With more free trade there are two phenomena to see worldwide.Globally, you see that inequality is declining. In poorer countries, prosperity as a whole is increasing faster than in richer countries. This is because a lot of production work is being moved to poorer countries.
Within countries, however, you see that inequality is increasing.Within poorer countries, a middle class is created thanks to the new industry and service provision while a (large) proportion of the population lives and works in the traditional way. Within richer countries you see that the middle class is under pressure because a lot of work disappears to those poorer countries or is automated. On the other hand, purchasing power increases because many goods become cheaper. (Look at the price of a computer or flat TV 20 years ago and now). But despite those price decreases the middle class becomes smaller and the lower classes larger. In poorer countries, the poor become richer and in richer countries the armrests are no longer richer, while the riers become richer.
Another factor in the richer countries can be the individualization.Employees see each other more and more as a competitor than as people with shared interests. The organisational degree (trade unionists) is back, which has deteriorated the negotiating position. Identity politics also plays as a dividing factor.Where people are addressed to their religion, being blank or black, sexe or orientation there the common factor is neglected.
Now less free trade will not be the solution.In the less free trade, goods will become more expensive, which will decrease the purchasing power of armors and middle-class operators. Equality will rise downwards, delivering the rhyme in while the armrests will not see anything back. To an extreme extent, we are now seeing this in Venezuela, equality in poverty.
The prevailing neoliberalism is aimed at preventing the business world as small as possible.That means deregulation and reduction of taxes. Now these rules were indeed passed through the years 芒 鈧?虄 60 and 芒 鈧?虄 70, but they were intended to ensure that the cake was distributed fairly honestly. Before taxes were the same, they were too progressive, but were a means of ensuring that the money was redistributed a bit.
Now we have a neoliberal system.In that system it is stated that if you give business freedom, it generates more jobs. There is some in it, but wages stagnate and the certainty of a permanent job is also limited. The aim of the companies is to save as much money as possible on the labour factor, so that as much money as possible can be paid to the shareholders. These shareholders are jointly called the capital Factor.
Take the plan to abolish the dividend tax, which was mainly intended to please Unilever.That wanted even lower tax and neo-liberal Rutte would like to participate. The so-called for the employment in the Netherlands.
Large companies like Shell and Unilever have special agreements with the tax authorities anyway.They pay very little tax. They blackmailed the country by saying they go away if they don’t get a good tax deal. Hence Rutger Bregmans plea in Davos to stop chatting about philanthropy, but simply pay taxes.
The famous book of Thomas Piketty is about this problem.At the moment, the 26 richest people in the world possess as much as the 50 percent of the world’s poorest people.
At the most basic level, this is because in the way we control the world, we facilitate greed and selfishness over solidarity.
Solidarity has become a word that no longer inspires, on the contrary, it has been placed in the accused by neoliberalism in the bench of air-cycling and outdated socialism.
From a often suffocating collectivism, we have fallen into an equally desperate individualism in one and a half generations.We have had action and reaction, but the healing synthesis continues. This is because the balance has been so disrupted that it has become possible for a small group to be able to withdraw to the control of national administrations and there is no international supervisory authority, while the financial, Labour, Production and sales markets are worldwide.
It is possible for entrepreneurs and financiers from one moment on the other to end the employment of thousands in a part of the world and move it to another part, as a calculation shows that that net one percent, or even a Fraction of it, is cheaper.Taxes and labor costs are simply a cost that is calculated in that game in the same way as costs of production, transport and raw materials. The lowest overall picture on the cost side wins.
We call that market force and at a time when machines can produce a lot and increasingly cheaper than people, machines are of course the preferred means of production.In fact, we force people to compete with machines. The outcome is fixed. And only an ever higher consumption, the holy grail of economic growth, is still leading to a growing labour market.
Everyone can see that this Spaak has to run when Labour production per employee exceeds the ability to incorporate the services and products produced.See how the construction of a car could be expressed one hundred years ago in man years and now in man hours. There is just a limit to how many cars the world can consume. And the same applies to food production, energy production etcetera.
