Categories Economy

7 days 30 days All time Recent Popular
Interesting thread, but I don't think ecosocialists or degrowthers are arguing that if German socialists had come to power the world would be green by now. Socialism is not automatically green. Eco-socialism is what it says - a green version of socialism - to be tested /1


The historical counterfactual also in not totally convincing. So let's assume Germany and Europe went socialist. The world economy would have evolved exactly the same way it did? šŸ¤” I doubt it, this is too deterministic. Examples: /2

We do not know if the transition from coal to oil would have taken place when it took place, the way it did. From Timothy Mitchell we know that oil was a fix for capitalism to bypass the labour strikes of coal workers. One would think that socialists would treat workers better /3

We also do not know if socialist governments would strong arm the Middle East the way capitalists did, starting wars to secure cheap oil, and setting up puppet governments. One would want to think that Rosa Luxembourg would not go down that path..../4

We also do not know if they would have continued colonial unequal exchange, extracting raw materials as cheap as possible from the rest of the world. Without cheap oil and cheap materials, it is anyone's guess if GDP and CO2 would be where it is now. /5
It's always been detached, and it's always made the real economy worse.

[THREAD] 1/10


What is profit? It's excess labor.

You and your coworkers make a chair. Your boss sells that chair for more than he pays for the production of that chair and pockets the extra money.

So he pays you less than what he should and calls the unpaid labor he took "profit." 2/10

Well, the stock market adds a layer to that.

So now, when you work, it isn't just your boss that is siphoning off your excess labor but it is also all the shareholders.

There's a whole class of people who now rely on you to produce those chairs without fair compensation. 3/10

And in order to support these people, you and your coworkers need to up your productivity. More hours etc.

But Wall Street demands endless growth in order to keep the game going, so that's not enough.

So as your productivity increases, your relative wages suffer. 4/10

Not because the goods don't have value or because your labor is worth less. Often it's actually worth more because you've had to become incredibly productive in order to keep your job.

No, your wages suffer because there are so many people who need to profit from your work. 5/10
Not the easiest to follow, but for those interested in the big picture of trade relations between US, EU and China this exchange between @alanbeattie and @IanaDreyer is an essential read. Real debate on key issues, and good points on both sides.


Also reading this from @gideonrachman on EU-China. My view (cynically?) - that EU-China is a deal that makes a lot of sense given a probably unresolvable trade policy superpower triangle with the US, and best for the EU to move while China will.

The US and EU roughly agree on China that it should do some things differently, but not really the details of what those are. Meanwhile the EU and US have long standing trade policy differences, which neither (or their key stakeholders) prioritise resolving.

For the EU, the China deal has sent a message to the new US administration, you can't just tell us what to do. And delivered some (probably marginal in reality) benefits to business. For China, this is the 3rd deal with EU or US in 12 months. Pretty clear strategy there.

The key assumption that lies at the heart of too much writing on EU-US relations is that the two should cooperate on trade. After 25 years of largely failing to do so, I'd suggest we might want to question that a bit more deeply.
As bloody as the world wars were, they werenā€™t particularly bad by historical standards. The 17th century was uniquely bad for 2nd millennium AD, with Little Ice Age & glut of specie leading to state collapses & population decline across Eurasia.

Falls of Rome & Tang in 1st millennium were worse, but at least they were recorded. Records of the even worse Bronze Age Collapse around 1200 BC barely survived for some areas, & for other regions all we have are archaeological indications that they regressed to the stone age.


Further back in the 3rd millennium BC, an even worse series of catastrophes occurred - the Indo-European invasions - ending the Megalith Builder Civilization with their urban settlements & leaving much of Europe depopulated for 600 years.


By the time of their destruction the Megalith Builders themselves had been in a centuries long decline from their Golden Age in late 5th & early 4th millennium. Their great realms had likely disintegrated around 3500 BC into smaller chiefdoms engaging in endemic warfare.


The Megalith Builders themselves were the result of WHG chieftains overthrowing the decadent EEF chiefs like those of the Linear Ceramics around 4400 BC & subjugating an 1800 year old neolithic civilization. Possibly related to spread of copper-working.
In this paper, we study vote choices of voters who are left-wing on economic issues and authoritarian/nationalist on cultural issues, especially immigration. For these voters, there is no often party combining positions in this way.


In the data from the Campaign Panel of the German Election Study 2017, many voters prefer higher social benefits and taxes and want to restrict immigration. @ches_data show that no party bundles issue positions in this way.


In the article, we show that many such ā€œleft-authoritariansā€ perceive the party they voted for to also hold a left-authoritarian position. Interestingly, this includes many AfD voters who report a perceived left-wing economic position of the party.


Our statistical models study the interplay between this (mis-)perceived congruence and issue importance, using an open-ended question on the most important political problem in Germany.

We find that (mis-)perceived congruence and issue importance interactively shape the left-authoritarian vote. Simply, perceived congruence matters more on an important issueā€”and issue salience matters most if voters accurately perceive incongruent party supply.
#Thread: Though it's important to shed light on the ongoing humanitarian crisis in #Yemen, you could read this entire @reuters article (and most articles written about Yemen) and not know why this boy is starving or who is responsible for these conditions:

The boy travelled from Al-Jawf to Sana'a because al-Jawf is among "high intensity battlefronts" & is the target of repeated civilian airstrikes.
https://t.co/1KlIN5ixTf

Also, roads are "damaged" because they're frequently bombed by US/Saudi airstrikes:

Shockingly, he's one of the lucky ones who managed to make it to a hospital.

Only 51% of health facilities are (barely) functioning: https://t.co/GBgKXM562t

And hospitals have been frequently targeted by airstrikes: For example:

International aid & donations are necessary for Faid & millions to survive because of the Saudi/US/UAE blockade that prevents Yemenis from trade and makes them reliant on aid instead. Before the war, Yemen imported 90% of its food; now, 80% rely on aid.

Famine hasn't been declared because the UN faces immense pressure from its top donors, the US & Saudi, who are also causing the famine in Yemen.

The US went as far as pressuring the UN to restrict aid to Northern Yemen, where 70% of Yemenis live: