Being against inequality has acquired a ritualistic or symbolic character. You just say that you are against inequality and so long as nobody does anything about it you can continue saying you are against. Life goes on as before.
Like in Christianity, when you were supposed to ritualistically denounce the devil. You do it & everything is the same.
But when somebody tries to check inequality, there are immediately problems. If China goes against Alibaba & Tencent, that's bad for innovation.
if it goes after corruption, it is political. If it bans for-profit tutoring, it will change nothing.
Same in the US. If Facebook or Google are broken up, the Chinese will take them over. If tax rates on capital are increased, nobody will invest.
So one is puzzled: should we just keep on bewailing high inequality and never do anything--because whatever you do (yes!) it's going to affect somebody.
Go back to the ritual:
"I denounce thou, high inequality!"
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
About 2/3 of US population (200 million people) are in the top global income decile.
There are relatively few Americans (~40 million) who are *not* in the two highest global deciles.
(All 2018-19 data, adjusted for differences in countries' price levels)
Chinese urban population is significantly poorer. Most are in the 8th global decile, although 84 million are in the global top decile.
If we include Chinese rural population (not shown here), China has 112m people in the top global decile, making it the largest group after US.
Note that China has "vacated" the two bottom global deciles.
When we move to India, the situation gets gloomier. Most of Indian urban population is in the low global deciles and only 10 million are in the top two. (The rural situation is worse.)
My brilliant friend and co-author of an excellent new book "Six faces of globalization" @AntheaERoberts was wondering why I did not discuss the two last (5th & 6th) glob. narratives.
The 5th narrative is geoeco(political): how to stop the rise of China? The arguments used by the proponents of that approach are a pot-pourri of weird ("CHN students should study Shakespeare not engineering") to absurd (CHN s to be mistrusted even if has not done anything bad).
It makes no sense to engage substantively w/ such a narrative b/c people who make these claims are uninterested in whether they are true or false. Their objective is political propaganda & that's fine.
Summary of the Ranaldi-Milanovic paper.
We distinguish btw
1 compositional inequality (are there people receiving only income from K & everybody else gets wages only; or is everyone getting the same shares of their income from L and K),
and
2 inter-personal inequality (Gini).
High compositional inequality is associated w/ high Gini. Not surprising. If you have on one side people receiving income from K only, and everybody else gets just wages, inter-personal inequality is likely to be high. Examples are LatAm & India.
Nordic countries are exceptional because they combine high compositional inequality with low inter-personal inequality. So they are (what we call) "hidden class societies". Their low inequality is due to wage compression.
I also think that Kolakowski was tagged anti-Marxist because in the 1980s such critiques as his (i.e. "within" and erudite) were relatively rare. But there is no doubt that he had huge admiration for Marx.
"He [Marx] has profoundly affected our understanding of history, and it is hard to deny that without him our researches would be less compete and accurate than they are.
It makes [for example] an essential difference…whether the history of Christianity is presented as an intellectual struggle about dogmatic interpretation of doctrine, or whether these are regarded as manifestations of the
The article on the Amazon worker is 1 of the best documentary pieces I have read. Why?
1 It describes the often dystopian work environment, total alienation of workers, desire to escape from it all which hampers any type of organization. This is the world of unhappy individuals.
2 It also shows generalized disinterest of the middle-level management.
3 But it brilliantly showcases capitalism's (in this case Amazon's) ability to organize production and to extract as much surplus value from workers as possible.
4 I compared the work described in the article with what I have seen as a young person on the shop-floor in socialist Yugoslavia where people worked at most 3-4h per day, and I was awed by Amazon's technology.