Even the IMF now recognizes the failure of neoliberal policies

[Big Nasty Edison]

Billionaires love globalization. That sweet sweet cheap labor.

 

[Seano]

Yeah, someone already mentioned that before.

Oh, good.

 

[cincymma79]

Billionaires love globalization. That sweet sweet cheap labor.

Only until those societies advance
So why do you hate Asians for now, latinos and blacks people next

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

Only until those societies advance
So why do you hate Asians for now, latinos and blacks people next

0/10

 

[Amerikuracana]

Logistics? commercialization? marketing? wouldnt know without looking at the balance sheet of the companies



Sure, i suck because according to you people would be better off if they had menial sweatshop jobs.



Again, demonstrably false.

That's a microwave ad of 1985.

1985's dollars are worth 2.39x more than 2020's dollars.

That means a microwave (with many times less features) back then would be $1035 USD, i can get one from Amazon for $60 bucks.

I can get 17 microwaves today with what a microwave costed back in the 80s, and i would still have spare change.



Which long term damage?



This doesnt makes sense.

The menial sweatshop jobs were union factory jobs and came with living wages and retirements. the people retired and bought boats, and the factory owners still got rich. The first world decided against "sweat-shops" dude, and it created "The middle-class."

That was when microwaves were new(ish). New technology is more expensive. I'll take being able to go get an $18 hour factory job with great insurance any time I need it over cheap crap anyway, but again. like with TVs made overseas, it was about the newness of the technology.

 

[Son of Ireland 34]

All these rich people calling for more taxes do realize that they can write out a check to the IRS any time they want right? What are they waiting for if they really believe this?

 

[Islam Imamate]

This is as if the Pope came out with ''you know, maybe that Jesus thing we have been pushing for centuries is a bit iffy''.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...-raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-tackle-inequality

''Raising income tax on the wealthy will help close the growing gap between rich and poor and can be done without harming growth, the head of the International Monetary Fund has said.
Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF’s managing director, said higher marginal tax rates for the better off were needed as part of a policy rethink to tackle inequality. In a sign of how the IMF has moved away from the tax-cutting approach that once formed a central part of its policy advice, Georgieva said there needed to be a different approach to tackling what had become “one of the most complex and vexing challenges in the global economy”.
The IMF chief, writing in a blog, said: “Inequality of opportunity. Inequality across generations. Inequality between women and men. And, of course, inequality of income and wealth. They are all present in our societies and – unfortunately – in many countries they are growing.”
In the 1990s, the IMF was at the heart of the Washington consensus – a free-market approach to running economies that included the belief that tax cuts for the better off would have trickle down benefits through greater innovation and higher growth. The IMF functions as the global lender of last resort, bailing out countries in financial difficulty and issuing policy advice alongside its interventions.
The world’s 26 richest billionaires – including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg – own as many assets as the 3.8 billion people who make up the poorest half of the planet’s population, according to Oxfam. In a report last year, the charity said a global wealth tax on the 1% would raise an estimated $418bn (£325bn) a year – enough to educate every child not in school and provide healthcare that would prevent 3 million deaths.
“Tackling inequality requires a rethink,” Georgieva said, adding: “Despite the political difficulty of implementing reforms the payoffs for growth and productivity are worth the effort. “Progressive taxation is a key component of effective fiscal policy. At the top of the income distribution, our research shows that marginal tax rates can be raised without sacrificing economic growth.”
The IMF managing director, who succeeded Christine Lagarde last year, said higher taxes on the better off, the use of digital tools to boost tax collection, and reducing corruption would help fund government spending to expand opportunities for those “communities and individuals that have been falling behind.”
Tax and spending policies should also have a gender dimension, Georgieva said. “While many countries recognise the need for gender equality and women’s empowerment, governments can use gender budgeting to structure spending and taxation in ways to advance gender equality even further – increasing women’s participation in the workforce and, in turn, boosting growth and stability.”
The IMF has often been criticised by development campaigners for insisting on public spending cuts as part of its rescue packages for countries in financial distress. Georgieva said the IMF recognised that social spending policies are increasingly relevant in tackling inequality. “When done right they can play a fundamental role to mitigate income inequality and its detrimental effects on inequality of opportunity and social cohesion.
But the IMF has shifted it stance amid evidence of weak growth, a concentration of wealth among the top 0.1% of the population, and a falling share of national output going to workers. In recent years, it has produced research disputing the Washington consensus belief that countries could have lower inequality or faster growth but not both.
“Education, for example, prepares young people to become productive adults who contribute to society. Healthcare saves lives and can also improve the quality of life. Pension programmes can allow the elderly to preserve their dignity in old age.” She added that many less well-off countries needed to scale up social spending if they were to have a chance of meeting the UN’s 2030 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs), which include reducing inequality.
“In key areas such as health, education, and priority infrastructure, we estimate that emerging market economies will require additional spending every year – reaching about 4 percentage points of GDP in 2030.”
Georgieva said the IMF could not tackle inequality on its own. “We envision this as a partnership of international organisations, academics, country authorities, civil society and the private sector working together to enhance social spending policies and lay the groundwork for achieving the SDGs.''
​

That's a stretch. They're just saying that maybe some higher taxes on the wealthiest isn't the worst idea and they're likely only saying it because they can see the populist pressure that's built up due to rising inequality. Its a mild concession to avoid deeper, more radical change. IIRC they used to recommend land reform until the fall of the Soviet Union. So these prescriptions aren't just cold, sterile economic solutions but also have an element of political compromise.

 

[Rod1]

The menial sweatshop jobs were union factory jobs and came with living wages and retirements. the people retired and bought boats, and the factory owners still got rich.

Right, everyone could afford a nice home in the suburbs with a non-working wife and plenty of kids, plus boats, 2 cars and retirement.

Yup completely not take out of a sitcom my bernie bro.

The first world decided against "sweat-shops" dude, and it created "The middle-class."

Keep believing it, luddite.

That was when microwaves were new(ish). New technology is more expensive

They werent new(ish), they were simply out of budget for a lot of American homes.

I'll take being able to go get an $18 hour factory job with great insurance any time

Then go to school, and not ask everyone to pay higher prices in order for your unskilled labor to be more valuable.

but again. like with TVs made overseas, it was about the newness of the technology.

As i said, most of the components of TVs arent made with $1 dollar labor and competition is far fiercer nowadays.