The most obscene state of the world

[Ironsided]

So the Davos economic forum report 2019 came out. We are now down to 26 billionaires owning more assets than the poorest 3.8 billion (over 50% of pop. worldwide). These are shady numbers on both sides but the trend is clear enough; it’s down from 43 in 2018, and 65 in 2017. Also mind, these numbers are presented by the political and financial “elite”.

A less than 1% tax on that 26 person wealth is enough to pay for schooling for the 262 million children worldwide who do not go to school. But that would be an actual investment in values like less radicalisation, less crime, increased productivity and over all wellbeing and understanding. Sadly people do not get rich by investing in value - but for profit. This won’t change unless we change it. Personally I’d prefer it’s done democratically rather than a bloody revolution but that seems less likely every year.

Ten years after the financial crisis and the number of billionaires have doubled. Isn’t that a peculiar facts? One would think that a financial crisis would hurt people in finance like an environmental disaster would people in that environment? It’s not that peculiar. Neither example hurt the folks on the hill. If you are in the know you will secure your foundations. The people washed away by storms are the same small investors hurt by the financial crisis, good folks and smarmy folks alike.

Now to the core of the poodle for me: Why do we treat economics as if it was natural science when it clearly is not? Why are we supposed to hold business schools in academic regard when they are clearly craft schools - not for understanding and managing value, but for accumulating profit? The best thing to ever come out of Elon Musk is the truism that MBAs are useless – I’d go one further and say they are detrimental to society. Their schools rigged and funded by the same corporate interests that used to buy nobility titles to seem legit. A historical vanity power play we look back on with a smirk but ultimately accept still. Stop listening to these corporate idiots and maybe we will leave a less obscene future for the next generation.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

So the Davos economic forum report 2019 came out. We are now down to 26 billionaires owning more assets than the poorest 3.8 billion (over 50% of pop. worldwide). These are shady numbers on both sides but the trend is clear enough; it’s down from 43 in 2018, and 65 in 2017. Also mind, these numbers are presented by the political and financial “elite”.

so we can almost 100% safely assume, that in reality those numbers are even worse

 

[Ironsided]

Yes, there is a somewhat glaring irony in my op in citing an economic report about how much you distrust economists but it is also a pretty blatant slap in the face when economists keep coming out with these reports year after year and accomplish to do buck all concrete about it.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I mean, what would anybody want so many billions for anyway?

Expropiate the 99% of it and leave them a few millions only. Enough to let them rebuild his fortunes if are smart enough, that way they would have something to do and don't get bored. (and could be expropiated again in a decade or two)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

 

[Hrothbern]

So the Davos economic forum report 2019 came out. We are now down to 26 billionaires owning more assets than the poorest 3.8 billion (over 50% of pop. worldwide). These are shady numbers on both sides but the trend is clear enough; it’s down from 43 in 2018, and 65 in 2017. Also mind, these numbers are presented by the political and financial “elite”.

A less than 1% tax on that 26 person wealth is enough to pay for schooling for the 262 million children worldwide who do not go to school. But that would be an actual investment in values like less radicalisation, less crime, increased productivity and over all wellbeing and understanding. Sadly people do not get rich by investing in value - but for profit. This won’t change unless we change it. Personally I’d prefer it’s done democratically rather than a bloody revolution but that seems less likely every year.

Ten years after the financial crisis and the number of billionaires have doubled. Isn’t that a peculiar facts? One would think that a financial crisis would hurt people in finance like an environmental disaster would people in that environment? It’s not that peculiar. Neither example hurt the folks on the hill. If you are in the know you will secure your foundations. The people washed away by storms are the same small investors hurt by the financial crisis, good folks and smarmy folks alike.

Now to the core of the poodle for me: Why do we treat economics as if it was natural science when it clearly is not? Why are we supposed to hold business schools in academic regard when they are clearly craft schools - not for understanding and managing value, but for accumulating profit? The best thing to ever come out of Elon Musk is the truism that MBAs are useless – I’d go one further and say they are detrimental to society. Their schools rigged and funded by the same corporate interests that used to buy nobility titles to seem legit. A historical vanity power play we look back on with a smirk but ultimately accept still. Stop listening to these corporate idiots and maybe we will leave a less obscene future for the next generation.

