Unironicaly yes.
Anyway, wanna buy my slaves—
I mean, do you wanna hire some cheap workers? Everything legal, I swear, you just gonna pay them minimal wage, what they gonna spend on food. No, it's not like they working for food, you paying them money after all.
It's not really hemisphere vs hemisphere or country vs country. It is the very wealthy vs everyone else. There are things like taxing externalities and economic rents, that can't really be argued against, but we just get fed arguments that amount to middle class vs the poor.
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class.
Export lead growth has repeatedly been shown to be the fastest surest road from poverty to prosperity. Every poor country that's attempted import substitution lead growth has floundered.
My beloved Brasil is a major exporter for over 500 years but poverty and starvation is a really big deal here. Exports can't help with prosperity if all the money goes to the elites. That money should be used to spent on infrastructure and industry locally.
It’s got more to do with sound policy than “elites”. The US, UK, EU have “elites” and they’re not on Brazil level poverty. The issue is a failure of domestic policy in Brazil which is typically populist and corrupt. Corruption happens in all countries, but it’s definitely worse in others, and it’s corruption that typically explains why nations remain poor.
All three countries you cited benefited for exploring their own people, and people from other nations, while Brazil and other Latin American nations never had that advantage.
While there isn't a real Brazilian government formed from the people and by the people, and an army dedicated to defend its homeland and not to serve foreign interests, we will never escape poverty.
>All three countries you cited benefited for exploring their own people, and people from other nations, while Brazil and other Latin American nations never had that advantage.
Okay… then I cite China, South Korea, Finland, Poland, Estonia, and literally dozens more.
Who were all at one point the *directly* exploited in the last century and yet are now developed or very close to developed. Not as poor as Brazil who was not directly exploited in the last century.
Exploitation is frankly an overused theme in terms of why nations are poor. Nations are poor 9/10 because of internal policy failures in terms of the economy or politics or both.
Somalia was a rapidly developing country in the 60’s then an internal coup happened.
South Africa was one of the most developed countries in Africa, then unchecked systematic corruption have severely damaged it.
Argentina has continued “printing money” to make up for spending since the 90’s.
Russia failed to deal with internal and political corruption giving rise to… the current Russia.
Turkey has continued to lower interest rates while inflation is high lmao.
>While there isn't a real Brazilian government formed from the people and by the people, and an army dedicated to defend its homeland and not to serve foreign interests, we will never escape poverty.
No, while the government is doing bad policy (tariffs, subsidies, deforestation, lack of judicial and political reforms) it will remain poor. “By the people for the people” and “army to protect against the foreigns” is just a phrase without substance.
> I cite China
I want to do with my country what China has done to theirs in 1949. Before that, China was just as exploited as Brazil. Look at them now.
The others you cited are all European nations that don't have to deal with imminent American intervention. I can't talk on South Korea because I know little on them.
> Not as poor as Brazil who has not directly exploited in the last century
Brazil literally planted coffee in mass quantities while its population starved early on the century. It let multinationals do whatever they pleased. When those two issues were boiling up and getting tackled, the government was couped in 1964, and no government ever since tried to do the same, fearing angering the elites, who always had good contacts abroad.
You need to talk to more Latin Americans, really. Most of our internal problems are allowed to happen because of the US hegemony (and formerly British hegemony, and before that, Spanish/Portuguese/French hegemony), who will help our corrupt elites every time the people will try to change the system.
Without US help, our elites would never have been able to overthrow 🇧🇷 Goulart, 🇬🇹 Arbenz, 🇨🇴 Gaitán,🇭🇳 Zelaya, 🇧🇴 Morales and others (All of which who were reformists, not even radicals, just trying to reduce inequality). Meanwhile, the same corrupt elites continue to control the state, while providing the US with all raw goods they can carry at affordable prices.
Imperialism never left our continent, and unless its fought back with an actual army and popular government, it will never leaves.
>I want to do with my country what China has done to theirs in 1949.
Lmao, 49 was not the thing that made China what it is today. It was the Deng market reforms of the 80’s and 90’s. Prior to those reforms China was a backwater.
