I own textiles. I do not own a loom. The loom is used to manufacture the textiles.
I own plastic items. I do not own an oil well. The oil well is used to get oil used to make petroleum products.
Etc.
It’s a global economy, and we benefit from the inequities.
Huh? Why would that be? Getting those factories operational and churning out units faster will be the key priority.
Conditions thus will be the same, or worse, than China, especially in even poorer countries.
The other narrative is the chicago school triumph narrative, how there has never been a time with more opportunity and more wealth thanks to the economic policies of the past half century, and all you need to take part in that is to put in a little effort.
What I would like is for people to stop telling stories and start digging into facts. Strongman the narrative of the other team, find the best set of facts to support them, contrast with your own facts. Someone who does that, i’m interest to read their take. But this article is all narrative and zero insight. Not impressed.
And yes, we tell stories because that’s a very basic way we communicate with each other. Just spouting facts at people in a narrative (how is this different than a story?) isn’t really received by most people.
edit: I see you’re saying that facts should just tromp “narratives”, but I stand by the rest of what I said.
My take is that absolute wealth hardly matters to most people. It's always been a question why Bob gets more than Alice, regardless of whether they lived in the stone age or the information age. People care about relative status a heck of a lot, and they will keep doing so. If absolute wealth were all that mattered, nobody would complain anymore because we all have much more than people of not long ago, and insanely much more than stone age people.
Look at various struggles between people of different status throughout history. The Barons and the Magna Carta (John), the French Revolution, the general strikes of the 20th century. All of them are somehow about what relative status people have, yet it makes no sense from an absolute point of view. The 20th century miners for instance had free healthcare and running water toilets, which the Barons and French aristocrats didn't have. Only the lens of relative disparity, aka common sense, explains it.
So if I now look at some factory worker in China, who is doing better than all her ancestors, do I take the view that she's simply spoiled and complaining too much? Not really.
The 99% strongman is, well, look at it: you can't even run for office in America without being really, really rich. Lobbying is a legit career. The wealthy are approaching gilded ages levels of relative wealth, and that buys power. There's no formal slavery, but loads of people are on a precarious treadmill, forcing them into negotiations that are only slightly better than slavery. You don't get whipped, and you're allowed to vote, but only for whichever rich guys are on the ballot. You'll never really be allowed to work your way up, because you need capital to grow capital, and you're not gonna get any.
What's wrong with this argument? Well there is a bit of choice at various levels in the tree. If you're on minimum wage, there's more than one thing you can do for that wage. A bit higher up the chain, a software dev has a bit of choice over who employs him, and can often take a break from the career. With a little luck you might also be able to get funded for your own shot at being wealthy.