Power culminates intrinsically, above-inflation, without any external influence whatsoever.[And without having to work for it. This means that if you don’t fade, you and your children will have more and more.
At the same time, most countries have a purely income policy, and how honestly you regulate the lusts and burdens for (average) salaries, through the years there will be a skewed growth between sensible policies based on what one deserves, and the Amount of power in addition culminating present.
Example: an affordable home for an average income is X, the government is doing everything to regulate this, but the many-funds drive the housing price on [simply pay.No wage development can track this, no income tax policy has the answer. > > Good homes are very expensive (and as with the current housing needs: All houses are extremely expensive at some point) [and this in all areas of scarcity.
> > Even though you have a small gap in the national wage system, capabilities can in the long term greatly increase the price of scarce but necessary goods, thus widening the gap and (therefore) the proportion of relatively low-earners Increase significantly thereafter.
[In NL, this is already a profession as a police/Fire department/Hospital Press./Teachers, if they have no power!
[[And I have to come across the politician who wants to raise a fair wealth tax: Then he/she comes to himself and his/her boyfriends: Still prefer the bottom of the wage building over the Kling
(Note to the reader: one wants to A.J.B. the above fact, not Pavlov-wise as 芒 鈧?艙links芒 鈧?or 芒 鈧?艙right芒 鈧?to be titled: This primitive Way of thinking is soooo of a century of moneys, and allows any sensible reflection on economy tremendously in the way)
Why is the gap between rich and poor in many countries increasing?What is the cause of this?
In a completely fair equivalent system with 芒 鈧?艙participants 芒 鈧?of equal skill
WILL the inequality INCREASE 芒 鈧?”this is because capitalism constitutes a 芒 鈧?艗positive Feedback Loop 芒 鈧? the richer you are the easier it gets to become richer.
If you are rich, you can afford to buy boots that last for ten years-the great inexpensive super suit.
If you are poor then buy the small (much more expensive) suit and the boots that are worn after a year.
This is true for every step in increase -if you have 100 million invested, you will get a better revenue ratio than if you invest only 10 million.
This is not a result of 芒 鈧?艗better Intelligentie芒 鈧?or skill -but simply straightforward right to economics.
- And that is BEFORE the rich-芒 鈧?艗the Power buttons Kopen芒 鈧?/li>
The only way to avoid money moving in the direction of rich is by having a progressive tax levy -preferably on equity as well as income.
And that was also the case in the UK, the US and most developed countries between 1945 and the early seventies.
Around that time the rich have done what Adam Smith warned us about -they 芒 鈧?艙bought the power button 芒 鈧?
And they used propaganda and political power to lower the highest tax rates where they were useless-and removed the main tax on assets what the wealth tax is.
Since that time-the inequality has continued to increase-NOT really rocket science.
Because that, what with a piece 芒 鈧?艙wood and a touw芒 鈧?can be unloaded on mostly with us in the form of plastic and Chinese electronics will be done.And where it could be with a euro, you have to do it now with 9.99 euros. And that engineer feel brilliant. But all the wad he has accomplished is that the poor has become even poorer and a lot of giffing the watercourses have penetrated.
I see a lot of answers below that are far away from a Marxist school of thought.But yes, the Netherlands is also very left. I don’t live in the Netherlands, so I can’t see it from a Dutch position. I live in America where the average poor, the most expensive clothes, the most expensive shoes, the most expensive bags, the most expensive, mobile phones, etc. Buy on their credit card. Yes, the rich sell those things and the poor buy it in large numbers. They receive social support, in addition to their scant income and life from cradle to grave in that vicious circle. These are the people complaining about the rich being richer and the rich holding their dominant position, and what even more. Unlike the Gospel of the left-wing media like CNN, it’s the poor who have all the tax benefits. As soon as you exceed a certain income limit, which I think is not high, you get another tax treatment and you enter the highest tax scale at federal and state level without space to deduct certain things that the poor do Can deduct.
The richest know how to circumvent this madness.I call it madness, because I still don’t understand why you have to punish someone because he saves, invests and works hard, but the luilks the spoil.