Don't take a knife to a gunfight

To understand what is happening you need Finance Craftsmen.
Yes... I know they are the tools to apply the "Law of Greed"
But can be the tools to un-greed as well.

I think Davos, and the Bilderberg group (more powerful imo), are very much aware of the growing sentiments against this wealth accumulation and the negative effects on a growing prosperity (whether of the traditional prosperity type or sustainable green types).
Their main objective is to optimise a necessary level of happiness-wellbeing-obedience of the masses versus the status quo wealthy.
The "right" level of "inclusive".
They will be quite happy to "own" the public information on this issue, AND to set the Agenda how to "deal" with it.

In order to do this they developed the last 1-2 decades KPI's, key performance indicators, with a growing subset of indicators to monitor, and action into policies to their goals.

Nothing wrong with objective analysis and overviews. How that connects to the new baby of social-media influence and choice/opinon influencing.
Key is what they do NOT show in their Public overviews, but is retrievable from their databases, and leads to other mindsettings in the broad public THAT ARE ACTIONABLE for the many.

The left and leftish have manoeuvred themselves outside the heart of this financial-economic development since decades.
Most left-leftish analyses regarding this based on more university and civic society mindsets.
That is far away how the modern capitalism ticks (is there a word for this new capitalism ? Sooo differently from 1880, from 1950 ?)
If you do not have real left people INSIDE Wallstreet, INSIDE London city, INSIDE the financial opaqueness, INSIDE the Big Corporate.....
How well are you really informed how the machinery ticks.
The very existence of Davos shows that the people INSIDE that mechanism have not that much control (and risk/face "out of control" events of various natures, peoples sentiments just one of them)

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yes, there is a somewhat glaring irony in my op in siting an economic report about how much you distrust economists but it is also a pretty blatant slap in the face when economists keep coming out with these reports year after year and accomplish to do buck all concrete about it.

This isn't really fair. The vast majority of economists don't set policy. If they're lucky, they inform policy. Most, however, will spend their careers reading books and writing papers only other economists will ever read. And to be fair, usually it's economists that put together reports like this for the general public to read, understand and draw their own conclusions from. Without them, we might know the rich are screwing everyone but with them we can prove it.

 

[innonimatu]

so we can almost 100% safely assume, that in reality those numbers are even worse

I don't know, they do like to boast. It has been a long time since the wealthy ruling elites have had to flee or die, anywhere.

Expropiate the 99% of it and leave them a few millions only. Enough to let them rebuild his fortunes if are smart enough, that way they would have something to do and don't get bored. (and could be expropiated again in a decade or two)

This fixes nothing. The system that allowed the accumulation of those fortunes needs to be changed. The rules of the game are the problem, because it is the exercise of those rules, the process amassing of fortune, that exploits other people. Simply "resetting" the system in a one-off way would keep the existing rules, the existing proportion of people being exploited for the accumulation of power and wealth by a few.

It is useful to know how the rules work now in order to know what to change, sure. Certainly the preferred way. The problem is that those who delve into it are very often co-opted. The other thing everyone should keep in mind that the smash everything alternative works. It worked in 1789, it worked in 1917, and it worked in the 1950s. It kills a lot of people, sure. But as a method for change when alternatives fail, it works.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't know, they do like to boast. It has been a long time since the wealthy ruling elites have had to flee or die, anywhere.



This fixes nothing. The system that allowed the accumulation of those fortunes needs to be changed. The rules of the game are the problem, because it is the exercise of those rules, the process amassing of fortune, that exploits other people. Simply "resetting" the system in a one-off way would keep the existing rules, the existing proportion of people being exploited for the accumulation of power and wealth by a few.

It is useful to know how the rules work now in order to know what to change, sure. Certainly the preferred way. The problem is that those who delve into it are very often co-opted. The other thing everyone should keep in mind that the smash everything alternative works. It worked in 1789, it worked in 1917, and it worked in the 1950s. It kills a lot of people, sure. But as a method for change when alternatives fail, it works.

Does it work?
France, Russia and China are hardly models of equitable wealth distribution today although France scores a lot better than China or Russia.

https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/wealth-distribution-income-inequality

According to this list Iceland and Norway do best, neither known for violent revolution.

