Despite the Doomsday Narrative, Global Inequality Has Significantly Declined
This progress has been widely shared, to the great benefit of the people at the bottom of the distribution.

Today's hyperpartisan and frequently negative news cycle ignores one significant and uplifting story: the precipitous decline of global inequality. It's a subject that deserves our attention, for it reveals the power of markets, trade, and human ingenuity to lift up societies.
For decades, critics of globalization lamented the chasm that trade and a growing economic interdependence among nations would ostensibly create between the rich and the poor. In the last few decades, however, we've witnessed a clear reduction in global inequality quite contrary to the doomsayers' old predictions. Emerging economies—many of which were once considered backwaters destined to languish—have taken giant leaps forward by joining the global economy. Millions of people have been raised from abject poverty and wealth disparities have narrowed.
Consider India and even Communist-led China. Despite some recent problems due mostly to renewed authoritarianism, in the last few decades these economies have shifted from being insulated and stagnant to relatively open and dynamic participants in global commerce. By embracing markets and reducing bureaucratic encumbrances, they've catalyzed an economic renaissance. The World Bank's data underscores this transformation, highlighting that in China, over 800 million people have been liberated from the clutches of poverty since 1980. In India, that number sits at 415 million people since 2005.
However, focusing solely on income trends can sometimes blur stories of resilience and progress. Cato Institute scholar Chelsea Follett and George Mason University economist Vincent Geloso developed the Inequality of Human Progress Index (HPI) to better illuminate examples of how humans are flourishing. The index measures relative gaps in international inequality across a greater number of dimensions than those which focus on simple material well-being.
These dimensions include lifespan, infant mortality, adequate nutrition, environmental quality, access to opportunity (measured by education), access to information (measured by internet access), and political freedom. Each are critically important living standards that measures of monetary income might not fully reflect. Finally, the index gives more weight to things that are harder to achieve—like the feat of increasing life expectancy from 70 to 80 compared to the first step of increasing it from 20 to 30.
By measuring the degree to which people share in these improvements of welfare, Geloso and Follett's new index captures in much broader terms what most of us have in mind when we speak of human progress.
So, what does the index find? First, significant progress has indeed been made to improve overall well-being. These improvements appear larger than the ones reported by other measurements, such as the United Nations' Human Development Index, in part because of the other components of human progress measured. This difference demonstrates how a simple index, no matter how useful or how widely cited it is by other experts, can fail to capture many elements of human welfare.
As Follett and Geloso report:
The HPI with internet access included suggests that inequality initially increased in the early 1990s and then began to fall rapidly. Inequality appears to rise because only a few countries saw a surge in internet access at first. However, as internet access spread to other countries, inequality began falling rapidly. By 2018, inequality was between 35.3 and 49.4 percent lower than it was in 1990.
In other words, this progress has been widely shared, to the great benefit of the people at the bottom of the distribution.
In fact, looking at each indicator separately, the authors find spectacular reductions in inequality in all but two: childhood mortality and access to clean air. They suggest that the increase in mortality from pollution could be the result of the "Environmental Kuznets Curve." This curve shows that pollution at first increases with economic growth. It does so until a critical point is reached, after which pollution starts to fall. As Follett and Geloso note, "the hike could reflect that some countries are going through the transition." As for the increase in infant mortality inequality, this result could be a sign that child mortality has fallen, but not as fast in low-income countries as in high-income countries since 1990.
Challenges remain, of course, but the significant reduction in global inequality can't be ignored. These improvements are not just statistics; each testifies to real stories of human betterment and potential and underscores the immense possibilities that arise when individuals are empowered by freedom, barriers are minimized, and nations collaborate. As we navigate the complexities of the 21st century, this story of triumph should serve as both a beacon and a guide.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Despite the Doomsday Narrative, Global Inequality Has Significantly Declined
Uh, "all doomed equally" fully explains the latter clause while still conforming to the former.
It could, but that's not what the data show. ... as the article already says.
1. Does the data show more, or fewer people dying than at any point in human history?
2. The magazine and even many of their sources will print “Americans are increasingly interested in buying electric vehicles.” when the source literally says, “The share of the public interested in purchasing an EV is down 4 percentage points from May 2022.” without retraction and has been doing it for several years.
3. As libertarians, why do we give a shit? Veronique’s straw man about the world collapsing into a black hole if any two people achieve parity is her own retardation. Here in the real world the argument has pretty much always been that you can have equality concomitant with or at the cost of prosperity but doing the latter is immoral. Just because “Everybody wins equally” makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn’t mean you’re not still picking winners and losers.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
My last salary was $8750, ecom only worked 12 hours a week. My longtime neighbor estimated $15,000 and works about 20 hours for seven days. I can’t believe how blunt he was when I looked up his information See My Name Check Visit
.
.
.
For Details►——➤ http://bigmoney8.store
As libertarians, why do we give a shit?
Because if libertarians are not about the individual, then wtf are you about? Some fucking ism?
Child mortality is not a measure of anything other than what % of a population has their opportunity for liberty killed off before they ever get a chance to do something with it? Or are you saying that in Libertopia babies will have the freedom to get higher-paying jobs to pay for their own medical care - or will merely choose to die as an expression of the liberty they have?