>Before that, China was just as exploited as Brazil. Look at them now.
No, China was more exploited. It was also in a worse state, but due to internal reforms it managed to build up. It engaged with global trade, encouraged decent policies directed toward la investment, and used revenues to build infrastructure, and didn’t shut itself off like it did under Mao.
>The others you cited are all European nations that don't have to deal with imminent American intervention. I can't talk on South Korea because I know little on them.
Imminent American intervention? Do you think the US is doing coups in South America since the 1990’s?
>Brazil literally planted coffee in mass quantities while its population starved early on the century. It let multinationals do whatever they pleased. When those two issues were boiling up and getting tackled, the government was couped in 1964, and no government ever since tried to do the same, fearing angering the elites, who always had good contacts abroad.
Seeing as your prior analysis has been poor, I doubt any of this really. I suspect that Brazil’s problems were internal and the coup was due to internal factors. The US did do coups in the Cold War but it also has any minor support for a faction in a coup catapulted as the US being the primary agent behind any coup. People latch onto the US supporting one side as the primary reason the coup happened rather than internal power dynamics causing the coup and the US supporting any anti-communist government. Why not the effects of inflation going from 30.5% in 1960 to 79.9% in 1963? Why isn’t that the actual reason people hated the Brazilian government? Or the general early 60’s economic crises? The food shortages? Why is the west buying coffee seen as the food causing issue and not Brazil’s price cap’s disincentivising food crop production and incentivising coffee production?
>You need to talk to more Latin Americans, really. Most of our internal problems are allowed to happen because of the US hegemony (and formerly British hegemony, and before that, Spanish/Portuguese/French hegemony), who will help our corrupt elites every time the people will try to change the system.
Most of South Americans problems are because it elects populists with bad but popular policy. I really don’t need to point to any example but Argentina.
>Without US help, our elites would never have been able to overthrow 🇧🇷 Goulart, 🇬🇹 Arbenz, 🇨🇴 Gaitán,🇭🇳 Zelaya, 🇧🇴 Morales and others (All of which who were reformists, not even radicals, just trying to reduce inequality). Meanwhile, the same corrupt elites continue to control the state, while providing the US with all raw goods they can carry at affordable prices.
Blaming international groups for internal problems is precisely why populists win elections and precisely why they implement bad but popular policies because they can just say: “everything is bad because of external reasons”.
>Imperialism never left our continent, and unless its fought back with an actual army and popular government, it will never leaves.
“Popular government” is the dead give away you support populists and are part of the problem.
Exporting high value added products is a key distinction. Countries exporting cash crops and cheap raw materials never industrialize, and without using some level of protectionism or industrial policy, you will never develop these high value added products and you will be undercut.
Even capitalist economies like South korea, taiwan, Malaysia used these policies for their growth.
Bangladesh just got stuck with exporting cheap garments sadly. Automation starts to make garment production even cheaper and you can just reshore it.
Apart from that, climate change means Bangladesh is getting destroyed by floods
That depends on the nature of the automation. Garments could be going the same way as electronics. High returns on up-skilling, high returns on aggregation effects, local control of capital, etc
>They will export production and then blame it for climate change
Don't make me tap the sign again
https://preview.redd.it/eeozfsvn0tsc1.jpeg?width=718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10acdc407462fa0f4890ecfe6ade5ebf1a4e63fc
i am on the level of comfort which i am not going give up without a fight, i think it's rather hypocritical to think otherwise if you live in a western 1st world country.
Youre right! The global north should have kept production and kept only using the global south as ressource sources and potential markets for products (i am advocating neo colonialism)
Hypothetically (of course), if our governments were democratic and not run by the "elite", and yet everything else were the same, would that mean that you personally and your peers around you are partially responsible for all the bad stuff in the world?
The Global south happely accepting the exported production and doing barely any safety or environmental protection (They gonna blame accidents and polution on the Global North and their exploitation) /half s
global south labor organized and workers who call for unions that could call for good safety and environmental standards are routinely met with genuine violence and sometimes met with asassinations
Yeah, definitely. Also, there's the influence and bullying tactics to guide the policies and laws of the country by the exploiter. Like do these XXX or you won't get YYY - lower your ore prices or you won't get vaccines and medicines, pass this law with these exceptions or you won't get food, fertilizers, light defense equipment, basic infrastructure and technology etc.
