The most obscene state of the world

[Yeekim]

That billionaires exist at all is testament to how badly we effed up the fundamental structures of our societies.

I strongly disagree.
That billionaires exist is not a problem at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
That there are people without access to proper shelter, education, sanitation etc - now that is a problem... and we're making some progress there, at least according to some data:
https://ourworldindata.org/poverty-at-higher-poverty-lines
Also:
https://ourworldindata.org/global-economic-inequality

Spoiler large chart :

 

[metalhead]

I strongly disagree.
That billionaires exist is not a problem at all. Quite the opposite, in fact.
That there are people without access to proper shelter, education, sanitation etc - now that is a problem...

Those two things are inextricably related to one another.

 

[Yeekim]

Those two things are inextricably related to one another.

Why do you think so?

 

[metalhead]

Why do you think so?

Because the capital needed to ensure everyone has housing and a good education is currently being hoarded by billionaires.

If you were spending resources in a way that provided those things to people, they would never have been hoarded to the point billionaires exist. They would be shared more equally among the entire population.

 

[Yeekim]

Because the capital needed to ensure everyone has housing and a good education is currently being hoarded by billionaires.

If you were spending resources in a way that provided those things to people, they would never have been hoarded to the point billionaires exist. They would be shared more equally among the entire population.

This implies a zero-sum game where a dollar earned is always a dollar taken from someone else. It really does not work like that.
While proliferation of ultra-rich frequently has lot to do with inefficient or regressive tax systems*, being a billionaire does not mean one is "hoarding" capital, sitting on top of it like a dragon.

For instance, Estonians with highest net worth are currently startuppers behind unicorns such as Transferwise or Taxify.
Creating a currency transfer service or a ride-sharing solution that gets valued over 1bn really does not mean you've taken that money away from someone else, does it?

*While extreme poverty has less to do with evil multinational enterprises and more with governments that are basically just acting as a racket.

 

[Imaus]

In Spain we have three levels (or even four) of polities, ranging from the biggest one (the state) through the medium (regional autonomies) to the smaller level (municipalities), all fairly independent from the one above. I have worked at some point in the administration of all three, and can say first hand that the smaller the polity, the more ineficient, injust, corrupt and opaque for the average citizen it is.

I can point to the near-needless divisions in Puerto Rico as well, where every municipality demands a total, full administration for an island of 3 million that can be - and has been - divided into six or so regions prior. It's a corrupt mess that can't support itself, but it's so entrenched it'll take huge damage to remove, and right after Maria might had been a good time to try.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I can point to the near-needless divisions in Puerto Rico as well, where every municipality demands a total, full administration for an island of 3 million that can be - and has been - divided into six or so regions prior. It's a corrupt mess that can't support itself, but it's so entrenched it'll take huge damage to remove, and right after Maria might had been a good time to try.

Don't worry, if Trump gets his way their won't be any more Puerto Ricans left to be corrupt. He has blocked post-hurricane food stamp funds for the island, despite the island getting less fund stamp funding than the states to begin with.

And yet no one is holding him accountable for his manipulation of rent laws to screw over the poor and his decades of tax evasion.

So yeah I would say we have a massive distribution of wealth problem.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

I can point to the near-needless divisions in Puerto Rico as well, where every municipality demands a total, full administration for an island of 3 million that can be - and has been - divided into six or so regions prior. It's a corrupt mess that can't support itself, but it's so entrenched it'll take huge damage to remove, and right after Maria might had been a good time to try.

It seems you are describing Spain at smaller scale. We share the same inheritance after all whether for good or ill.

Anyway once stablished, such useless political/administrative structures are very difficult to remove since doing so would damage the very political class that should remove them. So it is about changing the whole system or nothing.

 

[Hygro]

The ridiculous lack of actual progress made in the field of economics in general and business administration in particular compared to efforts and trust put into it.

No really what are you talking about.

 

[Phrossack]

This implies a zero-sum game where a dollar earned is always a dollar taken from someone else. It really does not work like that.
While proliferation of ultra-rich frequently has lot to do with inefficient or regressive tax systems*, being a billionaire does not mean one is "hoarding" capital, sitting on top of it like a dragon.

For instance, Estonians with highest net worth are currently startuppers behind unicorns such as Transferwise or Taxify.
Creating a currency transfer service or a ride-sharing solution that gets valued over 1bn really does not mean you've taken that money away from someone else, does it?

*While extreme poverty has less to do with evil multinational enterprises and more with governments that are basically just acting as a racket.

In theory, there is nothing wrong with billionaires existing.

