We spend far too much time, when it comes to economics, talking about poverty. We have all these narratives about it. People who don't have enough are probably lazy, if not now then earlier in life. They didn't try hard enough at school, or they take the piss at work. They're probably drinking too much. Look at the food they buy, that's disgusting. Besides, they've got Sky TV/that flash jacket/new sunglasses every week/something I don't approve of them buying if they were really that poor......
Let's talk about greed. In stats, because I like them:
- The richest 100 billionaires in the world are worth $240 billion. Oxfam thinks that's enough to END world poverty four times over
- The richest 1% in the world have increased their income by 60% in the last 20 years. The financial "crisis" has just accelerated this wealth grabbing
- Here in Aoteroa, according to Stats NZ, the richest 10% get 25% of our total income, and own 50% of our total wealth
7 comments:
I think this is a fantastic idea, because of course we know, don't we, all the 'awful' choices that 'poor people' make with their money. Buying coke rather than milk, choosing massive repayment schemes for big TVs and cars... you're right LJ, there are a lot of narratives about this. Narratives about both how people become poor and what they do when they are there. But we don't hear about the choices that the wealthy make. But it occurred to me as I thought through how you'd generate this kind of data - the first thing money buys people is privacy about their spending. No wealthy person has to submit their weekly budget to WINZ, and they have no interest in filling in surveys about the cost of milk. So while the stats about poverty become very personalised (as in the example you linked to), available stats about wealth seem distanced. And I don't think I've ever read any reports about the daily or weekly lived use of wealth?
Rebecca
No Rebecca, I agree, and you're very right about the privileges wealth buys in terms of lack of scrutiny. Even just the simplicity of the kinds of homes richer people live in compared to people with less money.
We need someone to do that research :-)
The richest 100 billionaires in the world are worth $240 billion. Oxfam thinks that's enough to END world poverty four times over
The richest 1% in the world have increased their income by 60% in the last 20 years. The financial "crisis" has just accelerated this wealth grabbing
Here in Aoteroa, according to Stats NZ, the richest 10% get 25% of our total income, and own 50% of our total wealth.
It is complete nonsense to think that you can fix real or perceived inequality via a mechanism of wealth transferal. For the reason that if you transfer it, and it is 'consumed', then it is gone. You need productive investment to grow income, create jobs and alleviate poverty etc. When you look at the wealthy they're not holding their wealth as cash at bank. Largely it is invested in assets that generate income. Now thats not to say there isn't some rent seeking - the taxation system needs to change to tax income from rent seeking rather than income from labour, or investment creating jobs. However a redistribution of wealth as you imply would be a complete disaster, and indeed everywhere it has been tried this has been the case.
V - the wealthy investing their money in "assets that generate income" - really? Then why is the world getting more unequal, rather than less? Because those assets generate unequal income. The argument that the rich buy more so it's good for all of us is absolute nonsense. Our financial and economic systems are fundamentally flawed and become more so. British economists are comparing present day inequality to Dickensian levels of poverty. Something needs to change dramatically, and a little bit of tinkering with the tax system ain't it.
My argument isn't that the rich 'buy' more, that is a consumption based description. Their wealth is made up of productive assets and investments in capital goods.
The flaw in the financial and economic systems, is that those who've made mistakes have not been allowed to fail as would have been the case under say a 1900's gold standard. When central banks essentially cover for this by adding liquidity to the system what they are essentially doing is socialising these losees across society, in the process bailing out those who made the mistakes. But when you look at why this happened it had more to do with corrupt political connections and cronyism rather than how a capatalistic system is supposed to work. When you say something needs to change dramatically and fall back on the old redistributionist methods it really is amusing, your idea would make evrybody poor, and unfortunately the most poor would be first to suffer.
V, I think saying 'this isn't real capitalism' is a bit, well, rich. This is what we have - an economic system steadily growing wealth for a small pool of people. Redistribution of resources would make everyone poor? So what would happen to the resources the rich control now? There wouldn't be enough to go around? I don't really understand your argument I'm afraid.
How did it work out in Zimbabwe when farms were redistributed to the poor blacks?
Complete economic collapse.
Post a Comment