The most obscene state of the world

[Ajidica]

I like billionaires; they are the blue whales of the financial ecology. When they breach and slap their flukes, things happen. You would not have the shiny toys you do if there were no billionaires to push big stacks of capital around.

Whales also end up on beaches where they rot, become a public health hazard, and then explode sticking someone else with the cleanup bill.
Not sure how well thought out your metaphor is.

 

[innonimatu]

It's not the economists. It's not the climate researchers.

Let us be honest: it is the people. If people's disposable income were to increase, say of the mega-wealthy didn't hoard so much and allowed economic activity to pick up in fields other that rent-seeking/speculation... consumption of goods, including fuel, would increase a lot.
For an example, one thing that even most environmentalists I know enjoy making is flying around the globe. Should that be rationed to cut on emissions? The day you can pass laws for rationing of leisure travel that releases CO2 will be the day that people are indeed committed to reduce CO2 emissions. Until then, it's virtue-signaling, hot air. This is the reason why I personally do not support stuff like the Paris Accord. It's show-off, no more than that.

And who am I to attempt to force other people to actually reduce energy consumption? I do not give up all the comforts I objectively could do without in the cold of winter, what moral right have I to force others to? I know that under out economic/political system any limitations that do get imposed are imposed though "market mechanisms". And this means that the poor will suffer the loss of comforts they will no longer afford, while those wealthier will keep using those comforts. That is immoral, I cannot support it.

 

[Naskra]

I've only met three billionaires. One was bankrupt within ten years, one was nice, but too old for me, and the third was a Saudi with bad taste in horses. Hard to find a metaphor covering all cases.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Much higher than that and the rich either won't pay, seek to avoid paying or will start putting their money into politics in order to go the other way which is what lead to

Tax evasion, both corporate and personal, is rampant. We've practically built a tax code that allows for it if your income is more diverse than straight paychecks and you have a good tax attorney.

Likewise, corruption of our political system through lobbying is also a major problem.

Both of these things should be fixed and they should not be used as a reason why we can't make the rich pay their fair share.

 

[peter grimes]

Let us be honest: it is the people. If people's disposable income were to increase, say of the mega-wealthy didn't hoard so much and allowed economic activity to pick up in fields other that rent-seeking/speculation... consumption of goods, including fuel, would increase a lot.
For an example, one thing that most environmentalists enjoy making is flying around the globe. Should that be rationed to cut on emissions? The day you can pass laws for rationing of leisure travel that releases CO2 will be the say that people are indeed committed to reduce CO2 emissions. Until then, it's virtue-signaling, hot air. This is the reason why I personally do not support stiff like the Paris Accord. It's show-off, no more than that.

And who am I to attempt to force other people to actually reduce energy consumption? I do not give up all the comforts i objectively could do without in the cold of winter, what moral right have I to force others to? I know that under out economic/political system any limitations that do get imposed are imposed though "market mechanisms". And this means that the poor will suffer the loss of comforts they will no longer afford, while those wealthier will keep using those comforts. That is immoral, I cannot support it.

I don't want to derail into climate debate, so I'll only respond as regards both climate and economy.

You say it's the people - meaning the individual citizens acting in their own interest in their environment. I agree that the people are the ultimate source of climate emissions, or economic disparity insofar as it's individuals earning millions or just tens of dollars a month.

I disagree, those people can't help but act the way they do given the incentives and punishments native to the environments they find themselves in. A peasant in 9th century China doesn't have the economic impact of a middle class truck driver in modern USA. Neither of those people are *at fault* for their impact, as you say it would be immoral to ask them to change their behavior without also changing their economic environment.

The economic (or climate impact) environment is crafted and adjusted by policymakers. The fault of economic inequality or climate change lies 100% at their feet. By fostering an environment where tens of thousands of people who can't afford to rent a roof every night are forced to sleep in the streets, while that same system sends billions of useless extra dollars to a relative few people who own multiple "homes" they can't even live in all the time - that, to me, is a far worse moral crime than the one you mentioned.

Economic and climate problems can't be solved by individual action, they can only be solved by changing the system that allowed those problems to fester like a cancer.

 

[Imaus]

Also, it should be noted that most of this wealth is in assets and not personal specie. These people aren't sitting on vaults of cash, but trade assets around, or shares, or other such 'imaginary' wealth. I'll be surprised if any of them have wads of cash just laying around.

Assets are far easier to nationalize, or redistribute, ror ecorporate, or w/e. Could basically redoing what happened to Standard Oil work out, or...?

Maybe it'll work out more in places where wealth isn't even with a corporation but a family; such as Angola or the like, or with places with high rule of law like the US or Europe.

 

[Zardnaar]

Tax evasion, both corporate and personal, is rampant. We've practically built a tax code that allows for it if your income is more diverse than straight paychecks and you have a good tax attorney.

Likewise, corruption of our political system through lobbying is also a major problem.

Both of these things should be fixed and they should not be used as a reason why we can't make the rich pay their fair share.

Well they put the top tax rate here up to 39% a few years ago then a neo liberal government put it back down to 33%. Government income went up but over the next 9 years core supporters ened up in the top tax rate (teachers) as the tax bracket did not adjust for inflation. Also some of the mega wealthy left so the tax aimed at them missed and their tax rate became 0% at least locally.

