Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: TPP and these other trade deals show the end result of capitalism... [View all]ronnie624
(5,764 posts)28. From your link:
When we line up all individuals in the world, from the poorest to the richest (going from left to right on the horizontal axis in Figure 1), and display on the vertical axis the percentage increase in the real income of the equivalent group over the period 19882008, we generate a global growth incidence curve the first of its kind ever, because such data at the global level were not available before. The curve has an unusual supine S shape, indicating that the largest gains were realised by the groups around the global median (50th percentile) and among the global top 1%. But after the global median, the gains rapidly decrease, becoming almost negligible around the 85th90th global percentiles and then shooting up for the global top 1%. As a result, growth in the income of the top ventile (top 5%) accounted for 44% of the increase in global income between 1988 and 2008.
[center]******[/center]
Second, if we take a simplistic, but effective, view that democracy is correlated with a large and vibrant middle class, its continued hollowing-out in the rich world would, combined with growth of incomes at the top, imply a movement away from democracy and towards forms of plutocracy. Could then the developing countries, with their rising middle classes, become more democratic and the US, with its shrinking middle class, less?
Third, and probably the most difficult: What would such movements, if they continue for a couple of decades, imply for global stability? The formation of a global middle class, or the already perceptible homogenisation of the global top 1%, regardless of their nationality, may be both deemed good for world stability and interdependency, and socially bad for individual countries as the rich get delinked from their fellow citizens.
[center]******[/center]
Second, if we take a simplistic, but effective, view that democracy is correlated with a large and vibrant middle class, its continued hollowing-out in the rich world would, combined with growth of incomes at the top, imply a movement away from democracy and towards forms of plutocracy. Could then the developing countries, with their rising middle classes, become more democratic and the US, with its shrinking middle class, less?
Third, and probably the most difficult: What would such movements, if they continue for a couple of decades, imply for global stability? The formation of a global middle class, or the already perceptible homogenisation of the global top 1%, regardless of their nationality, may be both deemed good for world stability and interdependency, and socially bad for individual countries as the rich get delinked from their fellow citizens.
'Wealth disparity' is more about control of resources by elites, than "owning" money. That is where political power lies.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
54 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
TPP and these other trade deals show the end result of capitalism... [View all]
AZ Progressive
Nov 2015
OP
The only transfers that have taken place are those going to the 1%-ers in poor countries.
eridani
Nov 2015
#4
Most of the wealth will disappear when taken, since it is just paper. Then, Americans
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#5
The OP is about capitalism. Apparently, you have no interest in helping poor countries.
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#18
The purpose of an empire is to fuck over countries for the benefit of the 1% everywhere
eridani
Nov 2015
#23
Yeah, poor countries will progress trading among themselves. I thinj they've tried that.
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#31
India has made cheap pharmaceutical knockoffs for years. Very successfully, too.
eridani
Nov 2015
#35
True, but reducing tariffs is just reducing tariffs. It has nothing to do with ISDS and other--
eridani
Nov 2015
#44
FDR's ITO pioneered the concept of neutral arbitration of trade disputes, much more than just
pampango
Nov 2015
#46
Give an example of a tribunal overruling a government in the FDR/Truman era n/t
eridani
Nov 2015
#48
I can't. The republican-controlled congress rejected FDR's ITO. FDR and Truman believed in
pampango
Nov 2015
#52
OK, then how about an example of ISDS overruling any government before NAFTA n/t
eridani
Nov 2015
#53
I care about poor everywhere, and think TPP is one way to help all of them, including those here.
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#37
What is your proposal to help the poor globally? Do nothing, stifle trade, what then?
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#39
Stop big pharma from jacking up prices for generics by stopping TPP, for one n/t
eridani
Nov 2015
#47
Don't think TPP does anything to generics. Well, maybe prevents a. Country from counterfeiting
Hoyt
Nov 2015
#49
Well isn't that a good thing...the end of capitalism? Isn't that what DUers want?
kelliekat44
Nov 2015
#14
And yet the past 20 years have seen the largest *decrease* in global inequality in history
Recursion
Nov 2015
#24
The 1% did even better before FDR when there were no trade agreements and little trade.
pampango
Nov 2015
#41