#economic fairness

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the U.S. Congress

Co-sponsor the American Stability Act to end income inequality!

624 so far! Help us get to 1,000 signers!

As your constituent, I am urging you to co-sponsor the American Stability Act (ASA). The American Stability Act is a bold, elegant solution to the threat posed by destabilizing levels of inequality.

The American Stability Act does the following:

-ELIMINATES FEDERAL TAXES for any taxpayer making less than the median cost of living for a single adult with no children (slightly above $40,000 a year);

-SHIFTS the responsibility for these revenues onto taxpayers making more than $1 million a year;

-REPLACES the ‘minimum’ wage with a new “Stability Wage,” which is set to the median cost of living in the US for a single adult with no children, and then indexes it to make that principle permanent.

We need bold, innovative reform. Lawmakers like you must structure a more stable, prosperous economy that will deliver the results we need for a strong nation.

▶ Created on October 28 by Jess Craven · 623 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PVBLPU to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[alwaysbewoke]

[bitchesgetriches]

Read more:

All Labor Deserves Compensation. Don't Be a Dick About It. 

[autisticaradiamegido]

day 99

i have NEARLY finished the skirt for my ren faire fit i just gotta get a few finishing details added and also get the undershirt bleached (bc i got a bunch of makeup on it at last years fair and shit Stained) but THEN i can show yall the final fit!!

[wellnoe]

reading a book that is very interesting in its quantitative analysis but is so weird in its tone!! the place the author chooses to insert emotionality is bizarre and his treatment of mortality of the be all end all of suffering is equally so.

[racefortheironthrone]

Why do economists need to shut up about mercantilism, as you alluded to in your post about Louis XIV's chief ministers?

In part due to their supposed intellectual descent from Adam Smith and the other classical economists, contemporary economists are pretty uniformly hostile to mercantilism, seeing it as a wrong-headed political economy that held back human progress until it was replaced by that best of all ideas: capitalism.

As a student of economic history and the history of political economy, I find that economists generally have a pretty poor understanding of what mercantilists actually believed and what economic policies they actually supported. In reality, a lot of the things that economists see as key advances in the creation of capitalism - the invention of the joint-stock company, the creation of financial markets, etc. - were all accomplishments of mercantiism.

Rather than the crude stereotype of mercantilists as a bunch of monetary weirdos who thought the secret to prosperity was the hoarding of precious metals, mercantilists were actually lazer-focused on economic development. The whole business about trying to achieve a positive balance of trade and financial liquidity and restraining wages was all a means to an end of economic development. Trade surpluses could be invested in manufacturing and shipping, gold reserves played an important role in deepening capital pools and thus increasing levels of investment at lower interest rates that could support larger-scale and more capital intensive enterprises, and so forth.

Indeed, the arch-sin of mercantilism in the eyes of classical and contemporary economists, their interference in free trade through tariffs, monopolies, and other interventions, was all directed at the overriding economic goal of climbing the value-added ladder.

Thus, England (and later Britain) put a tariff on foreign textiles and an export tax on raw wool and forbade the emigration of skilled workers (while supporting the immigration of skilled workers to England) and other mercantilist policies to move up from being exporters of raw wool (which meant that most of the profits from the higher value-added part of the industry went to Burgundy) to being exporters of cheap wool cloth to being exporters of more advanced textiles. Hell, even Adam Smith saw the logic of the Navigation Acts!

And this is what brings me to the most devastating critique of the standard economist narrative about mercantilism: the majority of the countries that successfully industrialized did so using mercantilist principles rather than laissez-faire principles:

When England became the first industrial economy, it did so under strict protectionist policies and only converted to free trade once it had gained enough of a technological and economic advantage over its competitors that it didn't need protectionism any more.

When the United States industrialized in the 19th century and transformed itself into the largest economy in the world, it did so from behind high tariff walls.

When Germany made itself the leading industrial power on the Continent, it did so by rejecting English free trade economics and having the state invest heavily in coal, steel, and railroads. Free trade was only for within the Zollverein, not with the outside world.

And as Dani Rodrik, Ha-Joon Chang, and others have pointed out, you see the same thing with Japan, South Korea, China...everywhere you look, you see protectionism as the means of achieving economic development, and then free trade only working for already-developed economies.

