Home
> Uncategorized > Rising global income inequality is not inevitable in the future
Rising global income inequality is not inevitable in the future
Leave a Reply
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Another indicator that the US, despite the propaganda has not fostered income and wealth fairness for about 40 years. Historically, that’s been the case for well over half the life of the nation. The question: how do we change the long- and short-term trends for the US?
By We The People demanding it Period
According to the polling ‘we the people’ have demanded it since the 1970s. And I remember protests, letters to legislators, and hundreds of petitions over the last 50 years demanding it. Yet US voters keep returning to office legislators and presidents who ignore these demands. It’s time ‘we the people’ become a lot tougher with its demands and the force they exert on politicians. Do they have the courage and strength to do this?
The people don’t see a simple, workable and transformational solution that is decidedly in their self interests, that’s why. That’s what the 50% Discount/Rebate policy at retail sale awakens them to. MLK’s freeing civil rights movement awakened self interested purpose in people, and the freeing effects of the new monetary paradigm will awaken us all and give us the purpose of ending monetary, financial and economic slavery.
Some pessimists affirm that war is the only great leveler. Or, somewhat more rationally, we could say that extreme inequality leads to war — external aggression defuses the internal tensions caused by inequality. War induces/requires internal cohesion, which induces/requires reduced inequality. However, modern (e.g. nuclear) war is not at all “labor-intensive”, and would not “solve the problem” either.
Jorge, war today may not be labor intensive, but up to and including the war in Vietnam, war is very labor intensive. In the US, even today many poor young people or young people with few job prospects join the military. That was even more the case during previous wars. And while WWII decreased both economic inequality and class distinctions, World War I had only slight effect on both of these. The Great Depression effected both more than did WWI. And seldom, in my view does the chaos of war defuse the internal struggles in a nation before the war. The compressed violence, blood, and terror of war mostly just adds the additional problems of mental health and caring for the wounded. I’ve participated in three wars and studied them for most of my life. They seldom cure anything.
Ken Zimmerman
The macroeconomic Profit Law Q=Yd+(I−S)+(G−T)+(X−M) tells one that government deficit-spending/money-creation is the main driver of profit. Thus the Oligarchy’s financial wealth and public debt grow in lockstep. For details see cross-references Profit/Distribution.
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2015/03/profit-cross-references.html
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
My idea and warning were that if nothing is done to rampant inequality, the consequence might in the end be global war(s). An absolute evil, of course.
Jorge, sorry about my misunderstanding. I agree about war being one of the very likely results of “rampaging” economic inequality.
Egmont, I suggest we eliminate both profit and government debt from all economists’ equations. Both were invented for nefarious purposes.
Ken Zimmerman
You say: “Another indicator that the US, despite the propaganda has not fostered income and wealth fairness for about 40 years. Historically, that’s been the case for well over half the life of the nation. The question: how do we change the long- and short-term trends for the US?”
You say also: “Egmont, I suggest we eliminate both profit and government debt from all economists’ equations.”
No, because the macroeconomic Profit Law shows us how to effectively “change the long- and short-term trends for the US.”#1
You say: “It’s time ‘we the people’ become a lot tougher with its demands and the force they exert on politicians.” Toughness, though, does not help much. In order to improve the economy, one must know precisely how the machinery works. If one wants to get a plane/rocket off the ground one needs scientific knowledge, wishful thinking or “tough demands” do NOT help. It is the same with economic policy.#2
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
#1 The surefire way to abolish billionaires
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-surefire-way-to-abolish-billionaires.html
#2 Right policy depends on true theory
https://axecorg.blogspot.com/2019/07/right-policy-depends-on-true-theory.html
Egmont, there are no laws (in the universal, everywhere “sciencee” sense) in human societies and cultures. There are rules that people create to explain themselves and the events they perceive around them, guide their actions. And since humans create all the physical sciences, as well the same can be said for physical laws. What humans take as fixed and universal, as laws is usually the result of limited humans perspectives. For example, most physicists are now certain that the speed of light is not fixed. It seems fixed due to these limitations. It seems unlikely, in light of the remarks above that any equation or group of equations can change any trends, economic or otherwise. In most instances we don’t have that kind of control. Sometimes, no control at all. Social scientists, the honest ones, have hit the government, the wealthy, and their fellow scientists with scientific facts for decades. The result, moves toward authoritarianism grow stronger and economic inequality gets bigger and bigger. This is a political fight, and a dirty one.