When people argue that economic growth is good for all, think about this:
"For every $1 of new global wealth earned by a person in the bottom 90% in the past two years, each billionaire gained roughly $1.7m."
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/jan/16/oxfam-calls-for-new-taxes-on-super-rich-pocket-dollar-26tn-start-of-pandemic-davos
Over the last 10 years, the richest 1% of humanity has captured more than half of all new global wealth, according to new @Oxfam report https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/survival-richest
This graph clearly shows how falling rates of taxes for the richest 1% coincides with rising inequality.
Instead of focusing political efforts against inequality on the hope that more economic growth will increase the wealth of all (through trickle down), we should focus radical policies for redistribution beyond growth.
More in our @VersoBooks with @a_vansi
---
RT @MGSchmelzer
The Future is Degrowth is officially out today, with Andrea Vetter and @a_vansi. Thanks @VersoBooks and all the people involved in the discussions leading to this
https://twitter.com/MGSchmelzer/status/1541684440296046594
@MatthiasSchmelzer Hi Matthias, I don't understand the graph. Looks as if income share of top 1% goes from 20% down to 11,75%? Best regards, Rob.
@RobvanderRijt @MatthiasSchmelzer
For the black line you have to look at the right axis (for the other lines to the left one), so the income share went from about 9.3% up to 11,75%
@MatthiasSchmelzer I absolutely agree with you on the issue but this is a really bad graph.
Part of it is that the two axes, in addition to being confusing, have zero in different places, meaning that it’s practically impossible to compare *proportional* changes.
Plus, each line has just two data points. And “2016 or latest available” is a range of up to seven years, so they shouldn’t all be shown in the same spot.
I agree on the issue—there just needs to be a better graph.
@MatthiasSchmelzer
I'd try tracking corporate #deregulation, including lack of minimum wage regulation against rising rising #inequality, I'd include the shift from private to corporate ownership of housing, the rate of home ownership--some of those lovely brutal trends
@MatthiasSchmelzer can we all agree, for once and for all, that the root cause of #GlobalWarming and #ClimateChange is not #CarbonDioxide but rather greedy #capitalism?
And after that, can we move on with #degrowth?
@MatthiasSchmelzer There is literally an economic theory (I wish that I remembered the name) that says it is okay for the rich guy to get richer, as long as the poorest guy gets something. It is sort of ethical white wash for atrocities. That kind of unrestrained exploitation is why revolutions and communism take place, and now that excess by the 1% is threatening global existence.
@MatthiasSchmelzer
Equitable economic growth might be good for all, but as we have never tried that….
@MatthiasSchmelzer "Greedy poor people, wanting more than $1"
#TaxTheRich. That's the answer.
@MatthiasSchmelzer Yes, there is no question the evidence is in on neo lib economics. All that remains is ideology
@MatthiasSchmelzer
The #wef2023 says it wants to go beyond 'short-termisms'
What about
#taxestaxestaxes
#Davos2019
The biggest risk is #cleptocracy #cleoptomaniacs
It's not #rocketscience
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5LtFnmPruU
Is Rutger invited this time ?
@MatthiasSchmelzer I'd also add that a "gain in wealth" that just lets someone buy a gold toilet shows "wealth" isn't always good.
Great majority support, all party's voters and membership. Drive party leaders, vote, for a wealth tax.
@MatthiasSchmelzer
And growth at all costs got us into the current mess for climate crisis and poverty crisis.
@kevinrns
@AutisticMumTo3 @MatthiasSchmelzer
No, its carbon. Not growth, we need 100,000 more hospitals and water treatment plants, we need 200,000 schools, we need transit and forest renewal, we need lead out of all pipes, we need sanitation for 50% of the world's villages, to begin with.
I have a feeling "no growth" was germinated in a Board Room to stop democratic action, restoration, remediation and services and goods for people. I think no growth might be billionaire subversion.
@kevinrns
I didn't mean we need to go for no growth. Growth at all costs isn't the way forward either. We need growth with care for people and the environment.
@MatthiasSchmelzer
@MatthiasSchmelzer
There's 2 assumptions here:
- You cannot create that $1 of extra wealth for the bottom 90% without the billionaire getting $1.7m
- This $1 is insignificant and doesn't make a difference to the bottom 90% of revenue
Both of these are false. We've created gigantic amount of new growth in the past with high marginal tax rates, and that dollar makes a huge difference for the poorest in society.
@MatthiasSchmelzer Though there are good reasons to limit some economic activities, and too much inequality erodes societies, this argument sounds like the poor should pay a price so that the rich can't get richer. No.
The sad thing is that every $1 dollar of those bank-made $1.7m is not new wealth or even representing new wealth, but actully just steps on the ladder of the mightiest.
@MatthiasSchmelzer but but trickle-down economics really make for a vibrant second-hand Yacht market?
This is simply unacceptable and should be made impossible.
@MatthiasSchmelzer you're in the UK 1% at about 8x minimum wage. I think the super rich are keen for "1%" to stick though. Wonder why.
@MatthiasSchmelzer “economic growth” should mean that the median income can cover the cost-of-living more times; that a median income can support a larger family
@MatthiasSchmelzer It's long past time to #EatTheRich.
@MatthiasSchmelzer “Growth for the sake of growth is the logic of cancer.” I don’t remember who said that, but I agree.
“Small is Beautiful”, a book by an economist named Schumacher, is worth a look.
Right, but that does confirm that it is good for us all.
Even if some people find it extra good, while some people find it just simply good, that’s good for us all!