I eagerly await you Rothbard/Rockwell caucusclowns argue that pro-life requires that society enslave pregnant women during their pregnancy so that, on birth, the indentured servant (meaning the personhood baby) can sign their multi-year 'work for infant medical care' contract - or be allowed to choose to die.
Everything Is So Terrible And Unfair, J.
Hey, J. Are you part of the Washington Post commentariat? You sound properly unhinged enough to fit in.
"Today's hyperpartisan and frequently negative news cycle ignores one significant and uplifting story: the precipitous decline of global inequality."
All discussions of inequality I have seen refer to earning inequality between the general population and the wealthiest persons in the nation.
Why does Reason try and Misrepresent the issue?
Who does the Misrepresentation serve?
If you weren't such an ignorant lefty shit, you might understand that inequality has more than one definition.
Is “equality” still the metric? I’m told equity is the correct measurement.
Yes. Equality gets in the way of things like reparations and anti-racism. Equity means whatever the speaker wishes, and is much more useful in doublespeak.
Don't worry. Globalists are raising the prices on basic commodities around the world to counter those poors from not being poverty poor.
"Today's hyperpartisan and frequently negative news cycle ignores one significant and uplifting story: the precipitous decline of global inequality."
All discussions of inequality I have seen refer to earning inequality between the general population and the wealthiest persons in the nation.
Why does Reason try and Misrepresent the issue?
Who does the Misrepresentation serve?
Perhaps if you weren’t such an ignorant lefty shit, you might understand that inequality has more than one definition.
Why is equality good?
It isn't. People who think "Equality Under the Law" is a wonderful thing never seem realize this means your laws, by necessity, are going to be made to accommodate the lowest common denominator.
Why should I give a shit about inequality as long as we're expansive in our means of income mobility? The only way you leftists are going to get your vaunted equality is by dragging everybody down to the lowest level
It’s actually the goal.
Can't have an aristocracy without a huge population of serfs.
Gaia and Greta approve.
The old meme of capitalism having people of significantly varying heights, all looking over a fence with the help of steps/ladders for the shorter folks, vs equity/socialism having everyone elses legs chopped off so they are all as short as the guy who cant see over the fence, is everything they strive for.
They cant create, only destroy. They cant help people, only kneecap those ahead.
Look at every implementation in schools. We have to take the honors and advanced classes away from the smart kids so the slow kids dont fall further behind.
Commies through and through
Inequality is the wrong thing to focus on here. People rising out of a state of absolute poverty is a pretty good thing though. And hopefully that trend is recovering after the covid madness.
"Today's hyperpartisan and frequently negative news cycle ignores one significant and uplifting story: the precipitous decline of global inequality."
All discussions of inequality I have seen refer to earning inequality between the general population and the wealthiest persons in the nation.
Why does Reason try and Misrepresent the issue?
Who does the Misrepresentation serve?
Gee, maybe if you weren’t such an ignorant lefty shit, you might understand that inequality has more than one definition.
It's as good a time as ever to note that "Equality" is neither morally expected, nor practically measurable.
First, let's note that no one really wants an equal world. Should a doctor earn the same as a high-school dropout? Should an immigrant working 2 jobs to pay for their kids to go to a private school earn the same as a guy who decided he'd rather live in a van at the beach and surf all day? Should you be required to pay the same amount of money to a restaurant that serves slop, versus one that creates fantastic dishes?
Certainly, some examples of inequality (Hunter Biden) demonstrate immoral situations. But there is nothing immoral about a society that rewards people for delivering more value to others than their peers. And it is laughable to suggest otherwise.
Second let's note that 99% of "Equality" metrics take a slice of data during a narrow time and compare all the agents to one another. This is terribly misleading as it fails to capture fundamental differences between the qualities of the Agents, and their changing demographics.
- Often equality statistics compare households. So a family of two will be compared to a family of 5. The incentives and expenses of these families are terribly different.
- Almost without fail, equality metrics fail to capture the changing demographics within percentiles. I started my career in the 2nd quintile, and have moved up since then. Close looks at income distribution in the US have told this story over and over- people start out in life with less money, and accumulate more over time, ending their life much better than they began. Is this always the case? No, and there may be examples of immorality in that (Hunter Biden), but the point is that the distribution of wealth isn't in itself a sign of immorality.
Get woke! And get over the concept of equality.
In the equity world anyone can be a doctor by just wishing, or by recruitment to meet some race, gender, sex, ethnic, or other divisive tribal parameter. And actions that further a political agenda but defy equality are totes OK under equity.
In a prosperous world, inequality would increase, as poor nations develop and rich nations develop even faster.
But our politicians are deliberately destroying rapid growth in rich nations, thereby hurting poor and rich nations alike.
It is fascinating that a "libertarian" magazine actually celebrates this: the link between inequality, free markets, and overall prosperity is well understood, as is the fact that economics is not a zero-sum game. But Reason has apparently adopted the socialist/progressive view of economics.