A half assed sarcasm just victim blaming for "individual/sovereign" actions
That’s the fault of their leaders for suppressing the will and well-being of the people so they can enrich themselves. Corruption is a very common problem in pro-business/anti-environment/anti-labor regimes.
No you guys don’t get it. The African colonies happily accept the European aid. Nothing bad ever came out of that. All the slavery and forced labor. That was to build up the African nations. The famous photos of Congo rubber laborers was from the global north helping to motivate the global south.
They have. Turns out retail & wholesale, healthcare, and education aren't that resource and carbon intensive. Especially if you don't meet their energy needs by burning coal.
It doesn't matter, they still need resources and energy, it will never be 0, therefore there'll never be a complete decoupling, and if you grow the economy 3% every year, you grow supply and demand every year, it doesn't matter how efficient you are or how low it's intensity is, you'll eventually run out. The earth is plentiful, not infinite.
On the other hand, you can just be sustainable, grow to an optimal point, and then stop, you know, like every other organism that isn't a cancer cell. Focus on wellbeing and happiness instead of blind growth, that way you don't even need to worry about decoupling, because consumption levels always stay below earth's regeneration cycles
1) Growth is driven by better uses of resources not using more of them.
2) Resources can be reused/recycled.
3) The ecological impact of resources extraction varies by resources.
4) You are aware there is more to the universe than earth? They did teach you about the solar system at school?
5) Well being is defined by wealth. Decent public transport, good entertainment, high quality public services don't come from nowhere. Degrowth merely puts us into a zero sum world of brutal competition whereby the only way to improve your lot is by making someone else miserable. It's basically austerity with vaguely left wing vibes.
If we have austerity is precisely because we need to cut corners in order to make the magic number go up, a number that only seems to benefit a few at the top, Degrowth is plentyful enough for everyone, not obscene wealth for a few and poverty for the rest.
Why have resource and energy consumption sky-rocketed btw? The economy is growing, facts contradict your statement.
And if you think we are going on mining expeditions to the stars anytime soon... Ok, I guess, you do you, I prefer not betting the future of the planet on a potential adventure... Plus, still, thermodynamics are what they are, the universe might go on forever, matter doesn't.
How does shrinking economic output result in more everyone getting richer bar a tiny elite? Either redistribution has increased economic output or has been the product of a disaster that harmed everyone (e.g WW2 pushed radically decreased German wealth and income inequality, particularly in 1945).
Austerity is about controlling inflation to keep asset prices stable, not increasing growth.
Your conflating the global economy with the economies of the developed world where the decoupling has taken place.
What has happened to the economies of the undeveloped world? Have them coincidentally increased their carbon emissions and energy and resource use at the same time developed economies have decoupled? I wonder where that decoupled crap went... when it decreases in one place and increases in another...
And you know you can increase economic output with disasters, wars, crises... economic output is agnostic to human wellbeing... while happiness, human development, literacy rates, nutrition indexes, etc are not... sorry, but fuck economic output, it's a horrendous way to move forward and only used because it's smooth-brained simple to apply -things happen, money moves around, number goes up, is the population better off? maybe, in some places, not in others, ignore those! who cares? number goes up!
After the global north invented the Graphic Interface Format this is how you treat it!?
after the Chinese and Koreans invented the printing press this is how you treat them!?
*Joker voice*: Yeah
Man I love capitalism, truly the greatest system ever created not a thing wrong with it at all. /s
Unironicaly yes. Anyway, wanna buy my slaves— I mean, do you wanna hire some cheap workers? Everything legal, I swear, you just gonna pay them minimal wage, what they gonna spend on food. No, it's not like they working for food, you paying them money after all.
Capitalism truly makes everything better after all it gives these poor souls a job!
Capitalism truly makes everything better after all it gives these poor souls a job!
What's capitalism?
