David Graeber wrote this beautiful little essay shortly before he died. It reads like a final wish. "When this crisis is over, let's promise to create an economy that lets us actually take care of the people who are taking care of us." jacobinmag.com/2021/03/david-…
"The actual reality of human life is that we are a collection of fragile beings taking care of one another, and that those who do the lion’s share of this care work that keeps us alive are overtaxed, underpaid, and daily humiliated..."
"Why don’t we stop treating it as normal that the more obviously one’s work benefits others, the less one is likely to be paid for it; or insisting that financial markets are the best way to direct investment even as they are propelling us to destroy most life on Earth?"
"Why not instead, once the current emergency is declared over, actually remember what we’ve learned: that if 'the economy' means anything, it is the way we provide each other with what we need to be alive, in every sense of the term."
"What we call 'the market' is largely just a way of tabulating the aggregate desires of rich people, most of whom are at least slightly pathological, and the most powerful of whom are already completing the designs for the bunkers they plan to escape to."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I want to take a few minutes to respond to statements made by Max Roser, the director of OWID. I hope this will be helpful and constructive for all involved.
First, I want to apologize for having hurt Roser’s feelings. I could have chosen more diplomatic language at times, and I will take better care in the future. I also want to make it clear that my disagreement with him is not personal. It is empirical.
OWID is a valuable site, and we all appreciate the data they’ve made available. But it is also a powerful media platform, with powerful funders. It sets public narratives, which we should be able to critique if warranted on empirical grounds.
Most people don't realise this, but the majority of high-income nations have already significantly exceeded their fair share of the carbon budget for 2 degrees. Their "zero by 2050" targets are therefore woefully inadequate.
This chart is based on emissions data from 1850 to 2015, with consumption-based emissions from 1970 onward.
In order to represent any modicum of fairness or justice, the objective in rich nations needs to be zero as soon as is technically feasible, including by scaling down energy demand so decarbonization can be done more quickly.
For every $1 of aid the global South receives, they lose $14 through unequal exchange with the North. Poor countries are developing rich countries, not the other way around.
These results indicate that charity is not an effective mechanism for development or poverty reduction. What the South needs is fairer wages for their labour and fairer prices for their resources, on which the global economy depends.
This is a wildly incorrect take. To claim that post-growth research is somehow against development in the global South is false, as would be clear from even a cursory reading of the literature.
Degrowth critiques are specifically directed at high levels of energy and resource use in the global North, which are vastly in excess of human need and entail ecological damage that harms the South disproportionately.
I had the privilege of reading an advance copy of this book by Max Ajl, which is out in May. I highly recommend it. It's hands down the most compelling, most radical take yet on the Green New Deal. Pre-order the book here and follow @maxajl. plutobooks.com/9780745341750/…
"Courageous, bold, refreshing - Max Ajl pushes the horizons of progressive thought and envisions an ecosocialist transition that is rooted in principles of global justice. The struggle against climate breakdown is ultimately a struggle against the forces of colonization..."
"...If we are not attentive to this fact, then we have missed the point."
I'm thrilled about this new paper, which is our tribute to Samir Amin. We estimate drain from the global South through unequal exchange, and find that it totaled $62 trillion over the period 1960-2018, or $152 trillion accounting for lost growth. Thread: tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
In 2018, the the global North (here we use the IMF's ‘advanced economies’ category) appropriated drain from the South worth $2.2 trillion — enough to end extreme poverty 15 times over.
Over the past few years, drain from the global South has outstripped the flow of aid by a factor of 14. In other words, for every $1 the South receives in aid it loses $14 through unequal exchange.