De Rugy has consistently been in favor of socialism cloaked in capitalist terminology. The shame of it is that Reason as a whole echoes that sentiment
I have never gotten that impression from any of her writing. Seriously. Trumpistas despise her because of her support for free markets and movement of people, and her opposition to xenophobia, protectionism and industrial policy. You’d think if she was a socialist she’d be in favor of the government controlling the economy and people.
I know. Her ignorance of mass migration in a welfare state is almost as strong as yours.
Freedom means stealing from citizens to fund other people no matter their country of origin. And if you think differently youre a racist.
How many migrants have you sponsored sarc?
No proponent of immigration claims that immigrants do not use social programs. That's a
strawmanlie and you know it.What proponents claim is that immigrants contribute more through human capital than they consume, resulting in a net economic gain.
"What proponents claim is that immigrants contribute more through human capital than they consume, resulting in a net economic gain."
That's quite a nuanced argument that I tend to agree with. If only the people who just accused others of "xenophobia" were willing to be as nuanced, maybe some headway would be achieved here.
It's an example of the seen and the unseen. You see welfare. It's easily measured. Can't say the same about how individual immigrants contribute to the economy and society in general.
Additionally there's a lot of zero-sum thinking coming from anti-immigration people. For example the idea that immigrants steal jobs assumes there is a fixed number of jobs, or that immigrants take welfare assumes they don't pay taxes.
Perhaps JesseAz could benefit from reading some Bastiat.
Except I have over 3 decades of seeing the costs be greater than the benefit. Blue states are finally starting to catch on. I've provided study after study showing the costs are greater. You just hand waive the data away based on feels from a state that is just beginning to feel the costs. I will bring up again Maine blowing their entire social services budget last year due to illegal immigration and seeing less than 5% of the numbers border states deal with.
You dont find it odd that sanctuary cities are crying uncle over 5% of the issue and less than one year?
I know the economics of illegal immigration. Both in wide spread studies and first hand experience.
You've relied on ignorance and keeping the problem away.
The benefits are not greater than the costs currently. Infrastructure does not support the numbers. School systems are overwhelmed. Social systems are overwhelmed. Those are just facts. Arizona has seen many towns go completely bankrupt from the issue, towns such as Ajo. 2k migrants a day are showing up there, for a town of around 80k.
So fuck off.
Infrastructure does not support the numbers.
Up front and by design, overtly saying so. We collect $A from soda taxes, we can provide B children with pre-K childcare. We collected $C from soda taxes (where C < A) and D children (where D > B) showed up.
I’ve provided study after study showing the costs are greater.
Seen and unseen. I’m sure I could dig up studies showing that the unseen is greater than the seen.
So fuck off.
Does that mean you’ll stop replying? If so then yes! I’m fucking the fuck off right now!
*zip*
I'll leave you with this in case you're interested (I know you're not, it's for people who like to learn stuff).
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Your personal ignorance of economic and fiscal facts doesn't make them "unseen".
Legal immigrants are fiscally and economically good for the US.
Illegal migrants clearly are neither.
No, I'll keep calling out your bumper sticker 1st order analysis on every topic to show how uninformed you are on every argument.
Your appeal to authority without looking even to the 2nd order analysis of a problem is noted. That is your main problem. You think society is not complex and everything can be analyzed through the schema of a perfect environment.
Note you can't actually counter any of my information can you?
Legal immigrants are fiscally and economically good for the US.
Their Visas are largely dependent on an employer and a pre-arranged job. Unlike illegal immigrants. And even then there is higher levels of state welfare benefits for this group of legal residents than normal residents.
Well said. There is also the current crisis with asylum seekers, where anti-immigration folks point to all the social services they are sucking up, without acknowledging they are prohibited from seeking employment.
Economic refugees do not fall under current asylum claims. That is the vast majority of migrants.
Jobs don't magically appear because you give someone a work permit. NYC is at 5.3% unemployment already. You're asking to increase those numbers arbitrarily as a solution. There are not 100k job postings in NYC currently to cover the group already there.
I know you and sarc don't live in reality and never think through your solutions past the initial talking point, but your solution is nonsense.
On top of that the NYT has had many interviews of migrants receiving free social services, housing, and admitting to working under the tables up to 40k a year without any taxes coming from them. The under the table work also shifts jobs from citizens to the black market causing an increase on welfare spent on citizens without jobs who are displaced.
Your solutions are nonsense.
Yeah, the fact that they're offered services while not being allowed to work is a big problem.
They would still be a net negative for US tax payers even if they were allowed to work.
You have been in this conversation multiple times now.
Where are the jobs for them? There is not 0% unemployment.
Where are the jobs for them? There is not 0% unemployment.
I don't know about Arizona, but around here help wanted signs are EVERYWHERE.
If they are truly asylum seekers, didn't they pass through at least one safe haven country on their way up here?
You need to make up your mind whether you are talking about asylum seekers or immigrants.
Asylum seekers are supposed to come to the US temporarily; we are supporting them as a humanitarian gesture. They are supposed to return to their home countries as soon as possible. That's why they shouldn't start working here or settle down here. I have no problem with financially support genuine asylum seeker, as defined by US law.
