Timmy elsewhere: the why Oxfam are loons about inequality edition

At the ASI.

Oxfam seem to be suffering from some form of brain spasm. Either that or they\’ve been hijacked by loons. Their latest campaign is that we must raise inequality levels back to what they were in 1990.

In a nutshell this globalisation thing has raised in country inequality: and lowered global inequality. It\’s also led to the largest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our species. I regard that as a pretty good deal myself. Certainly, if someone had offered it in 1980 as a deal then I would have signed up to it. That the British (in fact, all rich world) working and middle classes mark time in terms of rising incomes for a couple of decades. The plutocrats get ever more plutocratic. And the larger effect is that billions move from destitution to three squares, a change of clothes and a roof over their heads. Each and every day as well.

I\’d sign on to that bargain in a heart beat. As I would expect everyone to. If you\’d said to St. Bob back at Live Aid, well, here\’s how we do it. Stop goverments being idiot fuckwits (that\’s the Washington Consensus for you) and let global capitalism and markets rip, red in tooth and claw, and the poor will indeed become rich. He might not have believed you but I\’d wager that he would have taken the deal if he did. Hell, he\’d have signed Satan\’s Parchment to get such an outcome, whatever the means.

And yes, this is what we would expect from globalisation. Adding a couple of billion low paid peeps to the global workforce would be expected to work this way. It has. And it\’s still a good fucking deal. As one example, manufacturing wages in China have gone from $1,000 a year to $5,500 a year between 2000 and today. British or US wages for the average schmo have marked time in that decade. And the reason this is a bad idea is what?

And haven\’t all the fucking lefties been telling us for decades that this is what needs to happen? That we rich world peeps need to share the wealth, the incomes, with the poor of the world? And isn\’t that what\’s damn well happening? So what\’s the whining about you cunts?

The most important single fact about the last 30 years is that the number in absolute poverty has fallen. Dropped like a stone. For fucks sake, in sub-Saharan Africa they\’ve had both rising incomes and falling inequality.

This is what everyone sodding wanted. What everyone should in fact desire. And now that it\’s happening the fuckwits want to turn the clock back and destroy this progress?

Hanging\’s too good for them, isn\’t it?

16 comments on “Timmy elsewhere: the why Oxfam are loons about inequality edition

  1. Come on tim, get with the program

    If people thought they were winning they might stop donating, then who’d pay for all the six figure charity directorships ?

    Alex

  2. What Gamecock said. For the Left the destruction of their ‘enemies’, whoever they may be, is more important than the improvement of the lot of the masses. Thus the grammar schools must be destroyed rather than improve the secondary moderns, taxes cannot be reduced on the poor, because the rich might benefit too, and globalisation is a bad thing despite everyone winning, because it makes a very few tens to hundreds of people uber wealthy. They really do not care about the poor one iota.

    I guarantee that if you offered the Left the magic wand that gave the poorest 1bn people in the world a doubling of income overnight at the ‘expense’ of creating 50 new global billionaires they would turn it down.

  3. I guarantee that if you offered the Left the magic wand that gave the poorest 1bn people in the world a doubling of income overnight at the ‘expense’ of creating 50 new global billionaires they would turn it down.

    They are under your bed and they *will* take your babies.

  4. They are under your bed and they *will* take your babies.

    And underestimate how bitter the privileged are. The true politics of envy.

  5. The failure of states is related to the machinastions of the corporate professionals. You cannot, on one hand, state that states are incompetent tyrants, without knowing how those individuals are able to be so obviously despicable.

    The constant argument that “we shouldn’t help because look at their house/car/offsure trust” is idiotic.

    Worse than idiotic. It’s a commendation that one should be a bastard all of the time.

    You support bastards that maim your ideal.

  6. You cannot, on one hand, state that states are incompetent tyrants, without knowing how those individuals are able to be so obviously despicable.

    Hang on? You’re saying that before I can say that something is broken, I must know how it got that way? Don’t give up the light clerical work for anything intellectually challenging like, oh, being a car mechanic.

    Next you’ll be suggesting that, before we have a ‘right’ to state there is a problem, we must have a fully peer-reviewed and double-blind tested solution.

    Anyway, a good part of the problem is “Worstall’s Law”, and the solution is minimising the power the buggers have. That way they can only irritate us with their whining.

  7. You’re just being thick, weevil.

    It’s the lawyers and accountants and the multinats that give failing states their corruption. Of course someone has to say they want to be corrupt, but they wouldn’t be able to do it off their own back.

    That’s why secrecy jurisdictions must be abolished.

    Now go away and talk about something you know about.

  8. Yes because there were so many lawyers, accountants and multinational corporations making the Eastern Bloc corrupt weren’t there? I mean you couldn’t move in Moscow in 1975 for hedge fund managers trying to arbitrage tractor production numbers, and American corporations trying to get in on the highly profitable GUM retail operation. And as for lawyers, well, every other page in Pravda was a legal ad: ‘Family member been arrested at 3AM by the KGB? We might be able to get their sentence reduced from a bullet in the back of the head down to mere life hard labour in the gulag! Phone this number now!!!’

  9. Methinks Comrade Jim is questioning your assertion that without multinational corporations there would be no corruption. Rather well, I thought.

  10. Arnald – our ever present illustration that “wholly missing the point” can cover quite such a multitude of sins.

    And stupidity, of course. Which isn’t a sin, not even for Catholics (iirc.)

  11. It’s the lawyers and accountants and the multinats that give failing states their corruption.

    Working as I do in the world’s most corrupt state, I can speak with some authority when I say that is utter horseshit. What gives Nigeria, for example, its corruption is a population wedded to a culture that sees enriching oneself and ones family as the sole purpose for obtaining any position in society or holding an office of any sort, and thereafter any such graft is morally deserved.

    If multinationals are the root of corruption, one would expect to see corruption everywhere you see multinationals, and less of it in places where they are more scarce. But we don’t, so they’re not. Quite the opposite in fact. There are far fewer multinational companies operating in Russia and Nigeria than in Germany and Australia, yet the former are plagued with endemic corruption which (certainly in the case of Russia) likely predates the concept of a limited company.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>