In practice, the presence of a class of ultra-rich people almost always leads to a tightly networked society that can disproportionately influence policy to their benefit and at everyone else's expense. They can influence elections and any media they own, they can have the ear of politicians through lobbying and exclusive dinners and gifts, and they can coordinate much better than the commoners because there are fewer of them, they have shared interests, they attend the same clubs, their kids attend the same private schools, and so on.

Yes, in theory, a country could childproof its laws enough to prevent an immediate plutocratic coup. In practice, the plutocrats will never relent in their efforts to bend policy and laws to their own ends, and safeguarding laws from them requires a ceaseless watch and united front that general publics usually can't manage. It's much safer to prevent anyone from massing that much wealth in the first place.

 

[metalhead]

This implies a zero-sum game where a dollar earned is always a dollar taken from someone else. It really does not work like that.
While proliferation of ultra-rich frequently has lot to do with inefficient or regressive tax systems*, being a billionaire does not mean one is "hoarding" capital, sitting on top of it like a dragon.

For instance, Estonians with highest net worth are currently startuppers behind unicorns such as Transferwise or Taxify.
Creating a currency transfer service or a ride-sharing solution that gets valued over 1bn really does not mean you've taken that money away from someone else, does it?

Sure it does. Those valuations are based on revenue and future value. If control over that capital flow is concentrated in the hands of one individual, that individual decides how it is spent. That individual is also given outsized political power to ensure that the government doesn't appropriate that capital for public works, for people in need.

Just because it doesn't involve literal taking of money or wealth away from others, doesn't mean there isn't hoarding going on. That $1bn is going to be put to use growing that fortune for the founder and the wealthy people who invested in his company, and not be put to use for anything beneficial to greater society.

 

[innonimatu]

In Spain we have three levels (or even four) of polities, ranging from the biggest one (the state) through the medium (regional autonomies) to the smaller level (municipalities), all fairly independent from the one above. I have worked at some point in the administration of all three, and can say first hand that the smaller the polity, the more ineficient, injust, corrupt and opaque for the average citizen it is.

That is not a polity, they are not autonomous. What you watched is the effect of not having sovereignty. That you have watched is what has been happening to national states within the EU. Politicians cease doing policy and do only electoral politics, because policy is decided on some "level above".

 

[Broken_Erika]

Don't worry, if Trump gets his way their won't be any more Puerto Ricans left to be corrupt. He has blocked post-hurricane food stamp funds for the island, despite the island getting less fund stamp funding than the states to begin with.

If they don't like it then they can go back to mexico!

 

[innonimatu]

Sure it does. Those valuations are based on revenue and future value. If control over that capital flow is concentrated in the hands of one individual, that individual decides how it is spent. That individual is also given outsized political power to ensure that the government doesn't appropriate that capital for public works, for people in need.

I agree and want to stress that wealth almost always equals power, including political power. There was a reason why the old american anti-trust politicians were so much auti-trust: they saw the assessment of great wealth as a threat to democracy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

That is not a polity, they are not autonomous. What you watched is the effect of not having sovereignty. That you have watched is what has been happening to national states within the EU. Politicians cease doing policy and do only electoral politics, because policy is decided on some "level above".

Nope. They are not sovereign of course since the sovereignty comes from the Spanish people, but are completely autonomous and decide his own policies and make his own laws inside his competences which are nearly everything but defense, exterior relations and some NHS competences. They collect
his own taxes and decide what to do with the money and how organize themselves and the state has no a word in it.

Only an example: municipalities and regions decide how much his public workers make, and it is a lot more than the equivalent workers in the statal administration do. There are four main groups for public workers: From higher to lower rank these levels are A1, A2, B1, B2. I am A2 at the statal administration and make less than i did as B1 at the autonomical admin, doing a much more important work now. This is extensive to all levels: The president of the catalan administration makes almost twice the president of the central government! Autonomies and municipalities also use to employ A2 and even A1 workers in zero responsability jobs which are (by law) B2 stuff in the state. It is grotesque.

In general the smaller the administration the more close and personal things get and more nepotism, cronyism and corruption you will have. This is specially evident in the municipalities. The state otoh is much bigger and distant. People with real power is too far away. Everything is less personal and made by the book and there are a number of systems to warrant trasparency and efficiency in the central administration which are impossible to apply effectivelly in a miriad of small autonomous administrations that in fact do things and waste resources as they please.

