311014
PUDI report - Regular reports on the growing Poverty,
Unemployment, Debt and Inequality of the neo-capitalist world
globinfo
freexchange
Highlights:
Many
feel that some economic inequality is acceptable as long as those who
study and work hard are able to succeed and become richer. This idea
is deeply entrenched in popular narratives and reinforced through
dozens of Hollywood films, whose rags-to-riches stories continue to
feed the myth of the American Dream around the world.
Experimental
research has shown just how important fairness is to most
individuals, contrary to the prevailing assumption that people have
an inherent tendency to pursue self-interest.*
Many
believe that inequality is somehow inevitable, or is a necessary
consequence of globalization and technological progress. But the
experiences of different countries throughout history have shown
that, in fact, deliberate political and economic choices can lead to
greater inequality. There are two powerful economic and political
drivers of inequality, which go a long way to explaining the extremes
seen today: market fundamentalism and the capture of power by
economic elites.**
...
as economist Thomas Piketty demonstrated in Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, without government intervention, the market
economy tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority,
causing inequality to rise. Despite this, in recent years economic
thinking has been dominated by a ‘market fundamentalist’
approach, that insists that sustained economic growth only comes from
reducing government interventions and leaving markets to their own
devices. However, this undermines the regulation and taxation that
are needed to keep inequality in check.
In
the 1980s and 1990s, debt crises saw countries in Latin America,
Africa, Asia and the former Eastern bloc subjected to a cold shower
of deregulation, rapid reductions in public spending, privatization,
financial and trade liberalization, generous tax cuts for
corporations and the wealthy, and a ‘race to the bottom’ to
weaken labour rights. Inequality rose as a result. By 2000,
inequality in Latin America had reached an all-time high, with most
countries in the region registering an increase in income inequality
over the previous two decades. It is estimated that half of the
increase in poverty over this period was due to redistribution of
wealth in favour of the richest. In Russia, income inequality almost
doubled in the 20 years from 1991, after economic reforms focused on
liberalization and deregulation.***
Despite
the fact that market fundamentalism played a strong role in causing
the recent global economic crisis, it remains the dominant
ideological world view and continues to drive inequality. It has been
central to the conditions imposed on indebted European countries,
forcing them to deregulate, privatize and cut their welfare provision
for the poorest, while reducing taxes on the rich. There will be no
cure for inequality while countries are forced to swallow this
medicine.
Despite
the evidence that it increases inequality, rich-country governments
and donor agencies, such as the UK, the USA and the World Bank, are
pushing for greater private sector involvement in service delivery.
“From
Ghana to Germany, South Africa to Spain, the gap between rich and
poor is rapidly increasing, and economic inequality has reached
extreme levels. In South Africa, inequality is greater today than at
the end of Apartheid.”
“Today,
hundreds of millions of people are living without access to clean
drinking water and without enough food to feed their families; many
are working themselves into the ground just to get by. We can only
improve life for the majority if we tackle the extreme concentration
of wealth and power in the hands of elites.”
“Extreme
economic inequality has exploded across the world in the last 30
years, making it one of the biggest economic, social and political
challenges of our time. Age-old inequalities on the basis of gender,
caste, race and religion – injustices in themselves – are
exacerbated by the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.”
“Seven
out of 10 people live in countries where the gap between rich and
poor is greater than it was 30 years ago. In countries around the
world, a wealthy minority are
taking an ever-increasing share of their nation’s income.”
“Today,
there are 16 billionaires in sub-Saharan Africa, alongside the 358
million people living in extreme poverty. Absurd levels of wealth
exist alongside desperate poverty around the world.”
“If
India stops inequality from rising, it could end extreme poverty for
90 million people by 2019. If it goes further and reduces inequality
by 36 percent, it could virtually eliminate extreme poverty. [...] In
a scenario where inequality is reduced, 463 million more people are
lifted out of poverty compared with a scenario where inequality
increases.”
“Bangladesh
and Nigeria, for instance, have similar average incomes. Nigeria is
only slightly richer, but it is far less equal. The result is that a
child born in Nigeria is three times more likely to die before their
fifth birthday than a child born in Bangladesh.”
