Jesus, the US is one of the only countries in the imperial core in which the average person's wealth would not decrease if wealth was distributed equally globally.
Thing is, this is about current global wealth(probably as in gtp per capita) which shouldnt just be "redistributed equaly". Actualy having equal wealth globaly means a hillariously giagantic extra amount being directed from america and the west back to the exploited countries in order for them to make up the centuries of infatsructure and modernization stolen by imperialism.
It's also probably the country that treats its own citizens the worst at the imperial core.
Thinking about that “how oil doesn’t corrupt norway” post someone made to the dunk tank a couple weeks ago now. Very cursed. Thanks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this map say the average person in Nordic countries would still be better off if global wealth distribution was even? That would imply wealth inequality in those countries is as bad as in the US, which seems counterintuitive.
I'm a little confused by the graph myself, but wealth inequality in Europe is still bad, which is papered over by public-ish healthcare etc. that improves living standards but doesn't show up when you measure wealth.
Sweden has had soaring inequality in the last 20 or so years. Nobody seems to want to talk about it really.
It does say "average" which could mean like 50% of Americans would have less wealth and 50% would have more. Especially considering most anglo countries would have less per person. Likely that "middle class" white people would have less, while migrant workers, black people, and indigenous people would have a bit more. Or not, it's hard to think about statistics xD
What I mean is I don't think it's a good idea to go around saying "good news white people socialism means you don't have to change your lifestyle!" Seems like a bit of a cope.
I think if anything, the message should be "socialism means you can do more with less." People won't have the same excesses like buying tons of cheap plastic trash off Amazon for next day delivery, eating steak every other day and off-season fruits year-round, and driving their big car around everywhere. However, there will be universal healthcare, more time off from work, and better public transportation. Your lifestyle changes but it doesn't mean you have to be miserable. It's a trade that has benefits for everyone. And nobody should necessarily be trying to win over chauvinistic people who won't accept any change in their lifestyle. You won't win those people over anyways.
Considering the whole minimalism thing has been pretty popular lately I think a decent chunk of people wouldn’t mind not needing to C O N S U M E all the time
Minimalism is built on just in time logistics and being rich.
It's easy to live minimalistically when you know you can buy whatever you need when you need it. It's not a real change to people's living, it's a luxury that rich people can do.
Synthesis: It's both good and bad. Although it's also just more silly lifestyle advice like "don't buy too much stuff".
If thats what it was in practice that would be great. But what I've seen is the way minimalism is sold is that one should get rid of all of their stuff that they don't like. Who can do this?
Those who don't need to save, store, reuse, and prepare.
Who is that?
Those who can purchase what they need when they need it.
Yes, but it's possible to imagine a society where, due to overall reduced consumption, there's plenty of resources to go around, and thus it's easy and cheap to get what you need, when you need it.
This is a bit of a hot take.
Saving things for a definite future use is still minimalistic. It stops being minimalistic when it becomes either hoarding or luxury (which in the case of real estate almost always means hoarding).
Some people are minimalistic as a novelty, yes, but others are minimalistic by necessity.
However, there will be universal healthcare, more time off from work, and better public transportation. Your lifestyle changes but it doesn’t mean you have to be miserable. It’s a trade that has benefits for everyone. And nobody should necessarily be trying to win over chauvinistic people who won’t accept any change in their lifestyle. You won’t win those people over anyways.
Maybe it's just me, but I'd give an awful lot just to escape the alienation that the current system generates. That includes shitty workplaces/managers, no sense of community or friend network from people having to constantly move, everyone constantly stressed and encouraged to lash out at others, etc. I think even those "middle class" people who have some financial security are much more miserable than they'd otherwise be just due to this, but it's not something that's as easy to quantify.
It says 10% better of with global redistribution. But that also doesn't account for other changes that would happen when that actually happens. Prices for things would go up as exploitation of the global south decreases, which would easily wipe out that 10% increase in net worth or whatever.
those numbers for Germany really surprise me tho. USA of the EU really is a fitting descriptor for this shithole, huh :germany-cool:
Well of course. Why would you go to all of the trouble of instilling a puppet state in another country and brutally exploiting their workers if you were just going to pass the savings on to consumers?
Well actual "global wealth" being distributed equaly should mean mostly America but the entire west as well redirecting collosal EXTRA amounts of tens of trillions of imperialist spoils and wealth accumulated in order for the global south to make up for the stolen centuries of development by imperialism and colonialism , catching up infastructure ,services and technology wise to high end western "standards"
Just "equally distributing" current global wealth and money (and this map in extension) is less than half of the picture and still leaves enormous gaps and innequalities in development and infastructure and as an extension huuuuuge amounts of imperiallist spoils in America and the west still not redistributed. Only when that is factored in you can talk about actual global wealth redistribution and imperialist spoils being distributed. And something tells me that America would fully fall in the deepest blue then.
Doesn't that depend on the methodology? Whether this only counts personal wealth or whether infrastructure owned by corporations and governments qualifies.
Just confirming what everyone already knew, that white people are vampires.
those numbers on Africa are fucking grim. Unconditional wall for everyone involved in the IMF.
What the hell is going on in Indonesia? I would never guess they were top 5 in wealth inequality
nah they're one of the staple examples of neoliberal hellscapes tbh
Yep
- Millions of leftist massacred
- Mini imperialism targeted toward minority islands to enrich Java
- Religious fascists destroying class consciousness
- Western companies have free reign over natural resources
- Rampant corruption funnelling billions of tax money back into capitalists in subsidies
Interestingly, my income would almost not change at all. I checked a couple of years ago (just before covid hit the west proper), and my income was almost exactly the median global. A substantial portion of that goes to rent.
Why the fuck did they leave out Australia and Canada ?
They didn't, basically every western country but America would have net decrease in income per Capita with global equal redistribution.
The Nordic countries would also have a net increase according to this, which seems a little odd to me.
Oh yeah, it definitely makes sense that the average person in the US would still be better off, but I would think countries like Sweden and Norway would have a net decrease with global wealth being spread evenly. Then again, I just looked up inequality stats and Sweden has higher inequality than the US, so maybe that explains it.
I also just meant like 40 or 50% of all global wealth ends up in America or with American nationals so even relatively well off nations would be doing better under global re-distribution.
But yeah, all capitalist nations are gonna have insane wealth gaps.
Ah, I understand now, and that makes perfect sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Almost everyone except for the wealthy are in debt in Sweden at least. Manageable debt, but it is still negative wealth.
