"Is America Still Number One?"

[the last donut of the night]

Alright friends. In the continual process that is fighting the right in the United States, you come across some smarter tools that stump you a bit. On one facebook group -- filled with right-wing scum -- came up this discussion.

The discussion turned to one poster saying that America's standards of living were far better than other places', even when this is refuted by the Human Poverty Index. I mentioned this to him, but he made up some bullshit that the thing isn't reliable.

This is what he said:


Likewise, many countries who take the UN seriously have actually attempted to reduce income inequality by "spreading the wealth" which has reduced economic growth & opportunities at best while increasing the number of people living in abject poverty at worst. Do you see why subjective variables are not good for measuring objective concepts?

Well, how do I refute it?

A main point in the American right-wing's arsenal is that the US is much better off than other 'welfare' states, and that thus neo-liberalism is a highly successful economic model.

Help?

[Drace]

How bout the Human Development Index? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index)
Or
Highest Standard of Living (http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-quality-of-life-map.html)

The US doesn't come in the top ten in either.

Ask for some examples for the shit he said.

[FSL]

Likewise, many countries who take the UN seriously have actually attempted to reduce income inequality by "spreading the wealth" which has reduced economic growth & opportunities at best while increasing the number of people living in abject poverty at worst. Do you see why subjective variables are not good for measuring objective concepts?



There is nothing subjective in infant/child mortality rates, average life expectancy, levels of illiteracy or Gini coefficient. These are all hard Math.

What is extremely subjective is to argue that income per capita is all that matters in evaluating the general standard of living and ignoring the importance of its distribution, which is what defines the common family's life.

Income's distribution is right skewed. The greater the inequality, the longer the "tale". So the mean will always be higher than the mode, which would show us how much the average Joe is making. In a less egalitarian society this difference would get bigger.

The US are trailing Europe in most of the indices and have an advantage only in income per capita, merely because you can make twice as much as someone else but you still can't live to be 200 years old.


However, he does have a point in saying that simply raising taxes tends to not help or at least this is the deal nowadays. It was an often used strategy in Europe (and up to a certain degree, in the US too) to raise taxes and build welfare states. However, now economic agreements that make capital movement easier than it has been for many decades would make this more difficult. If capitalists can't find the desired rate of profit in one country, they'll simply go somewhere else. Maybe in one of those pseudo-states with a 0% tax rate. But this is why it's imperative that they are done away with and not some reason to appease them.

[cyu]

There is nothing subjective in infant/child mortality rates, average life expectancy, levels of illiteracy or Gini coefficient. These are all hard Math.

What is extremely subjective is to argue that income per capita is all that matters in evaluating the general standard of living and ignoring the importance of its distribution, which is what defines the common family's life.


Well said.


If capitalists can't find the desired rate of profit in one country, they'll simply go somewhere else.

From http://everything2.com/title/capital%20flight

The large scale movement of investment money from one country to another in search of greater stability or higher returns.

This type of capital differs from people, land, natural resources, and man-made equipment in that it is not real wealth that is lost, but only the representations of wealth that are used to facilitate trade. Thus, like currency / bank collapses and stock market crashes, nothing truly tangible has been lost. Only the accounting has to change.

A country that suffers from capital flight need merely re-evaluate the real goods it produces or is capable of producing. Its existing currency can be revoked and replaced by a more accurate representation of the wealth of the nation (such as backing it with a basket of goods like that used in the CPI).

In order to make up for the loss of the power to import because of the loss of foreign exchange, the country will either have to ensure that it can replace imports with domestic production or it will have to focus employment on exporting goods to the countries that can produce what cannot be produced locally.

[cyu]

reduce income inequality by "spreading the wealth" which has reduced economic growth & opportunities at best


From Demand is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money (http://everything2.com/title/Demand+is+not+measured+in+units+of+people%252C+it+ is+measured+in+units+of+money)

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods for the oppressive minority.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal. But can that be achieved through non-violence?