“...
in Zambia, GDP per capita growth averaged three percent every year
between 2004 and 2013, pushing Zambia into the World Bank’s
lower-middle income category. Despite this growth, the number of
people living below the $1.25 poverty line grew from 65 percent in
2003 to 74 percent in 2010.”
“...
women make up the vast majority of the lowest-paid workers and those
in the most precarious jobs. In Bangladesh, for instance, women
account for almost 85 percent of workers in the garment industry.
These jobs, while often better for women than subsistence farming,
offer minimal job security or physical safety: most of those killed
by the collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in April 2013 were
women.”
“Studies
show that in more economically unequal societies, fewer women
complete higher education, fewer women are represented in the
legislature, and the pay gap between women and men is wider.”
“In
Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples are
disproportionately affected by poverty, unemployment, chronic illness
and disability; they are more likely to die young and to spend time
in prison.”
“...
the poorest people have the odds stacked against them in terms of
education and life expectancy. The latest national Demographic and
Health Surveys demonstrate how poverty interacts with economic and
other inequalities to create ‘traps of disadvantage’ that push
the poorest and most marginalized people to the bottom – and keep
them there.”
“Many
feel that some economic inequality is acceptable as long as those who
study and work hard are able to succeed and become richer. This idea
is deeply entrenched in popular narratives and reinforced through
dozens of Hollywood films, whose rags-to-riches stories continue to
feed the myth of the American Dream around the world. However, in
countries with extreme inequality, the reality is that the children
of the rich will largely replace their parents in the economic
hierarchy, as will the children of those living in poverty –
regardless of their potential or how hard they work.”
“If
you are born poor in a highly unequal country you will most probably
die poor, and your children and grandchildren will be poor too. In
Pakistan, for instance, a boy born in a rural area to a father from
the poorest 20 percent of the population has only a 1.9 percent
chance of ever moving to the richest 20 percent. In the USA, nearly
half of all children born to low-income parents will become
low-income adults.”
“Many
of the most unequal countries are also affected by conflict or
instability. Alongside a host of political factors, Syria’s hidden
instability before 2011 was, in part, driven by rising inequality, as
falling government subsidies and reduced public sector employment
affected some groups more than others.”
“Experimental
research has shown just how important fairness is to most
individuals, contrary to the prevailing assumption that people have
an inherent tendency to pursue self-interest. A 2013 survey in six
countries (Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the UK and the USA)
showed that a majority of people believe the gap between the
wealthiest people and the rest of society is too large. In the USA,
92 percent of people surveyed indicated a preference for greater
economic equality, by choosing an ideal income distribution the same
as Sweden’s and rejecting one that represented the reality in the
USA.”
“Across
the world, religion, literature, folklore and philosophy show
remarkable confluence in their concern that an extreme gap between
rich and poor is inherently unfair and morally wrong. This concern is
prevalent across different cultures and societies, suggesting a
fundamental human preference for fairness and equality.”
“Many
believe that inequality is somehow inevitable, or is a necessary
consequence of globalization and technological progress. But the
experiences of different countries throughout history have shown
that, in fact, deliberate political and economic choices can lead to
greater inequality. There are two powerful economic and political
drivers of inequality, which go a long way to explaining the extremes
seen today: market fundamentalism and the capture of power by
economic elites.”
“...
as economist Thomas Piketty demonstrated in Capital in the
Twenty-First Century, without government intervention, the market
economy tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority,
causing inequality to rise. Despite this, in recent years economic
thinking has been dominated by a ‘market fundamentalist’
approach, that insists that sustained economic growth only comes from
reducing government interventions and leaving markets to their own
devices. However, this undermines the regulation and taxation that
are needed to keep inequality in check.”
