflect their vision of necessity over those with less wealth, and so we'd have to expect a "powerdown" stage of culture will be either lead by the wealthy into carefully maintaining their positions, or into chaos of revolution where the wealthy will just retreat to other locations that will appreciate them better.
What will happen in Saudi Arabia when the oil starts to run dry? How many prices can they support? Even without declines, they are a doomed land, and any intelligent "prince" must be looking to make investments all around, for places to bring their families if revolution or great-downturn occurs.
If we want to evaluate the U.S. wage disparity, how about Saudi Arabia? Maybe they don't have 20% royalty, but whatever it is, it must look grim from the middle looking up.
I am probably an elitist myself, recognizing that "freedom" is a luxury only of a growing society, one which is always generating new wealth to those who work hard and are smart enough to take what they can get.
I can't imagine "freedom" can be a "democratic" principle in a contracting society, one where everyone knows however hard today is, tomorrow will be harder. I suppose it'll be a long time before such realization is admitted by the masses, but any sort of contraction of opportunities and necessary expectations will cause instability, and some sort of tension between those who "have enough" who want law and order and those who "have too little" and are willing to fight.
Maybe the "lottery" is a good example. People would rather invest $1 in a 1:100,000,000 odds than $1 in a 1:10 odds, even both return only half as much as the odds demand fairly back.
Society works because there's surplus generated that can be invested in the hands of the minority for the good of the majority. Well, something like that.
Who would build the power plants if everyone is living on the poverty line? Who would invest in the future?
I can play a noble republican upon request, even if I'm not really smart enough to stay very long on the self-rightousness of meritocracy.
Still, a socialistic government must be foolish to act upon the "fairness" belief that allows the top 1% to pay in 80% taxes, or whatever. If you "use" wealthy people, you will "lose" their interest in their own desires to invest in the system that lifted them.
I can imagine wealthy people seriously considering "their needs" as greater than "the masses" who would just squander direct charity. Wealth isn't a treasure chest - it is a vision of investment that creates new wealth.
Well, then I come back to the old oil thing - what is wealth REALLY IS a TREASURE CHEST? What if it exists as an inheritence we've been spending as fast as we can?
I think the "concentration" of resources is still valuable in times of scarcity. I'm just not sure who is most able to make good use of this concentration. People with wealth might be those most able to invest it in a future that benefits everyone, OR they may just invest in their own security to keep their position on top. I certainly don't trust "government" necessarily much more, at least above the level of community and personal representation.
So I guess I do see the future's wealth disparity must change, hopefully cooperatively, although I have my doubts. It'd probably take a full generation to weed out those confuses as to our needs.
So I'll pick 2010-2040 as the "transition period" of wide scale chaos and uncertainty as everyone tries to figure out which expectations are real and worth fighting for. If we've not ironed things out by 2040, then I expect the world will be a grim grim place.
Inequality is growing in all parts of the country," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, which conducted the study along with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Found URL: http://www.epinet.org/
No real time to coment but I am curious about the bigger trend than recent globalization towards likely relocatization in the future as fossil fuels begin to fail to keep up with world demand and prices continue sky-rocketing.
Cheap energy seems to me to be the primary mover that has "raised all boats". A good analysis would not compare wealth to 50 years ago in the peak of U.S. power but perhaps better to 150 years ago, even if the U.S. may be too young for that analysis, but even so, how about Europe faired then under the industrial revolution. Maybe there's no backwards-vision that can enlighten our future post-industrial age when energy can't play the role its played to bring us here.
Still, it makes sense that declining resources will as likely as not continue increasing the "wage gap". Democracy works at least partly because a wide variety of people can participate, but as times get tougher, those with money will simply continue more influence and will reflect their vision of necessity over those with less wealth, and so we'd have to expect a "powerdown" stage of culture will be either lead by the wealthy into carefully maintaining their positions, or into chaos of revolution where the wealthy will just retreat to other locations that will appreciate them better.
What will happen in Saudi Arabia when the oil starts to run dry? How many prices can they support? Even without declines, they are a doomed land, and any intelligent "prince" must be looking to make investments all around, for places to bring their families if revolution or great-downturn occurs.
If we want to evaluate the U.S. wage disparity, how about Saudi Arabia? Maybe they don't have 20% royalty, but whatever it is, it must look grim from the middle looking up.
I am probably an elitist myself, recognizing that "freedom" is a luxury only of a growing society, one which is always generating new wealth to those who work hard and are smart enough to take what they can get.
I can't imagine "freedom" can be a "democratic" principle in a contracting society, one where everyone knows however hard today is, tomorrow will be harder. I suppose it'll be a long time before such realization is admitted by the masses, but any sort of contraction of opportunities and necessary expectations will cause instability, and some sort of tension between those who "have enough" who want law and order and those who "have too little" and are willing to fight.
Maybe the "lottery" is a good example. People would rather invest $1 in a 1:100,000,000 odds than $1 in a 1:10 odds, even both return only half as much as the odds demand fairly back.
Society works because there's surplus generated that can be invested in the hands of the minority for the good of the majority. Well, something like that.
Who would build the power plants if everyone is living on the poverty line? Who would invest in the future?
I can play a noble republican upon request, even if I'm not really smart enough to stay very long on the self-rightousness of meritocracy.
Still, a socialistic government must be foolish to act upon the "fairness" belief that allows the top 1% to pay in 80% taxes, or whatever. If you "use" wealthy people, you will "lose" their interest in their own desires to invest in the system that lifted them.
I can imagine wealthy people seriously considering "their needs" as greater than "the masses" who would just squander direct charity. Wealth isn't a treasure chest - it is a vision of investment that creates new wealth.
Well, then I come back to the old oil thing - what is wealth REALLY IS a TREASURE CHEST? What if it exists as an inheritence we've been spending as fast as we can?
I think the "concentration" of resources is still valuable in times of scarcity. I'm just not sure who is most able to make good use of this concentration. People with wealth might be those most able to invest it in a future that benefits everyone, OR they may just invest in their own security to keep their position on top. I certainly don't trust "government" necessarily much more, at least above the level of community and personal representation.
So I guess I do see the future's wealth disparity must change, hopefully cooperatively, although I have my doubts. It'd probably take a full generation to weed out those confuses as to our needs.
So I'll pick 2010-2040 as the "transition period" of wide scale chaos and uncertainty as everyone tries to figure out which expectations are real and worth fighting for. If we've not ironed things out by 2040, then I expect the world will be a grim grim place.
posted by Ares Olympus at 8:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home