But the administration (and you) are treating the asylum system as a pathway to immigration, and that I and others have a big problem with.
We have excellent economic data on the effect of both immigrants and illegal migrants on taxes, government expenditures, and the wealth of the US. And it is crystal clear that legal immigrants make the US a wealthier place, while illegal migrants make the US poorer and cost US tax payers a lot of money.
You know that too. That's why you keep equivocating and incorrectly referring to illegal migrants as "immigrants" and why you keep bringing up the red herring of welfare.
Wow, it is truly amazing the difference a government permission slip can make.
Yes, just as amazing as the fact that a board certified heart surgeon is better at heart surgery than your barber, or that an accredited investor has a higher net worth than the average American. No doubt that surprises you too.
You mean people who get work visas with a job attached might be slightly different than a group of people coming over jobless seeking welfare... I for one am SHOCKED.
a group of people coming over jobless seeking welfare
That’s got to be one of the most racist, prejudiced, xenophobic, arrogant, condescending and hateful statements I have ever read. Congrats. You should get a prize for that. Maybe you get to occupy a machinegun nest on the border and murder some Spics. You’d like that, wouldn’t you? Be like Animal Mother. Don’t lead women and children as much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S06nIz4scvI
Wasn’t Animal Mother. Was ‘crazy door gunner.’ Figured I’d clarify since I’m sure you rebuttal would be all about me talking about the wrong character. Seriously though, I could see you doing that. Because to you they’re not human. They’re illegal. Just like the gunner saw gooks, not people. Much easier to kill once you dehumanize the enemy. Speaking of, where's Nardz been? Haven't seen his rants about murdering progressives in a while.
So? Americans are right to be afraid of mass immigration, and they are right to be prejudiced, condescending, and hateful towards people who come to the country illegally and take advantage of government benefits they didn't pay for and are never going to pay for.
If you’re proud to be that kind of person, one who dehumanizes others, then I hope you come with a red flag. Or hat.
I don't "dehumanize" illegal aliens. Illegal aliens are very much human beings who have broken our laws and should be held accountable and punished for it, like any other criminal and thief.
For legal, skilled immigrants that is true. For illegal migrants, it is clearly false. Even if it were true, "they contribute more than they consume" would be a progressive argument, not a libertarian argument.
But more importantly, supporting immigration is fundamentally different from the "free movement of people".
I know that everything you write is a lie. It may be someone else's lie you parrot because you are too dumb to realize it, or it may be your lie, but it's a lie nonetheless.
Being wrong is no the same as lying.
If you can convince me that I'm wrong and I change my mind, does that mean I changed from a liar to an honest person, even though I believed I was correct throughout? No, obviously not.
So stop being an ass.
As I was saying: you are either lying yourself or you are repeating someone else's lie.
Because you are the arbiter of capital-t Truth.
Understood. Should I address you as God NOYB2?
I'm just calling you out for your bullshit and leftist propaganda.
And I'm calling out your arrogant, sanctimonious, pompous, condescending attitude that you project as if you're God's mouthpiece.
You will never convince someone that they are incorrect by calling them a liar. The only thing you'll convince them of is that you're not someone they will ever like.
I'm not trying to convince you. You are simply a convenient and never-ending source of leftist lies and talking points. Please never stop: we need dumb shits like you.
Do you even know what leftist means? I kind of doubt it if you think myself or the author of this piece are leftists.
I simply pointed out that you repeat leftist lies and talking points.
Apparently, both de Rugy and you identify as something else, but what difference does that make?
Then be specific. What talking point is leftist? What makes it leftist other than being something you disagree with?
Among other things:
The idea that lower inequality is good.
The idea that developed countries naturally grow slower than developing countries.
The idea that mass immigration is good.
Mass immigration while ignoring costs and welfare states*
The idea that lower inequality is good.
Forced inequality is leftist for sure. But that's not what she's talking about. She's talking about people being lifted out of desperate poverty by capitalism.
The idea that developed countries naturally grow slower than developing countries.
How is that leftist? Growth plateaus. That's just like... nature.
The idea that mass immigration is good.
Again, how is that leftist? What leftist principle promotes immigration? If anything leftism promotes closed societies.
I think it's just a word you use to describe anything you disagree with because you speak THE WORD OF GOD.
Capitalist growth results in increased inequality.
Growth in nature plateaus because of zero-sum competition for finite resources. It is a leftist fallacy to believe that economies work like that.
The principle that mass immigration can be used to destroy bourgeois Western liberal societies.
There are plenty of things that I disagree with that I don't call "leftism". But you don't articulate those.
Capitalist growth results in increased inequality.
Not always! That was the point of the article! Try reading more than the fucking headline!
The principle that mass immigration can be used to destroy bourgeois Western liberal societies.
You saying she wants to destroy bourgeois Western liberal societies? Dude, that's what she wants for everyone!
Looks to me like you cherry pick from what someone says, connect it with something cherry picked from what someone else said, and than yell "Ah ha! They agree on everything!"
Which is totally wrong. And dishonest if you ask me. Yet you like to call people liars. Interesting.
I'm going to fuck off now.