“In
the 1980s and 1990s, debt crises saw countries in Latin America,
Africa, Asia and the former Eastern bloc subjected to a cold shower
of deregulation, rapid reductions in public spending, privatization,
financial and trade liberalization, generous tax cuts for
corporations and the wealthy, and a ‘race to the bottom’ to
weaken labour rights. Inequality rose as a result. By 2000,
inequality in Latin America had reached an all-time high, with most
countries in the region registering an increase in income inequality
over the previous two decades. It is estimated that half of the
increase in poverty over this period was due to redistribution of
wealth in favour of the richest. In Russia, income inequality almost
doubled in the 20 years from 1991, after economic reforms focused on
liberalization and deregulation.”
“Despite
the fact that market fundamentalism played a strong role in causing
the recent global economic crisis, it remains the dominant
ideological world view and continues to drive inequality. It has been
central to the conditions imposed on indebted European countries,
forcing them to deregulate, privatize and cut their welfare provision
for the poorest, while reducing taxes on the rich. There will be no
cure for inequality while countries are forced to swallow this
medicine.”
“Elites,
in rich and poor countries alike, use their heightened political
influence to curry government favours – including tax exemptions,
sweetheart contracts, land concessions and subsidies – while
blocking policies that strengthen the rights of the many. In
Pakistan, the average net-worth of parliamentarians is $900,000, yet
few of them pay any taxes. This undermines investment in sectors,
such as education, healthcare and small-scale agriculture, which can
play a vital role in reducing inequality and poverty.”
“The
massive lobbying power of rich corporations to bend the rules in
their favour has increased the concentration of power and money in
the hands of the few. Financial institutions spend more than €120m
per year on armies of lobbyists to influence EU policies in their
interests.”
“Many
of the richest people made their fortunes thanks to the exclusive
government concessions and privatization that come with market
fundamentalism. Privatization in Russia and Ukraine after the fall of
communism turned political insiders into billionaires overnight.
Carlos Slim made his many billions by securing exclusive rights over
Mexico’s telecom sector when it was privatized in the 1990s.”
“Market
fundamentalism and political capture have worsened economic
inequality, and undermined the rules and regulations that give the
poorest, the most marginalized and women and girls, a fair chance.”
“The
domination of special interests and bad policy choices – especially
user fees for healthcare and education, and the privatization of
public services – can increase inequality. Unfortunately, too many
countries are suffering as a result of these ‘low road’
policies.”
“Despite
the evidence that it increases inequality, rich-country governments
and donor agencies, such as the UK, the USA and the World Bank, are
pushing for greater private sector involvement in service delivery.”
Full
Report:
* ...
John Nash believed that, every man is occupied by a distrust
feeling against the others and continuously plans strategic moves
against them in order to benefit himself. He designed some games
based on this philosophy, one of which was called "fuck your
buddy", (later published as "so long sucker"),
according to which, the only way someone to beat his opponent was
to betray him. The game would be proved consistent under a logical
basis if every player was behaving the same way. But when some
analysts from the strategic analysis company RAND, tried to test
it using their secretaries, the later chosen to cooperate instead
of betraying each other. However, this was not enough for analysts
to conclude that the philosophy of this game was wrong and thought
that the secretaries were simply unsuitable people for this
experiment.
Another
example is that of the famous psychiatrist Ronald David Laing who
used the game theory to build a certain model for human behaviour.
He concluded that people are inherently selfish and spontaneously
planning various strategies during their everyday transactions.
All these theories enhanced the beliefs
of some economists like F. A. Hayek, whose economic models were
totally excluding altruism and were totally dependent on personal
interest. Another economist, James M. Buchanan, disputes the
concept of "public interest" and supports that
organizations should be managed by people whose motive is money.
Concepts like "feeling of personal fulfilment" or "sense
of duty", are not included in their theories.
|
** Many still believe in
the myth of the free market. They have an ideal situation in mind
where everyone will be free from the state suppression and the
free market will drive societies and individuals to balance and
prosperity. It's just an illusion because in reality the game is
more rigged than ever. We are not talking about capitalism, not
even neoliberalism. We are talking about the new global, brutal
feudalism!
|
without government intervention, the market economy tends to concentrate wealth in the hands of a small minority, causing inequality to rise.....in russia its less than 1% controlling the wealth sucked out of the work of millions
ReplyDelete