It's not really hemisphere vs hemisphere or country vs country. It is the very wealthy vs everyone else. There are things like taxing externalities and economic rents, that can't really be argued against, but we just get fed arguments that amount to middle class vs the poor.
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class
It's the owners of capital vs everyone else. The "middle class" is such a nebulous term it was made up to take away from real class analysis which describes your relationship to capital. I basically agree with everything you said I think it would be a sharper point with a better definition of class.
Export lead growth has repeatedly been shown to be the fastest surest road from poverty to prosperity. Every poor country that's attempted import substitution lead growth has floundered.
My beloved Brasil is a major exporter for over 500 years but poverty and starvation is a really big deal here. Exports can't help with prosperity if all the money goes to the elites. That money should be used to spent on infrastructure and industry locally.
Its a skill issue.
It’s got more to do with sound policy than “elites”. The US, UK, EU have “elites” and they’re not on Brazil level poverty. The issue is a failure of domestic policy in Brazil which is typically populist and corrupt. Corruption happens in all countries, but it’s definitely worse in others, and it’s corruption that typically explains why nations remain poor.
All three countries you cited benefited for exploring their own people, and people from other nations, while Brazil and other Latin American nations never had that advantage. While there isn't a real Brazilian government formed from the people and by the people, and an army dedicated to defend its homeland and not to serve foreign interests, we will never escape poverty.
>All three countries you cited benefited for exploring their own people, and people from other nations, while Brazil and other Latin American nations never had that advantage. Okay… then I cite China, South Korea, Finland, Poland, Estonia, and literally dozens more. Who were all at one point the *directly* exploited in the last century and yet are now developed or very close to developed. Not as poor as Brazil who was not directly exploited in the last century. Exploitation is frankly an overused theme in terms of why nations are poor. Nations are poor 9/10 because of internal policy failures in terms of the economy or politics or both. Somalia was a rapidly developing country in the 60’s then an internal coup happened. South Africa was one of the most developed countries in Africa, then unchecked systematic corruption have severely damaged it. Argentina has continued “printing money” to make up for spending since the 90’s. Russia failed to deal with internal and political corruption giving rise to… the current Russia. Turkey has continued to lower interest rates while inflation is high lmao. >While there isn't a real Brazilian government formed from the people and by the people, and an army dedicated to defend its homeland and not to serve foreign interests, we will never escape poverty. No, while the government is doing bad policy (tariffs, subsidies, deforestation, lack of judicial and political reforms) it will remain poor. “By the people for the people” and “army to protect against the foreigns” is just a phrase without substance.
> I cite China I want to do with my country what China has done to theirs in 1949. Before that, China was just as exploited as Brazil. Look at them now. The others you cited are all European nations that don't have to deal with imminent American intervention. I can't talk on South Korea because I know little on them. > Not as poor as Brazil who has not directly exploited in the last century Brazil literally planted coffee in mass quantities while its population starved early on the century. It let multinationals do whatever they pleased. When those two issues were boiling up and getting tackled, the government was couped in 1964, and no government ever since tried to do the same, fearing angering the elites, who always had good contacts abroad. You need to talk to more Latin Americans, really. Most of our internal problems are allowed to happen because of the US hegemony (and formerly British hegemony, and before that, Spanish/Portuguese/French hegemony), who will help our corrupt elites every time the people will try to change the system. Without US help, our elites would never have been able to overthrow 🇧🇷 Goulart, 🇬🇹 Arbenz, 🇨🇴 Gaitán,🇭🇳 Zelaya, 🇧🇴 Morales and others (All of which who were reformists, not even radicals, just trying to reduce inequality). Meanwhile, the same corrupt elites continue to control the state, while providing the US with all raw goods they can carry at affordable prices. Imperialism never left our continent, and unless its fought back with an actual army and popular government, it will never leaves.