And the article is wrong! The article fails to notice the lack of free market capitalism in the West as the root cause of decreasing inequality. Because if there were free market capitalism across the globe, then inequality would increase along with wealth, both within nations and between nations.
Where did I say anything about what she “wants” to do? You don’t need to "want" to destroy bourgeois Western society in order to participate in its destruction. Marxists call that “useful idiots”.
Yes and no. Compare Jefferson's declaration or the 1st ten Amendments with French Jacobin misnaming of rights. The worldviews in Yourup and former post-Holy Inquisition colonies, now under the Monroe doctrine, are as different from American as the Communist Manifesto is from Ayn Rand's "Anthem." Morphing Martin Luther's bloody Sword of Jesus into Hitler evangelism only worsened the collectivism. Sadly, Old World altruism has seeped into both factions of "our" doddering Kleptocracy. Now they see only their distorted reflections off a Whorf-Sapir barrier impervious to objective values, and vulnerable only to law-changing spoiler votes.
I asked for the soup, not the Word Salad
Neither de Rugy nor you support free markets or free movement of people.
What you support is zero-tariff imports and mass immigration, entirely different policies. And then you misrepresent those policies.
That's a nice strawman. Where'd you get the overalls?
Are you saying that you do not support "zero-tariff imports and mass immigration"?
Or do you incorrectly insist that zero-tariff imports and mass immigration amount to "free trade" and "free movement of people"?
Where EXACTLY is the "strawman"?
I never said anything about zero tariffs and unrestricted immigration. That's a strawman you made up because it's easy to argue against.
That is correct in the sense that you are equivocating and misrepresenting positions that amount to zero tariff imports and mass immigration as being about free markets and individual liberties.
And this has been pointed out to you often enough that at this point, you are simply deliberately and knowingly lying.
You keep incorrectly telling me what I'm arguing and then arguing against it. I don't know if you're intentionally strawmanning or just practicing rehearsed arguments, but you can do it all without me. Just go on telling me what I think and arguing against it. I don't even need to participate. I can just watch and shake my head.
I quote YOU:
De Rugy's arguments are not in favor free markets and the free movement of people, instead she argues for zero tariffs and mass immigration.
Furthermore, based on your very own statement you agree with her position.
So, in what way is what I'm saying "incorrect"? It's right there, very concisely, in your very own words.
I don't think either zero tariffs nor mass immigration are realistic, which makes both stances easy targets for counterarguments.
Realistically I agree with her that unilateral free trade is better than retaliatory tariffs, and that our current immigration system is fucked. I'm not sure she would support totally free immigration. A few common sense rules like no criminals or people with communicable diseases is likely implied. What I really don't understand is how either of those stances are in any way leftist. North Korea is as leftist as it gets, and they're the opposite of free trade and free movement of people.
OH this will be good. Explain your attacks on any policy that doesn't allow unfettered migration Sarc.
There is no such thing as "unilateral free trade". Free trade is, by definition, bidirectional between two free markets.
Which is why I described her and your position as "mass immigration", not "totally free immigration".
So, in other words, my assertion is correct: you agree with her misrepresentation of zero tariffs and mass immigration as "free trade" and "free movement of people".
China is a communist nation. It wants to export to the US without tariffs, and it wants US culture and society to be erased through mass immigration. The American left supports those Chinese communist positions.
In general, leftists have one set of political positions for undermining liberal democracies, and a different set of positions for actually governing as socialists.
Explain your attacks on any policy that doesn’t allow unfettered migration Sarc.
This is why I put you on mute. You continually make shit up and argue against it. Do you want to go back in the corner?
There is no such thing as “unilateral free trade”. Free trade is, by definition, bidirectional between two free markets.
Unilateral free trade is still free trade. Free trade means your government doesn’t punish you for buying stuff from countries it doesn’t like. You’re talking about fairness, which by the way is something leftists value more than anything else.
So, in other words, my assertion is correct: you agree with her misrepresentation of zero tariffs and mass immigration as “free trade” and “free movement of people”.
I think you’re digging way to far into semantic details in some quest for any inconsistency that you can point to and say “Liar liar you’re a liar liar liar liar liar!”
China is a communist nation. It wants to export to the US without tariffs, and it wants US culture and society to be erased through mass immigration. The American left supports those Chinese communist positions.
Their government is communist. The nation is comprised of some pretty nice people. And what country doesn’t want to export without tariffs? Now that I think about it, that doesn't make sense. It implies that they pay the tariffs. They don't. Consumers pay tariffs because they are taxes. Why do you like taxes so much? As far as the rest goes I think you’re just making shit up.
"Free trade" means that the trade is between private parties, free of government interference. If any government interferes or if the trade is with another government, it is, by definition, not free trade.
Misrepresenting trade with massive government interference as "free trade" isn't a "semantic detail".
You asked why these positions are "leftist", and I gave you the explanation: these are the policy preferences of communist nations for the US.
You asked why these positions are “leftist”, and I gave you the explanation: these are the policy preferences of communist nations for the US.
No you didn't. You just made a bunch of shit up.
Would you like to sell exports to foreigners without their governments punishing them with taxes?
*gasp*
You're a leftist!
