Stupid tankies asking for sources. That's basically thought police - aren't you bozos supposed to hate the police? Hahahaha gottem.

What no theory does to a mf.

No, this isn't trickle down economics. It's called superprofit/super exploitation, a marxist concept. The West™ in general, but a few powers specifically (subject of our discussion here, the USA in particular) have enforced extremely brutal oppression in the global South. This has kept the global South from developing competitive or even self-sufficient industry and reliant on imports. This gives American firms a massively unfair advantage, one which is used to placate the American working class so they don't develop solidarity with the global South. Throw in some bog standard racism and you've got a stable empire of misery. It's classic divide and conquer tactics, same used to pit managers/white collar workers and more blue collar or service workers against each other. Let some people feel superior to others, and they'll be so busy looking down they won't mind the boot on their back standing above them.

There's a rich body of theory here (which you are plainly ignorant of) but I would recommend reading about the phenomenon of unequal exchange by Jason Hickel

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X

It's a good starting place for understanding how wealth is extracted from the south for the north.

Unfortunately for all of us, Capitalism has a long-term rate of profit problem. Even with super exploitation profit falls in the long run. To maintain their power and the rate of profit the capitalists begin ripping out and further oppressing the once (relatively) privileged working class of the north too. That's why social safety nets are being torn to shreds and constantly under attack, and gains in quality of life/life expectancy have either stalled or regressed in so called "rich" countries.

We say "workers of the world unite" for a reason. It's a global struggle.

Oh, nice whattaboutism. Didn't say shit about Russia dumbass. What the fuck does that have to do with a conversation about the US engaging in direct imperialism during the 20th century? You sick fucks are obsessed with Russia, it's kind of cute. Like you've got a crush or something.

My guy I'm just talking about well recorded history here. Go Google operation Condor, or if you're really feeling adventurous, literally any history book about Latin America. US violence and meddling is a core part of what gave the country a deeply unfair advantage. There was only dramatic reduction in poverty and a "growing middle class" because we were actively preventing that from developing abroad. Pretending foreign policy and domestic issues are separate realms is completely juvenile. Look at OPEC for the easiest example in the world.

It also coincided with the US propagating violent dictatorships and committing unparalleled war crimes abroad. The Korean War, Vietnam War, Indonesian Mass Killings, rise of the House of Saud, Shah in Iran, and incredible meddling and history of coups/death squads in Latin America.

That middle class wasn't made by just engaging in good business, unless you consider the violence of imperialism good business... In which case absolutely go fuck yourself... But only if you stand by all that foreign aggression and murder and downstream oppression.

you would be surprised

Well, at least you're learning something today, despite your best efforts not to.

I want to keep on insulting the man good cop bad cop style, but now I'm learning, and I'm content to let him keep saying vapid bullshit if it means you keep posting bangers.

Thanks for your contributions.

You see, the Political Scientist major brainpan is maladapted to reflection, and quite simply incapable of grasping such remarkable and sophisticated concepts like "Hegemony."

He's got a MINOR in economics! And he's here to tell us all about how beautiful and elegant the math is. You can't really appreciate it unless you step into the rarified air surrounding an econometrics professor, you would understand if you ever tried it.

He's pretty clearly misunderstood entirely or at least the point of 80% of what I said alone. This man is a weenie and the absolute epitome of someone who took Econ 101 and now thinks they know the secrets of the universe. It's incredible how much air economics departments blow up their students ass. That just can't be safe for the human body.

I STILL WANT MY MAN'S THOUGHTS ON THE CAMBRIDGE CAPITAL DEBATE.

"It is important, for the record, to recognize that key participants in the debate openly admitted their mistakes. Samuelson's seventh edition of Economics was purged of errors. Levhari and Samuelson published a paper which began, 'We wish to make it clear for the record that the nonreswitching theorem associated with us is definitely false. We are grateful to Dr. Pasinetti...' (Levhari and Samuelson 1966). Leland Yeager and I jointly published a note acknowledging his earlier error and attempting to resolve the conflict between our theoretical perspectives. (Burmeister and Yeager, 1978).

However, the damage had been done, and Cambridge, UK, 'declared victory': Levhari was wrong, Samuelson was wrong, Solow was wrong, MIT was wrong and therefore neoclassical economics was wrong. As a result there are some groups of economists who have abandoned neoclassical economics for their own refinements of classical economics. In the United States, on the other hand, mainstream economics goes on as if the controversy had never occurred. Macroeconomics textbooks discuss 'capital' as if it were a well-defined concept — which it is not, except in a very special one-capital-good world (or under other unrealistically restrictive conditions). The problems of heterogeneous capital goods have also been ignored in the 'rational expectations revolution' and in virtually all econometric work."

(Burmeister 2000)

Awh gee, I wonder where our Poli-sci wonderboy got his degree

Goddamn. You both treated him with more respect and time/attention than he deserved AND savaged him. I love Hexbear users. I was running out of patience and felt my fingers itching for a ppb soon.

Hear that @Civility@hexbear.net? I've been a bad boy! Come frown at me for hurting the widdle wiberals feelings. He was just using elitism to disparage his interlocutors and maintain a worldview that harms people every day! Why did I have to go and be so uncivil! Whoa is me.

Classic liberal. When confronted with arguments you don't understand or have a retort to, you pearl clutch and complain about tone.