Global inequality from 1960 to 2017
Leave a comment Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Real-World Economics Review
WEA Books
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- Lost opportunities?
- The problem with electric vehicles
- There ain’t no libertarians, just politicians who want to give all the money to the rich
- Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- Weekend read - A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- Comments on RWER issue no. 69
- Distribution and redistribution of wealth in USA
- Econometrics and the art of putting the rabbit in the hat
- Weekend read: What caused the stagflation of the 1970s? Answer: Monetarism
"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein
Regular Contributors
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- sackergeoff on With a modest financial transactions tax, Jim Simons would not have been superrich
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- David Harold Chester on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- pfeffertag on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- CBASILOVECCHIO on Weekend read – A STIGLITZ ERROR?
- Arbo on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- spamletblog on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- bckcdb on Economics — a dismal and harmful science
- David Harold Chester on Real-world economists take note!
- Patrick Newman on Real-world economists take note!
- deshoebox on Real-world economists take note!
- felipefrs on The non-existence of economic laws
- Seeker on The non-existence of economic laws
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
How elegant! How beautiful! The global capitalist system working exactly as it is supposed to work.
The graph is not legible
That is perhaps the key point!
I’d like a link to an original of this animation. It would be particularly interesting to be able to view it;
(a) in a larger version with better resolution;
(b) with the ability to vary the cycling speed and to pause it at any point;
Of particular interest are those pauses or hiatuses where the “north” circle halted temporarily in its progress and even slipped backwards slightly. What economic conditions or crises do those pauses correlate with?
Also, the animation is of interest in possibly debunking Steve Pinker style techno-optimism and capitalist booster-ism along with possibly debunking the general idea that progress (so-called) is reducing inequality.
At the same time, we have to be very careful of GDP measures as such. Blair Fix has published a paper on the CasP (Capital as Power) site titled “The Aggregation Problem: Implications for Ecological and Biophysical Economics”. This paper shows, in clear empirical terms, how the GDP measure is fundamentally fallacious. Thence, any claim that the GDP measure actually measures real things including human well-being is also fallacious. On the other hand, following CasP theory and method, we can say that the GDP measure, in its nominal dollars does accurately reflect real power to order and re-order the world. I would say it reflects all power of the types oligarchic, plutocratic, kleptocratic, corporate and generally, capitalist.
On this last CasP measure, the differential (relative) capital power of the global north has increased over the period in question. However, differential capital power only prevails while it is not challenged in its own terms and also importantly while it is not challenged by any other form of power. The older and still underlying form of power, before and underlying the power of capital, is the power of brute force. This is true even when brute force or brute power is technologically applied.
While the global north has outstripped the global south in capital power, the picture with regard to real power, real force, may be different. The global south continues to outstrip the global north in the growth of raw demographic numbers. Real bodies and real brains exert their own kind of power, en masse, on the course of global events. The global south, mainly under the aegis of China but also of other regions, continues to amass the loci of real production, to industrialize and concentrate technological production.
The real quantities of industrial and technological production (and the real quantities of raw material inputs into real production) are now so massively in the favor of China and some other parts of the Global South, that it begs the following question. Of what use is the possession of capital as power in the face of the possession of real production for power? To exaggerate matters, where does the power lie when China makes everything and the rest of the world makes nothing? This may be an extreme characterization but it is indicative of the current real trend. Of course, this trend will have limits but where are these limits?
This position surely is not lost on China’s geo-strategists. Indeed, if Marxists understood capitalism well enough to understand that the natural processes of capitalism themselves would support the relocation of industrial and technological production to the global south (China in particular) because of global labor arbitrage, then the natural decision would be to become capitalist for a duration for the purposes of furthering domestic industrial and technological development. Then, when that process was substantially complete, the natural decision would be to revert to statism and protectionism (some form of non-capitalism basically) to prevent the outflow of real industrial and technological production in the long term; i.e. to continue with the statist monopoly on global real industrial and technological production.
To further this strategy, the creation of the basis for an alternative security and financial system would also be pursued. This is the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, or Shanghai Pact; a Eurasian political, economic, and security organization. To go along with this is the OBOR (One Belt, One Road) policy to bring raw materials and resources into China by multiple paths, land as well sea, ina manner intended to make China’s trade routes as non-interdictable as possible. Coastal, China Sea and other defenses are implemented to extend the controlling range and cover of land, island and islet based air and missile defence assets over ports, coastal seas and coastal trade routes.
All of this is in response to the US and Nato containment policy of China. It is a natural reaction to such pressure. It is a brute fact of geostrategy when seen in the light of theories such as “offensive Realism”. Of course, ultimately there is the strategic stalemate enforced by nuclear weapons and the logic of MAD (mutually assured destruction). Within that stalemate, there is room for secondary and subtle moves. A subtle move, if China so planned it, would have been to turn capitalist to become the center of global industrial and technological production, and then to revert in a planned manner to statism and protectionism to fix industrial and technological dominance in China. Any great power, if it knew what it was doing, would do this. Great Powers are amoral and self defending. It’s a realpolitik and offensive realism fact, however lamentable the fact might be.
Thence, the issue is one of brinkmanship. The pressure on the US, NATO and the rest of the world basically has to be less then that pressure which would provoke direct open war, likely escalating to nuclear war. The most patient and far-sighted power would be prepared to run ten year, hundred year and five hundred year plans to further these ends. China certainly has the history and civilizational depth to think in such a way.
Of course, there are many limits, natural and geostrategic, to this kind of strategy. But certainly, we cannot assume that the capitalist ordering of the global economy is somehow naturally or algorithmic-ally predestined (via autocatlytic sprawl of its formal system algorithms) to be interminable. Nor can we assume one particular form of formal power (conferred by the formal system of capital) will continue to rule over other formal forms of power which can reorder real power in parallel to or in manners subverting and then supplanting capital power, as the China example illustrates is at least theoretically possible for a Great Power to execute.