You are welcome to correct any of the facts I stated.
The principle here is not "trade should be free of tariffs"; communist nations do not embrace such a principle.
What de Rugy advocates is that imports from communist nations to the US should be free of tariffs; that is indeed a leftist position.
What de Rugy advocates is that imports from communist nations to the US should be free of tariffs; that is indeed a leftist position.
How is that leftist? Free trade doesn't discriminate based upon politics. It's about the consumer, not the producer. It's about taking advantage of comparative advantage.
Saying "You're leftist because you don't want to tax stuff from China, and neither does China. Because they're leftist you're leftist too!" is fucking retarded.
The libertarian principle is "universal zero tariffs are good". The leftist policy is "the US ought to eliminate tariffs and open its markets while the Chinese economy may remain closed and CCP controlled". They are different.
De Rugy isn't advocating "free trade" or even general principles.
Stop repeating this b.s. The US lowering tariffs unilaterally does not create the conditions under which comparative advantage occurs.
As I was saying, I don't know what you or she "are". It is likely that you are just useful idiots parroting someone else's propaganda and messaging.
"De Rugy has consistently been in favor of socialism cloaked in capitalist terminology. "
This is absolutely untrue. If there is a criticism of her, it is that her faith in markets is so strong as to ignore any possibility of market intervention. If you are going to argue a point like this, you need to give some pretty strong evidence.
There is a large faction on the right who append "socialism" to any economic or political idea they don't like regardless of where it lies on traditional axes.
Really? Can you give examples of such "economic or political ideas" that are incorrectly labeled as "socialist"?
This should be interesting!
You should try reading more than the headline sometime.
It does seem that way.
The headline is sufficient to determine that de Rugy is taking a progressive, illiberal, anti-libertarian view of economics, because no free market economist would consider a decrease in inequality as intrinsically good.
The body of the article is the usual drivel about how nice it is that countries like China have developed. What it is missing is that global inequality should have increased dramatically because developed countries like the US and Europe should have been growing very rapidly.
The US and Europe already developed. The rest of the world is just catching up and doing what took us a couple centuries in a matter of decades.
Yes: the US and Europe have excellent infrastructure and a highly educated workforce. That is why they should be growing faster than countries like China or India. That is what we expect if we had free market economies. The idea that there is some natural limit to growth in developed societies is another leftist delusion.
That assumes that growth is linear. It’s not. It’s a curve. We had rapid growth followed by slower and slower growth. I don’t expect the lifestyles of people a hundred years from now to be as dramatically different as ours are from a hundred years ago.
And like us, when those countries reach our level of development, their growth will slow as well.
I’m not “assuming” anything. I am observing that the fact that inequality has decreased is due to the fact that growth in the West has slowed. So far we agree.
Then I am pointing out that there is no obvious reason why growth should slow down in a “developed” free market economy. To the contrary, we expect growth to continue exponentially in a developed economy, since growth ought to be proportional to the education, infrastructure, and current size of the economy. Any other behavior requires an explanation.
Running out of resources might limit growth, but developed economies aren’t running out of resources.
So, what’s the explanation according to you? What specific factor, according to you, limits growth in “developed” economies?
What specific factor, according to you, limits growth in “developed” economies?
People and technology. There were massive leaps in technology that drove growth in developed countries. Where are the massive leaps now? Right now we're improving, not creating. That and people can only do so much. That’s actually why immigration is good. It means more people doing stuff and more people with ideas to improve technology. Developed nations have developed. As in development is done. Growth slows. Developing nations are still developing. As in growing. Once they’re done growing they slow down.
WTF are you talking about? Technological progress is objectively, measurably faster than ever.
Yeah, that's circular reasoning. It's absurd.
Developing countries are developing. As in they're doing in decades what we did in much longer. Of course they're going to be doing so at an accelerated pace. They're catching up to what's already been done. Once they're developed they'll be on the same level as us, and they're growth will likely slow as well. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.
It's not like they're going to shoot right past us once they catch up.
Your argument for why growth slowed down is that there haven't been massive leaps in technology, that somehow developed nations have reached some sort of natural technological endpoint. That is utter bullshit. Massive leaps in technology happen faster now than half a century ago.
Not endpoint. Plateau. I’m saying that until the next big boost we’re on the top of a logarithmic curve. Can only squeeze so much out of a combustion engine. Can only make transistors so small.
You have provided zero evidence for a technological "plateau".
"Transistor" is a generic name for a kind of nonlinear three terminal circuit element. Transistors today have technologically next to nothing to do with transistors of half a century ago.
More importantly, though, none of that has much to do with economic growth. You have a Marxist-materialist view of economics, in which economic growth is all about material stuff.
Is your argument really that the growth from 1800s-1900s was faster than the 1900s-2000s? Life hasn't changed at all rapidly in the last century?
No, my argument is that we’re improving on existing technology more than we are creating new technology.
Then again people in the 1890s thought technology had peaked, so I may be making the same error.
(Unlike you I am capable of admitting to being wrong and changing my mind. While you see it as a weakness, I see it as a strength.)
That’s not an “argument”, it is an unsubstantiated assertion, and one that is obviously false.