 

[innonimatu]

Iceland and Norway have that biggest of all national virtues, one I've been an advocate of here also: they are small countries!

Is is very hard to become disgustingly rich if the system where you play to accumulate wealth and power is small. That by itself limits what the greedy can achieve. It also makes it much easier for members of the community to organize and fight against undue accumulations om power.

The root of all political evil are large polities.

 

[Cutlass]

Iceland and Norway have that biggest of all national virtues, one I've been an advocate of here also: they are small countries!

Is is very hard to become disgustingly right if the system where you play to accumulate wealth and power is small. That by itself limits what the greedy can achieve. It also makes it much easier for members of the community to organize and fight against undue accumulations om power.

The root of all political evil are large polities.

Of course, what freedom does exist in the United States exists because the largest polity in the country, the whole of the country, is vastly more protective of liberty and opportunity than any of the states, no matter how small their populations, is.

 

[innonimatu]

But you can't really know that, can you? Without the Federal state and the resources of the north, would the southern slave states have even expanded and endured? Would the west have been conquered, its native people massacred or confined to reservations?

Where is the freedom of those who were trampled in the imperial expansion of this polity? They're dead and the dead do not speak, I guess.

 

[Estebonrober]

But you can't really know that, can you? Without the Federal state and the resources of the north, would the southern slave states have even expanded and endured? Would the west have been conquered, its native people massacred or confined to reservations?

Where is the freedom of those who were trampled in the imperial expansion of this polity? They're dead and the dead do not speak, I guess.

I quoted the wrong post my response is to your first comment about nation size and recourse/justice.

Hmm I don’t think I could disagree more. Particularly here in the US. It is far easier for corporations to manipulate states than it is for them to manipulate the federal government. They do both sure, but some interests entirely own states. I cite W Virgina and the energy industry.

I got a feeling this particular topic has legs.

 

[innonimatu]

I will only point out, because I don't want to derail the thread into a large-states versus small-states discussion, that big corporations simply could not exist in a world of small states that guarded their sovereignty. As opposed to a world of large empires, or to one where some large empires compelled or manipulated smaller states into abstaining from enacting pr enforcing their own laws as per the wishes and needs of their own population.

Uber (to cite one notorious, contemporary, rules-breaching multinational corporation) only exists because many states tolerated it, abstained from enforcing laws and regulations. Google only exists as a behemoth because states allow it to operate without charging taxes on it, and allow it to get away with using content others are forced to pay for. Royal Dutch Shell only exists as a behemoth because states have been compelled to grant them concessions or else bad things would happen (if they tried to nationalize oil industry) though the action of state intelligence services (See Iran 1953 for an example). And so on...
Larger polities enable ans support larger corporations. They create the extensive markets and the favorable law that allows corporations to grow in size. And they extend this across borders through international treaties that dilute sovereignty, that limit the legal ability of governments to put limits on corporate influence. Then the story told to the public is that "regrettably there is nothing to be done about the abuses of power by nasty big corporation because we are small you see, and everyone is doing it". Democratic checks on power are neutered by reducing what people believe to be the realm of the possible.

Hey, I guess this is not off-topic for the thread after all.

 

[Kaitzilla]

White collar crime convictions are at 20 year lows in the US.

 

[Estebonrober]

I don’t think it’s off topic at all. I find it interesting we basically come at this from two dichotomous points of view. I believe we need global rules about finance and monetary policy. You believe we need to break down into tiny nations that make their own rules. I see the merit in your idea in that local rule feels better and more responsive. I think you are wrong though as tiny states are prone to the race to the bottom policies we see taking over the world right now. Also rules become incoherent and in fighting is basically inevitable. This leads to regional and eventually global conflicts.

I’m short your policy we take us back to the turn of the last century just with better weapons and messaging. IMO.

 

[Ironsided]

This isn't really fair. The vast majority of economists don't set policy. If they're lucky, they inform policy. Most, however, will spend their careers reading books and writing papers only other economists will ever read. And to be fair, usually it's economists that put together reports like this for the general public to read, understand and draw their own conclusions from. Without them, we might know the rich are screwing everyone but with them we can prove it.

