As you pointed out, the economic issues today stem from neoliberalism (global trade liberalization) that has benefited corporations (and the wealthy) over people. A huge part of this is because barriers of entry exist for small businesses and individuals to take advantages of the economic paradigm in the same capacity as large corperations; consider this, it is often far more difficult (and expensive) for an individual to send relatively small amounts of money across borders than it is for a wealthy individual (or entity) to send large amounts of money. There are many other such barriers that exist and benefit the "already wealthy". As Thomas Pickety (Who is definitely left-wing) points out the accumulation of capital in most countries outs paces the growth of GDP, or in other words, the consolidation of wealth in the hands of the few is deepening. I mean there are other reasons for the nature of wealth inequality, but this is a big part of it. For this reason, I think that people on the left and right should be looking to decentralized currencies as a means of balancing the playing field so to speak. So I'm pretty sure your not alone hahaha
RE: Hello Steemitites, a dual radical has arrived!
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Hello Steemitites, a dual radical has arrived!
Keynesians usually pull the argument that they were better before liberalization, while this may be true, the stagflation crisis and the crisis of oil show us that their interventionism may be counterproductive. Actually, neoliberalism isn't global trade liberalization even if they privatize in their own countries, since a lot of countries in Africa still pay colonial taxes and the World Trade Organization among others practices protectionism, as well as populist politicians from both right and left want to put tariffs on products so they enrich themselves more distorting the world market, rewarding people who didn't earn it so they keep their power.
However yes, Thomas Piketty is a leftist and not even a Keynesian. He's a marxist who uses that knowledge to pull reforms based on interventionism, which is the contrary that I'm proposing. What he says about inequality is true, the wealth is being acumulated in few hands, if you look at the graphs; but it's also true that extreme poverty is being reduced every year. However, that doesn't mean that I should support the status quo and leave statism against freedom ride alone. The ancap period in the nation would be harsh and it would have to take a great sacrifice of its people since the rest of the world would use all the people harder as resources but when it takes the world the socialism that Piketty would like could be achieved, without the state this time, and without the little reforms that are just a little of what people should have.
Also, see how the banks today are businesses too big to fail. If they fail, the economy goes down, so the politicians rescue them to prevent a bigger evil. But then, since they tend to form monopolies, the owners of them know that they will be rescued by the government, so they can enrich themselves. And we can't nationalize them because we'd be outside the circuit of the economy and the politicians would be mixed with them again with the corruption, so as I said, the solution should be global anarchocapitalism and then mutualism will grow from it achieving socialism naturally.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit