Imagine if all countries in the world were developed
>>220484813That would mean civil war in all western cunts due to a significant drop in ability to overconsume and luxuriate
>>220484813The rich need poors to exist. There will always be undeveloped countries, or at least undeveloped areas within countries.
>>220484813We'd all be infighting as we should be
>>220484813That’s unrealistic. Wealthy nations are built on exploiting poorer countries for labor, markets and resources.
>>220484813One race. One earth. One state.
Gonna have to wait for the robots to take over before that happens chief
>>220484813The Third World would be swimming in copper wire for yearsThen they'd be underdeveloped and begging for gibs again
>>220484889>>220485120That's the zero-sum fallacyWhen the poorer get richer so do the rich>>220484928Some inequality is expected because humans are different, but everyone could have a dignified baseline that allows for a comfortable life in a countries free from social illsAlso every country being developed would mean >less overpopulation>more heads thinking and researching on better ways to use resources sustainably>virtually ending all mass immigration since it's mainly caused by inequality>more nice countries to visit and live
>>220484813Imagine if your brain was developed
>>220485234We'd fight between planets at that point. Martian colonists vs Earth natives.
>>220484813The entire world is developed compared to the stone age
Brown pipo don't deserve to be developed
>>220485829Giga cope. Wealthy nations are wealthy because they operate as EXCEPTIONS, using their influence to secure markets, workers and raw materials. If Germany no longer had its industrial strength or market access, people would end up in hardship. The global economy is structured so that the existence of wealth relies on the existence of poverty.
>>220485829I think you're vastly underestimating how spoiled westerners are and how quickly many of us will turn to fascism as soon as we experience even a slight drop in purchasing power.
I heard that if the entire world consumed as much energy and resources as Americans, you would need increase the world's resources 5x
>>220484813How would i go to the 3rd world to fuck impoverished prostitutes for 30€ an hour ? Fuck no, worst idea ever. We have to keep the rest of you poor.
>>220486325This. The countries around 1 are like Senegal so we really need to figure out how to be less wasteful while also not becoming Africa-tier
>>220484813you can make your country developed, nobody is stopping you from doing that
>>220486265You keep parroting the zero-sum fallacy. That's not how the economy works>>220486278You're spoiled as a Norwegian, but the whole world already lives in poorer conditions than boomers and no one has done shit>>220486327The way things are going with immigration and everything, you are the ones who will become prostitutes for 30€ an hour
>>220489030Yeah surely, by the time i am dead lmao
>>220489030What is the way migration is going?There are 100x as many south american prostitutes in Berlin as 10 years ago
>>220486325The whole is system is broken and unredeemable. The world could stay the exact same and we'd still be doomed. Other countries not being developed doesn't change that, only postpones the collapse a few yearsWe can either keep everyone poor in a broken system or change it completely to a sustainable one where all countries are developed. It's not a tough choice
>>220489175You might change your mind when you have kids if you ever manage to breed
>>220486327French are a bunch of broke motherfuckers doe
>>220484889>>220484928I thought europeans were educated
Imagine you could visit Ethiopia, Central Asia, India or Ecuador as developed places
>>220489436
No one one to pick fruits, mow the lawn, take care of babies. Americans wouldn't survive.
>>220484813whites and east asians only world
>>220490031Paying workers decent wages is not the wealth-destroying monster some people imagine it to be
>>220484813The gringos fear that though!
>>220484813The elite wouldn't let that happen would they
>>220491899The elite isn't a monolithic entitySome of them go out of their way to make other countries poor thoughever
>>220489030>>220489250>change it completely to a sustainable one where all countries are developedYou sound completely out of touch. Keep repeating “zero sum fallacy” all you want until the whole world is developed, while developed countries are still going to invest trillions to protect their own interests and keep poorer nations down. I honestly can’t stand people who put ideology ahead of pragmatism
>>220492813I'm not denying that happens >>220492474I'm attacking the central idea that sustains the zero-sum fallacy you keep bringing up>while developed countries are still going to invest trillions to protect their own interests and keep poorer nations downThey act like there is no other way and they want to convince everyone of that as wellAnd the reason for this is the disputes over power and global control, NOT because it's economically or even environmentally unfeasible
>>220485829>zero-sum fallacyIt's not a fallacy it's reality
>>220495492it's a fantasy
>>220485120You are brown, gay and dysgenic
>>220486039i think that he was implying that there wouldnt be drown people
>>220495989he is but he is also correct in his assertion THOUGH
>>220489030economy is zero sumthe thing i have, you cannot havejust like we like free market, until it benefits us, not the others
>>22048523Donkey can breed horse Yellow (you pass) and white are ok but brown and black same race?You aware of proto humans such denisovaYou are better than that don play jeesus
who would mine cobalt and process lithium for our hecking electric carinos?
it would not be sustainable
isn't it obvious that rich countries are only rich cause they turn cheap shit into expensive complex shit and sell it?As long as your population is high IQ enough to learn and apply Western developed science and technology, you can just produce it yourself and get rich instead, while other developed nations with less resources begin to run out of cheap materials and get poorer instead.That's what Asians did.Good thing for white nations that most of the world is too retarded for that.
>>220484889>>220484928>>220485120>>220486265>>220495492You're an evil retard and shouldn't get to vote.
>>220497142Think about it for ten seconds and it's clear there is no way to give every country its own Samsung or Apple. Big companies get that powerful by wiping out competition and taking over global markets. In a lot of industries, production is controlled by only a handful of countries. Plus, intellectual property laws mean you cannot simply start building everything yourself.
>>220495492>>220496204>>220496218>economy is zero sumIt isn't. While some things like some specific property are limited, when two entities trade they're both gaining something which is a positive sum. Value in the conomy is generated through work, innovation/technology and increased productivity not by stealing it from someone else's hands, hence why the economy always has been expanding instead of having a fixed size
>>220497470That's just inherent to capitalism. Capitalists will cannibalize each other if it means a short term gainIt's funny how chuds believe bringing cheap work immigrants into their countries is some sort of commie plot (like ???) when the responsible are actually capitalistsCapitalism is basically individualism (egoism) taken to the last level and it reaching its end goals (monopoly) always turns into disaster for everyone else
>>220498552NO SHIT. That’s how things are, we can’t just fix it to be fair
>>220484813The wrong side of the berlin wall won that future is locked
>>220485234Why did we have to get rid off Western Sahara for this to happen?>>220484928>>220484889>>220485120Yea, the nature of unequal exchange means that many Westerners (me included) would see a loss in cheap (seemingly mundane) luxuries. Of course losing the ability to CONSOOOOM doesn't necessarily correlate a decline in living standards, but as long as people in the West(mostly Americans) think it so, then OP's dream is never happening.
>>220484813Imagine if your skull was splattered across my sidewalk
>>220484813imagine a first world africa
>>220500227>many Westerners (me included) would see a loss in cheap (seemingly mundane) luxuriesI swear this "economy is a zero-sum game" mentality is the new Malthusian myth>>220500269Unironically
Commie thead
where would we dump out trash to ? the mountains of clothes in SEA and africa arent produced by locals yk
>>220484813Developed for BBC
>>220501251Shit like circular economy is a thing but it's obviously a complex idea that requires capable nations to be implemented
>>220484813some people will always be more developed than others, and the less developed ones will be complaining even if they're rich by our standards.
>>220502025Thread is about countries not people
>brazilian economists
>>220502601People make up the definitions for development, development levels will increase for everyone but they will not be equal. That's just life.
>>220484813Impossible with capitalism
>>220502658See >>220485829
>>220503007It's a zero-sum game, but you're competing at the olympics at the highest level and even the last place gets to bang some olympic babes, so not too bitter of a loss. You want people to be able to lose and win, so social mobility is important. Equality isn't, as long as people aren't living in poverty. We don't disagree there, i think.Nations are the same in that you want them to compete to avoid stagnation, so they can't be equal, you don't want a world government.
>>220501073This is 100% an observable phenomenon, the middle goes absolutely bananas if they notice an increase in the nominal cost of their various comforts, regardless of there being an increase in real cost or not. And that's just the political side without even getting into the physical limits of consumption as it pertains to climate and ecosystems.
>>220484813for someone to win someone has to losefor someone to make money someone else has to lose money
>>220503732i think it's more accurate to say that one wins more than the other. there's a relative loser who isn't actually losing anything since he would not get what he wanted had the transaction not taken place, and both would lose.
>>220503829not really. just look at resource rich countries that have a lot of poor people (like africa). the local warlord wins by selling resources. the company buying and selling those wins by getting cheap resources. the local population loses by not seeing any of the profit and may even have to work in those mines mining those resources for cheap, while shortening their lives and destroying their country. this whole system is just a cycle that turns national wealth into a magnet for exploitation.
>>220503829>>220503999you could say that they win by not having to starve do death and having something to work.
>>220503402>Equality isn't, as long as people aren't living in povertyThat's the point. There should be a high minimum global standard, which we haven't achieved yet, but it's completely within reach>>220503538>>220503732You need to go back to Economics 101https://youtu.be/YFIApBViPEU (from a capitalist source so you don't call me a commie)
>>220504099that video works in a textbook where every trade is voluntary and fair but it ignores how the "pie" actually gets divided in the real world. it’s not a "win win" if the person selling the resources is a warlord who stole them from the land and the people working the mines are doing it at gunpoint or for pennies while their environment is poisoned. that’s not wealth creation through trade. it’s just laundered exploitation. the "total wealth" of the world might go up but that doesn't matter to the local population if their country is being hollowed out and they’re left with nothing but shorter lifespans and a destroyed home. it just goes back to slaves and how the americans exploited them to get richer.
>>220504192You're describing a wealth distribution problem not a wealth creatin problem. That's not the point behind the zero-sum fallacy, which states that it's not possible for the whole world to be developed even in ideal distribution conditions because>for someone to win someone has to losewhich is not true
>>220484813This can't happen so long as the western block exists, the west constantly meddles in the affairs of middle eastern countries, sponsoring terrorist groups or creating them, sponsoring coups and civil wars to keep those countries perpetually unstable, weak, impoverished precisely so they don't get a chance to develop because they're scared of a powerful, developed, modern, stable middle east, they don't want powers equal to their size to immerge. Also they want to steal the natural resources without having to pay full price for them. Latin America always has any reformist left wing government democratically elected coup'd by the US so they don't develop their countries. Africa is kept in a colonial state by western coups and debt bondage to western banks.In short, the roadblock towards development for all hitherto global south countries is the west. As long as it stands we can't hope to ever take a step forward without them interjecting to set us back.This is the world we live in.
>>220504464no one said that wealth can't be created but we are talking about development and poverty >>220484813. exploitation is the reason why that wealth doesn't make it to the people. that same wealth would still exist if everyone had a better life there. the line would probably go even more up because more people would be productive instead of having to starve or die because of illnesses but the problem is everyone down the chain would make less money if they couldn't exploit the people like they are doing now.
>>220485829>Zero Sum>FallacyPick one (1).Its not a fallacy at all so long as resources, lands and room for new people is finite. It is true, as people like (You) often point out, that we still have more space and we have many millions of pounds of food that go unsold. That does not mean there is infinite space or infinite food. We're also already watching what happens to society as it atomizes itself with just the 8 billion or so we have now. People are slowly going crazy, competing for women, status, attention, lands and anything else valuable, because it doesn't matter that there is technically 'more' when everyone must do better than others to remain 'on top' of things and other people are still the metric by which we set wealth and success. Its not enough to just be wealthy, you have to be MORE wealthy than all the people you're competing against. Then you have to find new people to compete against and become more wealthy than them.It will remain zero sum until one of three things happens, virtually without exception.>Humanity ceases to exist>Humanity reaches true and complete post-scarcity where nobody has to compete for anything at all - even then we will still compete with each other over social status and hierarchy, so zero sum does not completely evaporate. Only one man on each ship gets to be the Captain, after all.>We have a war that results in one group of people 'winning' and the total extermination of all other groups so that there is no longer any competition. This is only a temporary reprieve as humanity will just form new groups and go right back to business as usual, but it might buy us a couple hundred years or something.
>>220504540>everyone down the chain would make less money if they couldn't exploit the people like they are doing nowI mean some inequality is expected, but there are ways of being wealthy that don't involve exploiting someone else, as wealth can be created by innovation and increase in productivity (some people, companies or countries can be more productive than others)>>220504761>Its not a fallacy at all so long as resources, lands and room for new people is finiteYou're completely ignoring technological advancement. Finite resources can be infinite in practice if they are renewable. Non renewable resources can be made renewable with technology. That's the whole point of sustainable development (which is also only possible if all countries reach a certain level of developement and competency that allows for a complex system like this one to be implemented, another reason to support global development)You're also ignoring how there is a strong correlation between development and population numbers (as societies develop natality rates drop), so overpopulation is not issue in the long term. You people are borderline Malthusian>We're also already watching what happens to society as it atomizes itselfConsequence of capitalism's individualism taken to the extreme