 

[innonimatu]

If such were true then Switzerland would be much more corrupt that Italy, and Iceland the most corrupt of all (not make-belive) european countries. It is not so.
Not can I just give examples of all small countries being less corrupt, of course. What I mean is that anecdotes are anecdotes, they tell about local conditions but must be analyses before attempting any generalization. Size is not the only factor. It is however, I believe, the most important structural one.

The only spanish region with a reasonable amount of autonomy (financial at least) is presently the Basque Country. How does it compare to others that are by comparison markedly administrative in role?

 

[AmazonQueen]

If such were true then Switzerland would be much more corrupt that Italy, and Iceland the most corrupt of all (not make-belive) european countries. It is not so.
Not can I just give examples of all small countries being less corrupt, of course. What I mean is that anecdotes are anecdotes, they tell about local conditions but must be analyses before attempting any generalization. Size is not the only factor. It is however, I believe, the most important structural one.

The only spanish region with a reasonable amount of autonomy (financial at least) is presently the Basque Country. How does it compare to others that are by comparison markedly administrative in role?

Personally I'd argue wealth and political stability are just as important as size. Pay your policemen and civil servants well and they are less likely to be tempted by bribes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Looking at that list wealth and stability are both features of most of the countries scoring highly. Smaller countries are all over the list.
Where smaller countries often score well IMO is responsiveness to citizen concerns. I wish the EU appeared to take subsidiarity more seriously (not that the UK is particularly keen on it. For such a highly centralised state to preach at the EU about subsidiarity is the height of hypocrisy).

 

[Thorgalaeg]

If such were true then Switzerland would be much more corrupt that Italy, and Iceland the most corrupt of all (not make-belive) european countries. It is not so.
Not can I just give examples of all small countries being less corrupt, of course. What I mean is that anecdotes are anecdotes, they tell about local conditions but must be analyses before attempting any generalization. Size is not the only factor. It is however, I believe, the most important structural one.

The only spanish region with a reasonable amount of autonomy (financial at least) is presently the Basque Country. How does it compare to others that are by comparison markedly administrative in role?

I ignore the realities in these countries as much as you, but I will bet corruption in Switzerland is more common in Cantons than in the federal government.

About Basque country, I have never worked there but there a number of famous cases of corruption implying foral goverments and municipalities as anywhere else. All I can say is a Basque policeman makes much more money than a statal one, doing the same work.

About the financial system in the Basque country (and Navarra) it is not so different to other regions. They collect most taxes themselves and pay a part of the total to the state. Other regions collect a number of taxes themselves and pay a part to the state too. But not the main ones. This does not necessarily mean more money for the basques as some important taxes collected by the state in other regions are totally returned to the government of said regions, while the basques must pay about the 30% of the taxes collected. Other regions have also competences about how must the main taxes be collected in its territory in the same degree as the basques but can't do it themselves. In return for the right to collect he said taxes the Basque country and Navarra must run with the financial risk too. So, if at some point they cant afford something with the money they get the state is not obligated to assist them (theoretically at least). Such system was offered to the catalan region when the Spanish Constitution was made in 1978 and rejected.

 

[innonimatu]

Where smaller countries often score well IMO is responsiveness to citizen concerns. I wish the EU appeared to take subsidiarity more seriously (not that the UK is particularly keen on it. For such a highly centralised state to preach at the EU about subsidiarity is the height of hypocrisy).

All right, this much we can agree on. The UK is going to have more trouble handling the changes of brexit that it should because of having centralized too much, I also agree.

I believe that subsidiarity can be well done, and can ameliorate the problems caused by large size and distance between those who represent and govern, and the represented. But I'm also not seeing it done, rather everything is being done towards centralization.
The argument to justify that move are the usual ones:
1 ) The others are very big, we must be big also or we'll get eaten. It's kind of "to not be poisoned, we must poison ourselves".
2) The modern world is so complex we need such a big government that only a large state can afford that.

 

[AmazonQueen]

All right, this much we can agree on. The UK is going to have more trouble handling the changes of brexit that it should because of having centralized too much, I also agree.

I believe that subsidiarity can be well done, and can ameliorate the problems caused by large size and distance between those who represent and govern, and the represented. But I'm also not seeing it done, rather everything is being done towards centralization.
The argument to justify that move are the usual ones:
1 ) The others are very big, we must be big also or we'll get eaten. It's kind of "to not be poisoned, we must poison ourselves".
2) The modern world is so complex we need such a big government that only a large state can afford that.

We actually do agree for once.
I would agree that neither the UK or the EU have handled subsidiarity well.
On the other hand I'm not convinced that a small state is in and of itself a guarantee of better government.