[rolandapostatize]

cannot get over how theodore 7th time loop is written actually. 13 year old's suicidal tendencies resolved by having polite conversation with the person he loves most and whom he was doing all that for, and who has never before in his life clearly communicated with him at all, and who due to his own emotional immaturity decided that the best way to protect his desperate younger brother is to never talk to him and act as terrifying as possible around him. one unwell child eliminating another unwell child's problems, that he was contributing to, in a single conversation

like i cant get over how quickly the conflict was introduced and resolved.

[wonder-worker]

"Among their complaints [in 1460, the Yorkists] specifically blamed the earls of Wiltshire and Shrewsbury and Viscount Beaumont for ‘stirring’ the king [Henry VI] to hold a parliament at Coventry that would attaint them and for keeping them from the king’s presence and likely mercy, asserting that this was done against [the king's] will. To this they added the charge that these evil counselors were also tyrannizing other true men* without the king’s knowledge. Such claims of malfeasance obliquely raised the question of Henry’s fitness as a king, for how could he be deemed competent if such things happened without his knowledge and against his wishes? They also tied in rumors circulating somewhat earlier in the southern counties and likely to have originated in Calais that Henry was really ‘good and gracious Lord to the [Yorkists] since, it was alleged, he had not known of or assented to their attainders. On 11 June the king was compelled to issue a proclamation stating that they were indeed traitors and that assertions to the contrary were to be ignored." - Helen Maurer, "Margaret of Anjou: "Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England"

Three things that we can surmise from this:

We know where the "Henry was an innocent helpless king being controlled and manipulated by his Evil™ advisors" rhetoric came from**.

The Yorkists were deliberately trying to downplay Henry VI's actual role and involvement in politics and the Wars of the Roses. They cast him as a "statue of a king", blamed all royal policies and decisions on others*** (claiming that Henry wasn't even aware of them), and framed themselves as righteous and misunderstood counselors who remained loyal to the crown. We should keep this in mind when we look at chronicles' comments of Henry's alleged passivity and the so-called "role reversal" between him and Queen Margaret.

Henry VI's actual agency and involvement is nevertheless proven by his own actions. We know what he thought of the Yorkists, and we know he took the effort to publicly counter their claims through a proclamation of his own. That speaks louder than the politically motivated narrative of his enemies, don't you think?

*There was some truth to these criticisms. For example, Wiltshire (ie: one of the men named in the pamphlet) was reportedly involved in a horrible situation in June which included hangings and imprisonments for tax resistance in Newbury. The best propagandists always contain a degree of truth, etc. **I've seen some theories on why Margaret of Anjou wasn't mentioned in these pamphlets alongside the others even though she was clearly being vilified during that time as well, and honestly, I think those speculations are mostly unnecessary. Margaret was absent because it was regarded as very unseemly to target queens in such an officially public manner. We see a similar situation a decade later: Elizabeth Woodville was vilified and her whole family - popularly and administratively known as "the queen's kin" - was disparaged in Warwick and Clarence's pamphlets. This would have inevitably associated her with their official complaints far more than Margaret had been, but she was also not directly mentioned. It was simply not considered appropriate. ***This narrative was begun by the Duke of York & Warwick and was - demonstrably - already widespread by the end of 1460. When Edward IV came to power, there seems to have been a slight shift in how he spoke of Henry (he referred to Henry as their "great enemy and adversary"; his envoys were clearly willing to acknowledge Henry's role in Lancastrian resistance to Yorkist rule; etc), but he nevertheless continued the former narrative for the most part. I think this was because 1) it was already well-established and widespread by his father, and 2) downplaying Henry's authority would have served to emphasize Edward's own kingship, which was probably advantageous for a usurper whose deposed rival was still alive and out of reach. In some sense, the Lancastrians did the same thing with their own propaganda across the 1460s, which was clearly not as effective in terms of garnering support and is too long to get into right now, but was still very relevant when it came to emphasizing their own right to the throne while disparaging the Yorkists' claim.

[mama-mera]

My Roman Empire is the fact that the Etruscans were so skilled (and in a distorted way so lucky) in estispicina and auruspicina (haruspicy), to the point that they were able to prophesy the fall of their civilization and get it right

[ahalliance]

fighting for my life for dark-skinned heathcliff in this wuthering heights class

[eternalistic]

The stark brutality of chattel slavery is absent in today's world, but the systemic inequities and hidden forms of economic control persist, albeit in different forms. By comparing the conditions of historic slaves with modern working-class people it becomes apparent that economic exploitation and wealth disparity need to be at the forefront of today's political discourse.

