Despite decades of expanding global commerce and industrialization in the developing world, the data shows that extreme income inequality between nations has remained stubbornly entrenched, and between-country inequalities still account for an overwhelming ~80% of total world income inequality.

By the end of the twentieth century, these decades of development and industrialization had primarily succeeded in consolidating world inequalities in income and resource use, while accelerating environmental degradation to unprecedented levels.

When corporations relocate manufacturing to the imperial periphery, they successfully export the social contradictions of mass production (like class conflict and labor unrest), but they do not relocate the wealth that historically allowed high-wage countries to afford social safety nets and high living standards.

Then why are global living standards rising rapidly?

I also don’t think inequality is intrinsically bad. Depending on type and timeframe it may even be good. Especially if the inequality is increasing while everyone is also doing better than they previously were. (note that internal US inequality is actually shrinking)

A 10% increase on a larger base will produce more inequality than a 20% increase on a smaller base. However, I don’t think the smaller base person would prefer neither of them get an increase.

> they successfully export the social contradictions of mass production

Because the West used to have tons of manufacturing and unusually large amounts of social unrest? Shitholes are gonna shithole. No one is stopping them from being the next South Korea or Singapore (if they really wanted it, lol) except themselves.