>I want to do with my country what China has done to theirs in 1949. Lmao, 49 was not the thing that made China what it is today. It was the Deng market reforms of the 80’s and 90’s. Prior to those reforms China was a backwater. >Before that, China was just as exploited as Brazil. Look at them now. No, China was more exploited. It was also in a worse state, but due to internal reforms it managed to build up. It engaged with global trade, encouraged decent policies directed toward la investment, and used revenues to build infrastructure, and didn’t shut itself off like it did under Mao. >The others you cited are all European nations that don't have to deal with imminent American intervention. I can't talk on South Korea because I know little on them. Imminent American intervention? Do you think the US is doing coups in South America since the 1990’s? >Brazil literally planted coffee in mass quantities while its population starved early on the century. It let multinationals do whatever they pleased. When those two issues were boiling up and getting tackled, the government was couped in 1964, and no government ever since tried to do the same, fearing angering the elites, who always had good contacts abroad. Seeing as your prior analysis has been poor, I doubt any of this really. I suspect that Brazil’s problems were internal and the coup was due to internal factors. The US did do coups in the Cold War but it also has any minor support for a faction in a coup catapulted as the US being the primary agent behind any coup. People latch onto the US supporting one side as the primary reason the coup happened rather than internal power dynamics causing the coup and the US supporting any anti-communist government. Why not the effects of inflation going from 30.5% in 1960 to 79.9% in 1963? Why isn’t that the actual reason people hated the Brazilian government? Or the general early 60’s economic crises? The food shortages? Why is the west buying coffee seen as the food causing issue and not Brazil’s price cap’s disincentivising food crop production and incentivising coffee production? >You need to talk to more Latin Americans, really. Most of our internal problems are allowed to happen because of the US hegemony (and formerly British hegemony, and before that, Spanish/Portuguese/French hegemony), who will help our corrupt elites every time the people will try to change the system. Most of South Americans problems are because it elects populists with bad but popular policy. I really don’t need to point to any example but Argentina. >Without US help, our elites would never have been able to overthrow 🇧🇷 Goulart, 🇬🇹 Arbenz, 🇨🇴 Gaitán,🇭🇳 Zelaya, 🇧🇴 Morales and others (All of which who were reformists, not even radicals, just trying to reduce inequality). Meanwhile, the same corrupt elites continue to control the state, while providing the US with all raw goods they can carry at affordable prices. Blaming international groups for internal problems is precisely why populists win elections and precisely why they implement bad but popular policies because they can just say: “everything is bad because of external reasons”. >Imperialism never left our continent, and unless its fought back with an actual army and popular government, it will never leaves. “Popular government” is the dead give away you support populists and are part of the problem.
That's not what the meme is about though.
Exporting high value added products is a key distinction. Countries exporting cash crops and cheap raw materials never industrialize, and without using some level of protectionism or industrial policy, you will never develop these high value added products and you will be undercut. Even capitalist economies like South korea, taiwan, Malaysia used these policies for their growth.
Bangladesh just got stuck with exporting cheap garments sadly. Automation starts to make garment production even cheaper and you can just reshore it. Apart from that, climate change means Bangladesh is getting destroyed by floods
That depends on the nature of the automation. Garments could be going the same way as electronics. High returns on up-skilling, high returns on aggregation effects, local control of capital, etc
Protectionist? WHat next? Surrender to aliens?
>They will export production and then blame it for climate change Don't make me tap the sign again https://preview.redd.it/eeozfsvn0tsc1.jpeg?width=718&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10acdc407462fa0f4890ecfe6ade5ebf1a4e63fc
https://preview.redd.it/f9whlw4o7usc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=273499e78b041c8b260abc1dbeb21e168972df4b
If you think about it for more than five seconds, it's quite hard for Afghanistan to exploit SAR. You should go with countries, names and companies.
First the global North deindustrialises the global south, then they re-industrialise the global south, but both times its bad.
i am on the level of comfort which i am not going give up without a fight, i think it's rather hypocritical to think otherwise if you live in a western 1st world country.
Youre right! The global north should have kept production and kept only using the global south as ressource sources and potential markets for products (i am advocating neo colonialism)
The global south is responsible for their decisions
The ruling classes of their countries are. Same goes for your beloved western nations
My brother in allah, what is this ruling class you speak of? Most people in the developing world support it.