You know what’s not fair? Your assessment here. This is not the navel-gazing polo shirts from your local college. OK, I worded it poorly as I often do, I accept that, but that does not absolve you from thinking for yourself. The people attending and/or speaking at Davos are the most powerful people in the world. Here is a list from last year:

Donald Trump, President of the United States of America

Angela Merkel, Federal Chancellor, Germany

Paolo Gentiloni, Prime Minister of Italy

Emmanuel Macron, President of France

Theresa May, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission

Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India

Liu He, People's Republic of China

Mauricio Macri, President of Argentina

Cyril Ramaphosa, Deputy President of South Africa

Michel Temer, President of Brazil

Hailemariam Desalegn, Prime Minister of Ethiopia

Emmerson Mnangagwa, President of Zimbabwe

Yemi Osinbajo, Vice-President of Nigeria

Saad Al Hariri, President of the Council of Ministers, Lebanon

Abdullah II Ibn Al Hussein, King of Jordan

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel

Juan Manuel Santos, President of Colombia

All together over 340 top political leaders.

I’ll go on with some organisation leaders…

Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations

Roberto Azevêdo, Director-General, World Trade Organization

Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organization

Angel Gurría, Secretary-General, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

Zeid Ra'ad Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank

Guy Ryder, Director-General, International Labour Organization

Add to that about 2000 top industrial leaders

 

[Hygro]

So the Davos economic forum report 2019 came out. We are now down to 26 billionaires owning more assets than the poorest 3.8 billion (over 50% of pop. worldwide). These are shady numbers on both sides but the trend is clear enough; it’s down from 43 in 2018, and 65 in 2017. Also mind, these numbers are presented by the political and financial “elite”.

A less than 1% tax on that 26 person wealth is enough to pay for schooling for the 262 million children worldwide who do not go to school. But that would be an actual investment in values like less radicalisation, less crime, increased productivity and over all wellbeing and understanding. Sadly people do not get rich by investing in value - but for profit. This won’t change unless we change it. Personally I’d prefer it’s done democratically rather than a bloody revolution but that seems less likely every year.

Ten years after the financial crisis and the number of billionaires have doubled. Isn’t that a peculiar facts? One would think that a financial crisis would hurt people in finance like an environmental disaster would people in that environment? It’s not that peculiar. Neither example hurt the folks on the hill. If you are in the know you will secure your foundations. The people washed away by storms are the same small investors hurt by the financial crisis, good folks and smarmy folks alike.

Now to the core of the poodle for me: Why do we treat economics as if it was natural science when it clearly is not? Why are we supposed to hold business schools in academic regard when they are clearly craft schools - not for understanding and managing value, but for accumulating profit? The best thing to ever come out of Elon Musk is the truism that MBAs are useless – I’d go one further and say they are detrimental to society. Their schools rigged and funded by the same corporate interests that used to buy nobility titles to seem legit. A historical vanity power play we look back on with a smirk but ultimately accept still. Stop listening to these corporate idiots and maybe we will leave a less obscene future for the next generation.

It's all an accounting, you can't turn it into school for a quarter billion children.

Edit: I changed my mind. You could buy it into existence. Why tie that production to the limits of a tax though?

 

[Yeekim]

I mean, what would anybody want so many billions for anyway?
Expropiate the 99% of it and leave them a few millions only. Enough to let them rebuild his fortunes if are smart enough, that way they would have something to do and don't get bored. (and could be expropiated again in a decade or two)

That wealth is not just cash lying around, you know. I somehow doubt nationalizing Google or Amazon would be particularly smart move.

 

[Ironsided]

It's all an accounting, you can't turn it into school for a quarter billion children.

Edit: I changed my mind. You could buy it into existence. Why tie that production to the limits of a tax though?

Then use it as a reference point and not a call to action. (I stole that number from a piece in the Guardian.) It works well as such.

The point is - it’s simply not good enough for economists to hide behind all the complexities of their models and calculations when they keep missing the target over and over and over again. Why should we still fund and take their advice if they can’t even agree on the very basics? Is it supply-side, trickle down, whatever the next cowbell to flock the herd? Who is the grand wizard of this shamanic sewing circle? Is there any more reason to it than the self-fullfilling prophecy that if we all do the same accounting we get comparable results?