If wealth is concentrated in stocks, then employees should assume democratic control over their companies, thus rendering stocks worthless.

If wealth is concentrated in the hoarding of commodities, then people who will actually use those commodities should just take them from the storage areas where they are just being held for speculation.

If wealth is concentrated in paper money or gold, then people should just stop accepting that paper money or gold as legal tender, and start using something else as legal tender.

All these acts are non-violent. However, you may be attacked while carrying out these activities, in which case fighting back would only be self-defense.

[The Red Next Door]

America is the number 2 that came out of neo liberalism and conservatism ass.

[FSL]

From http://everything2.com/title/capital%20flight

The large scale movement of investment money from one country to another in search of greater stability or higher returns.

This type of capital differs from people, land, natural resources, and man-made equipment in that it is not real wealth that is lost, but only the representations of wealth that are used to facilitate trade. Thus, like currency / bank collapses and stock market crashes, nothing truly tangible has been lost. Only the accounting has to change.

A country that suffers from capital flight need merely re-evaluate the real goods it produces or is capable of producing. Its existing currency can be revoked and replaced by a more accurate representation of the wealth of the nation (such as backing it with a basket of goods like that used in the CPI).

In order to make up for the loss of the power to import because of the loss of foreign exchange, the country will either have to ensure that it can replace imports with domestic production or it will have to focus employment on exporting goods to the countries that can produce what cannot be produced locally.



The country suffering from capital flight loses a part of the investment it would be getting in the future, which is a concrete loss.
Devaluation is usually accompanied with high inflation. Imports for one are more expensive and if the demand is inelastic (for example the country is food or energy dependent) the cost of production is raised. In a capitalist market, if you try to replace imports with domestic products you'll see their prices rise as a result of the increased demand. Lastly, because the economy tries to produce locally what was made abroad, the cost of production inputs (people, land, machinery) will also rise.

So capital flight is a "big deal" in capitalism but still not a reason to appease them as if they are modern Nazis. If, after their taxes are raised to offer a decent living to everyone else, they decide to take off, that will be a clear demonstration of their uselessness.

[cyu]

Devaluation is usually accompanied with high inflation.

Excerpt from http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

Your nation may still have in its treasury the remnants of the capitalist financial structure - gold, other precious metals, paper money from nations around the world. Spend it - as soon as possible. Buy commodities - those things you need to survive and buy any equipment you need to produce the goods you need. That is the real wealth to people who actually have to do the work.

What happens in the rest of the world as the people of your nation are suddenly flooding it with various currencies and "precious" metals, while snapping up real goods? The supply of those currencies and "precious" metals go up, while the supply of real goods go down. These goods become more and more expensive, while "money" becomes more and more worthless. Thus, there is all the more reason to exchange your money as soon as possible for real goods you will need.

Thus the goal is to actually dump all the old fiat money and "precious" metals altogether - if that leads to a worldwide crash in the "capital" that fled, then all the better.


if you try to replace imports with domestic products you'll see their prices rise as a result of the increased demand. Lastly, because the economy tries to produce locally what was made abroad, the cost of production inputs (people, land, machinery) will also rise.

Assuming your country had anything of value to export before, then it can still export the same things to get the same imports. If it had a trade deficit, you were probably screwed anyway. However, the thing to remember about the end of capitalism is also decribed here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1635437&postcount=5 - less economic resources being allocated towards building palaces, shining shoes, and otherwise servicing the wealthy, means more economic resources that are freed up and can now be allocated towards producing food, housing, and health care for the general population.

More from http://www.infoshop.org/rants/yu1.html

In the end, captial flight isn't really capital flight. Real capital - the people, natural resources, and equipment needed to produce real goods - cannot be packed up in a bag when the capitalist skips town. They will require a lot of labor if they truly want to escape with real capital. What remains when the capitalists are gone are merely the people who are doing the work, and the means to do it.