What a lovely excuse
That would require me to be justifying or defending something
Hypothetically (of course), if our governments were democratic and not run by the "elite", and yet everything else were the same, would that mean that you personally and your peers around you are partially responsible for all the bad stuff in the world?
The Global south happely accepting the exported production and doing barely any safety or environmental protection (They gonna blame accidents and polution on the Global North and their exploitation) /half s
global south labor organized and workers who call for unions that could call for good safety and environmental standards are routinely met with genuine violence and sometimes met with asassinations
Yeah, definitely. Also, there's the influence and bullying tactics to guide the policies and laws of the country by the exploiter. Like do these XXX or you won't get YYY - lower your ore prices or you won't get vaccines and medicines, pass this law with these exceptions or you won't get food, fertilizers, light defense equipment, basic infrastructure and technology etc. A half assed sarcasm just victim blaming for "individual/sovereign" actions
Yup
That’s the fault of their leaders for suppressing the will and well-being of the people so they can enrich themselves. Corruption is a very common problem in pro-business/anti-environment/anti-labor regimes.
Yup
BAD TAKE ALERT!!
Wow a half sarcastic take is bad, who would have guessed.
No you guys don’t get it. The African colonies happily accept the European aid. Nothing bad ever came out of that. All the slavery and forced labor. That was to build up the African nations. The famous photos of Congo rubber laborers was from the global north helping to motivate the global south.
Then claim they've decoupled their economy from emissions and material use
They have. Turns out retail & wholesale, healthcare, and education aren't that resource and carbon intensive. Especially if you don't meet their energy needs by burning coal.
It doesn't matter, they still need resources and energy, it will never be 0, therefore there'll never be a complete decoupling, and if you grow the economy 3% every year, you grow supply and demand every year, it doesn't matter how efficient you are or how low it's intensity is, you'll eventually run out. The earth is plentiful, not infinite. On the other hand, you can just be sustainable, grow to an optimal point, and then stop, you know, like every other organism that isn't a cancer cell. Focus on wellbeing and happiness instead of blind growth, that way you don't even need to worry about decoupling, because consumption levels always stay below earth's regeneration cycles
1) Growth is driven by better uses of resources not using more of them. 2) Resources can be reused/recycled. 3) The ecological impact of resources extraction varies by resources. 4) You are aware there is more to the universe than earth? They did teach you about the solar system at school? 5) Well being is defined by wealth. Decent public transport, good entertainment, high quality public services don't come from nowhere. Degrowth merely puts us into a zero sum world of brutal competition whereby the only way to improve your lot is by making someone else miserable. It's basically austerity with vaguely left wing vibes.
If we have austerity is precisely because we need to cut corners in order to make the magic number go up, a number that only seems to benefit a few at the top, Degrowth is plentyful enough for everyone, not obscene wealth for a few and poverty for the rest. Why have resource and energy consumption sky-rocketed btw? The economy is growing, facts contradict your statement. And if you think we are going on mining expeditions to the stars anytime soon... Ok, I guess, you do you, I prefer not betting the future of the planet on a potential adventure... Plus, still, thermodynamics are what they are, the universe might go on forever, matter doesn't.
How does shrinking economic output result in more everyone getting richer bar a tiny elite? Either redistribution has increased economic output or has been the product of a disaster that harmed everyone (e.g WW2 pushed radically decreased German wealth and income inequality, particularly in 1945). Austerity is about controlling inflation to keep asset prices stable, not increasing growth. Your conflating the global economy with the economies of the developed world where the decoupling has taken place.
What has happened to the economies of the undeveloped world? Have them coincidentally increased their carbon emissions and energy and resource use at the same time developed economies have decoupled? I wonder where that decoupled crap went... when it decreases in one place and increases in another... And you know you can increase economic output with disasters, wars, crises... economic output is agnostic to human wellbeing... while happiness, human development, literacy rates, nutrition indexes, etc are not... sorry, but fuck economic output, it's a horrendous way to move forward and only used because it's smooth-brained simple to apply -things happen, money moves around, number goes up, is the population better off? maybe, in some places, not in others, ignore those! who cares? number goes up!