warb17 over on Reddit has this wonderfully depressing summary.
- There's so much more to this than just the headline though. The full report is staggering, and gives a fantastic critique of neoliberal policy. Some of the additional statistics incude:
Over the next 20 years, 500 people will hand over $2.1 trillion to their heirs – a sum larger than the GDP of India, a country of 1.3 billion people
The incomes of the poorest 10% of people increased by less than $3 a year between 1988 and 2011, while the incomes of the richest 1% increased 182 times as much.
one in nine people still go to bed hungry. Had growth been pro- poor between 1990 and 2010, 700 million more people, most of them women, would not be living in poverty today.
three-quarters of extreme poverty could in fact be eliminated now using existing resources, by increasing taxation and cutting down on military and other regressive spending.
over the last 25 years, the top 1% have gained more income than the bottom 50% put together.
Big businesses did well in 2015/16: profits are high and the world‟s 10 biggest corporations together have revenue greater than that of the government revenue of 180 countries combined.
In the 1980s, cocoa farmers received 18% of the value of a chocolate bar – today they get just 6%.
The International Labour Organization estimates that 21 million people are forced labourers, generating an estimated $150bn in profits each year.
The world‟s largest garment companies have all been linked to cotton-spinning mills in India, which routinely use the forced labour of girls.
Apple allegedly paid 0.005% of tax on its European profits in 2014.
Kenya is losing $1.1bn every year in tax exemptions for corporations, nearly twice its budget for health – this in a country where women have a 1 in 40 chance of dying childbirth.
In the UK, 10% of profits were returned to shareholders in 1970; this figure is now 70%.
Thirty years ago, pension funds owned 30% of shares in the UK; now they own only 3%.
The world‟s third richest man, Carlos Slim, controls approximately 70% of all mobile phone services and 65% of fixed lines in Mexico, costing 2% of GDP.
The 1,810 billionaires on the 2016 Forbes list, 89% of whom are men, own $6.5 trillion – as much wealth as the bottom 70% of humanity.
one-third of the world‟s billionaire wealth is derived from inherited wealth, while 43% can be linked to cronyism.
the wealth held by the super- rich since 2009 has increased by an average of 11% per year. If billionaires continue to secure these returns, we could see the world‟s first trillionaire in 25 years.
The fortune of Bill Gates has risen 50% or $25bn since he left Microsoft in 2006, despite his commendable efforts to give much of it away.
Countries compete to attract the super-rich, selling their sovereignty. For an investment of at least £2m, you can buy the right to live, work and buy property in the UK and benefit from generous tax breaks. In Malta, a major tax haven, you can buy full citizenship for $650,000.
$7.6 trillion of wealth is hidden offshore.
Africa alone loses $14bn in tax revenues due to the super-rich using tax havens – Oxfam has calculated this would be enough to pay for the healthcare that could save the lives of four million children and to employ enough teachers to get every African child into school.
In the US, the top rate of income tax was 70% as recently as 1980; it is now 40%.43 In the developing world, taxation on the rich is lower still: Oxfam‟s research shows that the average top rate is 30% on incomes, and the majority is never collected.
That's from just the first 5 pages (out of 48), and I still skipped things. In addition to sharing information, the report labels several key economic assumptions as false. The myths that markets are fair, that GDP growth is an appropriate goal, that the economy is gender-neutral, and that excessive individual wealth is benign & a sign of success; all are addressed. The report was horrifying to read but also a wonderful refutation of neoliberalism.
Thanks to the wonders of compound interest, you're either going to be on the long tail of never getting ahead or the rapid ski jump of wealth accumulation. If we, as a society, want to prevent that we need to tax the rich more. Full stop. The TL;DR of Piketty's Capital is Rich will get richer And the poor will get poorer Unless you fight hard
I've thought about this overnight and while what you say makes some sense, it's unsatisfying and doesn't seem to me to paint the whole picture that creates an overwhelming sense of unfairness. The unfairness goes beyond compound interest. It's tax evasion, tax shelters, and tax loopholes. It's undermining efforts to protect the environment, public health, and the best interest of the public in general. Many people at the top aren't just holding all the cards, they're stacking the deck, and changing the rules of the game every time they deal out a new hand.
Neoliberalism has problems particularly when it is not able to produce jobs for masses,and is benefitting skilled middle class. In India about 43% of people are dependent on agriculture for livelihood, and my firm belief is that government must encourage Agriculture related industries with forward and backward linkages,so that people can lift themselves above poverty. But, market forces are not creating the required jobs and manufacturing and services sector which require skilled labour are not able to absorb poor people. With respect to inequality what i believe is,as said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” --Winston Churchill
Market agriculture is an industry particularly sensitive to capital accumulation. In order to compete globally it must be input-intensive and highly automated; agriculture involvement in the United States dropped from 70% to 4% over the past 100 years. The only way to protect workers is to directly protect workers.
To compete globally it has to be input intensive and highly automated,agreed. Yes, this will increase productivity and increase income of farmers.But, ain't automation take away jobs in labour surplus countries like India and China( These are the countries of absolute poverty,um, not so sure about China though)? But, as you are referring to US ( Here relative poverty exists) where involvement went down from 70% to 4%,as it transitioned towards manufacturing and finally towards service sector driven economy. By, agricultural based industries I was thinking to utilise Village based industries model as propounded by Gandhi, in a labour surplus, job deficient country. But,here, in my opinion, you are referring towards Lewis model for Economic development of shifting surplus labour from agriculture (where marginal productivity is almost zero) towards manufacturing sector. You are probably right, India almost skipped manufacturing sector in terms of contribution towards GDP and jumped directly from Agrarian to service Service sector based economy( Which prefers white collar skilled jobs and hence the inequality),and hence we have our story of jobless growth! But with regard to China I can't get the scene, they initially worked very well for increasing agriculture productivity, then under Deng Xiaoping went under transformation towards manufacturing( mostly low value added) , but still poverty and inequality exists there, may be population problem. WIth respect to directly protecting the workers, yes i do feel that liberalisation has resulted in more and more informalisation of economy,and lesser social security measures to workers.But, the current mood of the governments across the world seems to be labour reforms making it pro business. Directly protecting workers may be helpful in US, in India we have to expand manufacturing and business for job creation, so the pro business reforms are taking place here. Okay, let the capital be generated but its redistribution must be effective and government must seriously focus on social sector such as education, health and skilling of workforce.
It comes down to what you want the agriculture for. The US uses its agriculture as a weapon. We give and we taketh away, hedgerow to hedgerow. Thus, we've had ferocious incentive to grow as much food as we can so we can use it for soft power leverage. There's no reason why an agrarian society can't stay agrarian, why a self-sufficient village can't stay self-sufficient. However, you almost have to avoid globalism entirely because the World Bank will totally help you plant your crops with just a cute little loan but you should do it this way and then think of all the money you can spend on schools! and now just another little loan and we'll get that irrigation project up and running and now we own you. So if you want a country competing with the big boys to subsistence farm, you need heavy protections for workers. At least, that's my read on the situation. If you want to be Bhutan, things are a little easier. The basic problem is capital accumulation keeps mildly unsuccessful farmers impoverished and makes mildly successful businessmen wealthy enough to buy and sell their friends. And if you don't strive to protect the former from the latter, that's just what they'll do.
This might be the most optimistic thing I've heard in a while.
It is a viewpoint forged by, in addition to everything else, reading two thirds of this pig. Things basically get better for everybody until a minority gets prosecuted too much and then all hell breaks loose and persecutions screw everyone. That's true from Babylon to Brussels. Welcome back, BTW.