Ok, God.
The last two centuries saw the Industrial Revolution, the rise of science over religion, exploitation of fossil fuels, steam and internal combustion engines, automobiles and airplanes, computers and automation, anesthesia and antibiotics...
What are we doing now other than improving on these things?
Only thing I can think of is AI. I figure if everyone is so afraid of it then it might be a great leap.
Look at history. There were the Bronze and the Iron ages. Why were they ages? Because technology plateaued until the next big innovation. I think of today is the Petroleum age. That's really what's driving everything if you think about it. It's our source of fuel, plastics, fertilizer, and everything else that we rely on.
Until the next new thing, we're only going to improve on what we've got.
No, because they are convenient and easy to observe for historians, and because they are important for warfare. What didn't happen is what you imagine, namely that economies grew and then plateaued until the next age.
Just about every scientific and engineering field has been completely transformed over the past half century. I mean, you may think of an M3 as "just an improvement" of an 8080, but the technological differences are bigger than between a stone age atlatl and a modern machine gun.
I’m open to being wrong. I figure half of what I know is wrong. I just don’t know which half.
Expecting people who conflate "freedom" and "equality" to protect your liberty is like buying your coke from a guy who cuts it with Drano.
The thing is, in most really poor countries, the inequality exists more because of government corruption making it so only the well connected can get rich. I'd say it's certainly a good thing to reduce that sort of inequality.
But you are right in a more or less capitalist, market based economy inequality is a silly thing to worry about if people in general have a decent and increasing standard of living.
It's interesting to see countries around the world transform from agrarian shitholes to modern societies in a matter of decades. Took us most of two hundred years.
Yes it is interesting to contrast South Korea and North Korea.
Look at the movement of shirt factories. They rely on cheap labor. Yet at the same time they manage to increase the standard of living for the people where they are located to the point where people expect better wages, and the factories move to a poorer country. They helped lift Vietnam, Bangladesh, Myanmar and others out of poverty. The older a shirt is, the more likely it was made somewhere else.
"The older a shirt is, the more likely it was made somewhere else."
Yeah, the quality of both material and craftmanship takes a hit every time they move . . .
Study a little Korean and there you see the schism between nuclear-tipped collectivist totalitarianism and mystically-stupefied 18th-Century Mercantilism struggling to adapt to electrodynamics in the computer age. North Koreans cling to Qing-Mao imperialism while their Southern relatives struggle to paint that over with prehistoric death-worship transplanted by European missionaries. To European governments those missionaries served only to irritate lynch mobs into action. In death they supplied pretexts for levying reparations payments and adhesion to unequal treaties. Still, Atlas, Anthem and 4 other Rand books reportedly exist in Korean translation.
Yeah, those poor South Korean Christians have really struggled with lecktricity and building a Top 10 economy from a poor shithole in just 50 years. Having their lives run by European Masters like Samsung and Hyundai. You fvcking babbling imbecile
Who needs that food bullshit.
You do realize that 2% of the people engaging in modern farming produces more food than 90% of the people scratching dirt, right?
Youre repeating corporations farm buyouts of local farmers. A huge problem due to their collusion with government subsidies. You realize that right?
Not everyone in the world can be a white collar worker. You realize that right?
Also a weird take from someone who was defending china's practice of slave labor the other week.
I’m starting to think you miss my point deliberately just so you can be a douchebag and argue. Because nothing you just said follows from anything I just said. I'm talking about the fact that we don't need to live on a farm to survive. Modern agriculture produces and abundance that allows most people to do something else. It took us a long time to make that transition, mostly because we were doing it first. My original comment was how it's a marvel that countries are now doing that in a matter of decades.
From that you somehow infer that I want everyone to be a white collar worker? I think you just make stuff up so you can have something to argue at.
"It’s interesting to see countries around the world transform from agrarian shitholes to modern societies in a matter of decades. Took us most of two hundred years."
Blame the industrial revolution, and the electronic revolution, and all the "revolutions" in between. It does sadden me that some commenters here seem to somehow resent that people in other countries are doing better, and getting better quickly. I can only assume that they fear that other peoples progress somehow comes at the cost of their own, which, I feel is misguided.
"I can only assume that they fear that other peoples progress somehow comes at the cost of their own, which, I feel is misguided."
Zero-sum economics. The belief that countries compete with each other economically. Deliberate ignorance of comparative advantage and of how both parties, regardless of political borders, are better off with trade. I miss the days when conservatives were economically literate.
Surely you don't mean back when "conservative" meant protecting one's slaves and Indian reservations from the evil excitement of free trade in the Demon Rum, right?
LOL, I sometimes suspect you are a time traveler who has come to post comments here. But, seriously, you seem to have studied a lot of history and tend to consider a much longer time frame than most others when thinking about things. It does make your comments interesting.
[Disclaimer: I know some commenters here will try to misconstrue my comment as an insult, but I am trying to pay a compliment to Libertariantranslator.]
Conservative has always meant a lot of different things because all conservatism is is not wanting to change things too quickly.
Goldwater, Reagan, Thatcher...