Continuities:

Labor exploitation: Both systems extract disproportionate value from a specific group's labor for the benefit of others. Slaves were forced to work without compensation, while many modern workers face low wages, precarious employment, and limited bargaining power, leaving them susceptible to exploitation.

Wealth disparity: Both systems exacerbate wealth inequality. Slaves had no ownership of their labor or its fruits, while the wealth generated by modern workers often concentrates at the top of the economic pyramid, creating a widening gap between rich and poor.

Limited mobility: Both systems restrict upward mobility for the exploited group. Slaves were legally bound to their owners, while modern systemic barriers like discriminatory hiring practices, inadequate education, and debt-based control can confine individuals to lower economic strata.

Psychological impact: Both systems can inflict psychological harm. Slaves endured constant dehumanization and fear of violence, while modern workers can face chronic stress, anxiety, and powerlessness due to precarious employment and economic insecurity.

Transformations:

Formal freedom: Modern workers have legal freedoms and autonomy denied to slaves. They can choose their employers, negotiate wages, and participate in civic life.

Social mobility channels: While limited, some avenues for upward mobility exist in modern society through education, skills training, and entrepreneurial ventures, which were largely unavailable to slaves.

Social safety nets: Modern societies typically have some form of social safety net, albeit often inadequate, providing limited protections like unemployment benefits or healthcare access, which were absent for slaves.

Transformation of control: Control in modern systems is often more subtle and diffuse, operating through debt, lack of ownership, and market forces rather than overt coercion.

Hidden "Economic Slavery":

The concept of "economic slavery" suggests that modern systems can still perpetuate forms of exploitation similar to historical slavery, albeit less visibly. This can manifest in:

Debt traps: Predatory lending practices and high-interest rates can trap individuals in cycles of debt, effectively controlling their labor and choices.

Wage theft: Employers who deny overtime pay, minimum wage, or other earned wages essentially steal from their workers.

Exploitative labor practices: In some industries, migrant workers or marginalized groups face unsafe working conditions, low wages, and limited legal protections, resembling forms of forced labor.

Limited ownership: Lack of access to affordable housing, land, or productive assets limits economic agency and perpetuates dependence on wage labor.

Unveiling and Addressing Systemic Inequities:

Acknowledging the continuities and transformations is crucial for addressing the enduring legacies of economic exploitation. We need to:

Strengthen workers' rights: Promote fair wages, secure employment, and protections against exploitation.

Reduce wealth inequality: Implement progressive taxation, address wage gaps, and promote wealth-building opportunities for marginalized groups.

Increase social mobility: Invest in education, training, and infrastructure to provide equal opportunity for upward mobility.

Challenge systemic biases: Address discriminatory practices in hiring, lending, and access to resources.

Support worker movements: Encourage worker organization and collective bargaining to empower workers and advocate for their rights.

By recognizing the hidden forms of economic control and tackling their root causes, we can work towards a more equitable future where everyone has the opportunity to benefit from their labor and participate fully in society.

[lungfuls]

When I was a kid I didn't understand why my grandparents missed Ireland but said they couldn't go back (and praise the US as a land of opportunity but basically never talk abt it like that's how they see it)

[alwaysbewoke]

[bitchesgetriches]

What's this feeling? Hope? Optimism? No, that can't be right...

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. SENATE

Women deserve equal pay! Pass S. 728, the Paycheck Fairness Act now!

393 so far! Help us get to 500 signers!

Women—especially women of color—are the backbone of our nation’s economy. But they are consistently underpaid and their work is undervalued. Action on equal pay is sorely needed to address these inequities, but Republican Senators have blocked vital legislation, S. 728, the Paycheck Fairness Act, that would achieve critical progress. The median annual earnings for women working full time, year-round in 2022 was $52,360, or just 84 cents for each dollar earned by men, with much wider gaps for most women of color compared with white, non-Hispanic men. All women—regardless of the number of hours worked during the year—typically made $41,320, or 78 cents for each dollar earned by all men. Discrimination is one of the factors contributing to this gap, leading to thousands of dollars in lost wages for women over the course of their careers. That’s why we need the Paycheck Fairness Act. The Paycheck Fairness Act would strengthen existing equal pay protections, prohibit retaliation against workers who discuss their pay or challenge pay discrimination, limit employers’ reliance on salary history, and much more. These robust measures would bring us one step closer to equal pay. Women and families cannot afford to wait for equal pay. We need to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act now.

▶ Created on April 3 by Jess Craven · 393 signers in the past 7 days

📱 Text SIGN PWBBDA to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409