If an American trades with "China", the two parties are the American and the Chinese Communist Party, because the CCP controls every economic actor in China. Both parties are indeed better off.
But the CCP is our sworn enemy, so why would we want to make them "better off"?
Huh? Who “resent(s) that people in other countries are doing better”?
I know that you like the tsk tsk, above it all virtue signaling, but that’s ridiculous.
It took a while to build up the capital. It's easier now to move it around and invest it in different places.
Didn't we kind of lead the way and provide a lot of investment to transform those former shitholes?
Yes.
That's what I was talking about in my shirt factory comment.
The most unequal thing is to be dead, when billions are alive.
Technology, free markets, rules of law, etc. has helped billions of people postpone the inequality of death over the past couple of centuries. Luddites, communism, and despots have demonstrated their ability to accelerate death. Too bad we still have to argue about this.
How long will it take Veronique to grok that equality and freedom are opposite goals. In the objectivist formulation or moral rights, the touchstone, the standard of value is a life worth living. Equality is something one observes in graveyards, prisons and concentration camps.
She's not talking about equality through force. She's talking about capitalism raising the standard of living for everyone.
+++
Kennedy did that with his rising tide lifting all boats. The problem with importing communist slang like "capitalism" is its variety of subjective meanings. At best it signals mystical slaveholding mercantilism. At worst it suggests predatory stock-exchange Jewry and Pinkerton riflemen. Howells replaced it with the more accurate "Accumulation" in his paeans to Altruria. Note that communist and nazi dictators' heirs in possession of looted ingots do qualify as "capitalists." Adopting the enemy's terminology was a lose-lose proposition even when Ayn Rand tried it. Bastiat's "laissez-faire" was the better coinage. It points to the shedding of coercion rather than mere accumulation of boodle.
"Bastiat’s “laissez-faire” was the better coinage."
No argument here.
Hey, something we can agree on.
Settle in for countless leftmedia hot takes about Trump running "a good man" like Romney out of politics, from the same people who once called him an animal abuser and accused him of giving a woman cancer.
I accuse him of being a gun grabber and social medicine zealot.
Party now calling for girls to be put in binders lauds man they criticized for having binders full of women.
Listen for yourself to see how fascist these people are (and I mean "fascist" in the classic historical sense, not online-speak for "not-a-Democrat"):
Maddow thinks all US citizens are duty-bound to make themselves and their property available to serve US war policy.
I appreciate that they're fully embracing their warmongering communist ideology.
"LIES!!" screams Buttplug.
US incomes fall for third straight year under Biden admin as more people ‘cut back’ and work multiple jobs: Census Bureau
Inflation surges outpaced the average pay raises of US workers in 2022 — the third consecutive year under President Joe Biden in which Americans have seen their standard of living take a tumble, according to fresh data from the US Census Bureau.
Inflation-adjusted median household income fell to $74,580 in 2022 — a 2.3% decline from the 2021 average of $76,330, the federal agency reported on Tuesday.
Looking at the street scenes in many American cities looks like we reached equality with some of the worst parts of Calcutta or Port-au-Prince.
Yeah… The USA is struggling to make ends meet just like every other socialist h*llhole….
What a WIN! We SUCK just as bad as all the others now…. Great job… /s
That's not what the article is claiming. There's a lot about actual, material quality of life improving.
I do agree it is annoying that it has to be framed as an inequality issue rather than a life improving for the poorest people issue.
It can’t be framed as life improving for the poorest people because that’s not how the data is derived. The index is semi-honest about that – Due to a lack of detailed distribution data for many countries on key metrics, our effort focuses on inter‐country inequality and on global interpersonal inequality rather than within‐country inequality. These are purely national level statistics – not individual-level statistics. The foofoo about ‘global interpersonal’ is just manure.
Further, the two indicators that are the most indicative of ‘life improving for the poorest people’ – childhood mortality and air-pollution deaths – have actually worsened(?) over that time frame. More accurately:
Poorer countries are no more able to deal with childhood mortality on their own than they were in 1990. unless.
They have been able to insource the most deadly toxic work from rich countries.
“…air pollution deaths…..”?
I thought we called those covid deaths now.
Or eco-weeny fantasies.
This progress has been widely shared, to the great benefit of the people at the bottom of the distribution.
Without distribution data, you can assert nothing of the sort. This is all national level statistics.
One of the indicators is transparently shitty - internet access - and is obviously designed for the usual 'life is always getting better for everyone as long as some Nigerian prince is getting access to the bank accounts of stupid rich people with email'.
Schooling, nutrition, and general lifespan obviously require distribution data. You only need to look at lifespan by income here in the US to realize that.
Political liberty might be interesting as some indicator for how people want their society to be organized in order to maximize their own liberty and prosperity. But that can't be measured.
This might be an interesting project. It could just as easily be an attempt to sell a political idea by using statistics in its oldest etymological meaning (data about the condition of a state or community)
"This progress has been widely shared, to the great benefit of the people at the bottom of the distribution."
And to the great detriment of the American middle class.
You're welcome.
Sincerely,
-America
Veronique De Rugy is by far the most reptilian stenographer Reason dot com employs