Its more or less why I said 40%-50% is the highest effective rate you can probably go. To a large extent tax is what people will (in)voluntarily pay before they go out of their way to not pay it/try to forment a revolution/fund right wing parties/bribe the middle class etc. To make it stick you're gonna have to get the right on board or get your election rate success to 100%. Put your tax rate up to high and tax revenue can go down.

Another way of phrasing it is what the tax rate is and what people will pay are two different things. We had one party here in the 90's that wanted a 100% tax on anyone leaving the country to prevent the rich taking their money and leaving.

 

[Ironsided]

"Every year climate scientists put out research papers decrying the rise in CO2 emissions, yet every year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. Why does the nation responsible for most of the historical CO2 emissions not stay in the Paris Accord, is it not worthy of their time? Is it the staleness of progress in the academic field? Bill McKibben and Michael Mann spoke at the last IPCC conference last year. Still not much progress from there. Is there now a reasonable consensus in the field that Mann was right?"

I hope this analogy illustrates the source of the problem.

It's not the economists. It's not the climate researchers.

It does not illustrate the problem well enough. It`s not about the people. You can meassure and test the impact of CO2. In fact it has been done in relaton to climate since at least the 80s. We have a near consensus on what CO2 emissions do. We can make it react with O3 in a lab etc. Take the economic findings of the 80s and we are non the wiser.

 

[Ironsided]

Sorry for the short reply, I was on my tablet. I will try to expand a little more now. I’m not against the people in economics or that there is an effort to understand economics. Just the size and trust and scale of it.

Until someone enlighten me I’m of the unenviable position here that economics as science is at least straddling the line of a pseudoscience. The dad of one of my classmates in high school was getting his PhD in American western movies. Granted he was an oddball but if there is room in science for that, there is room for economics. That’s not my issue. But look at your reply – you seem almost unconsciously equate the struggles of economics research and teachings with chemistry or physics.

OK, if that’s your perception of things. What scientific economic properties are driving the inequality of wealth? You know the way we know CO2 is preventing formation of ozone in the ozone layer? The way CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. If you refute that scientific property is the man-made non-scientific concept of capitalism as we know it, it isn't easy is it? Because there is like a billion other intertwined factors all blended and ultimately founded in human constructs.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sorry for the short reply, I was on my tablet. I will try to expand a little more now. I’m not against the people in economics or that there is an effort to understand economics. Just the size and trust and scale of it.

Until someone enlighten me I’m of the unenviable position here that economics as science is at least straddling the line of a pseudoscience. The dad of one of my classmates in high school was getting his PhD in American western movies. Granted he was an oddball but if there is room in science for that, there is room for economics. That’s not my issue. But look at your reply – you seem almost unconsciously equate the struggles of economics research and teachings with chemistry or physics.

OK, if that’s your perception of things. What scientific economic properties are driving the inequality of wealth? You know the way we know CO2 is preventing formation of ozone in the ozone layer? The way CO2 keeps heat trapped in the atmosphere. If you refute that scientific property is the man-made non-scientific concept of capitalism as we know it, it isn't easy is it? Because there is like a billion other intertwined factors all blended and ultimately founded in human constructs.

Economics isn't a science its a different class of degree. If you read a an economic text book or attend an economic lecture at a university its usually fairly neutral (different authors have/push different views and agendas of course). My economic lecturer for example was slightly left of center but stressed that his teachings were an opinion only and some of the text books were a bit more right I suppose (Bernancke was one of the authors) but even then it used plenty of examples both left and right about how to do things. At its most basic level economic theory is essentially supply and demand and its not that inaccurate but its not a science. He always used Greece as an example of how to not run an economy.

 

[Ironsided]

Good. If we can agree that economics is far more a craft (in many cases snake oil) than a science and should not be equated and applied as science I think much is won in the struggle to make this planet a better place.

 

[Dekker]

The debate revolves around how to make the economy work "better", right ?
Phrased more suitably : how to emancipate the economy from the corporate agenda ?

I'll take a bold stance and release a colic of assumptions :

Human beings are a mammal animal.
Wealth is not a measure of happiness. Misery can be.
Misery is not solely measured by wealth. Stress can be a factor (e.g.).
A disproportionate importance has been given to the economy.
Economics have replaced politics as a means of government.
What we now call "politics" is in fact "management".
Waged work contributes to enslave urban populations.
This movement is organized. There is no mistake, there is a will.
Urban populations are governed by fear (of losing their job, status, appartment).
The figure of the citizen is absent from the corporate agenda.
The figure of the labourer/consumer is present.
Corporations have control over industries, finances, news media.

The will of the corporation, State, economy is integrative :
It aims to extend its sphere of influence over new areas of human activity.
Until all are covered. Until it is integral. New breaches are opened every day.
Economic education - call it propaganda - spreads the belief that we work for our own good.
A belief that we would contribute to the wealth of the world and our common well-being.
Prestigious schools of economics instruct armies of stooges that blindly work against their best interest.
Their best interests as human beings or mammal animals.

The money you get at the beginning of the month is not yours.
Consider it a loan you get to pay back by month's end. And what for ?

The focus on a more fair economic management occults the more human issue :
As free-willed beings, what importance do we grant the economy ?
What place should money have in our lives ? And why should it have a place in the first, right ?

Democracy and education are a threat to the corporate agenda.
Moral education is the threat that is perceived as most dangerous.

It's not an easy thing to be independent in this world. The odds are not in your favour.
The game is rigged, the dices are loaded.
If you want to kill the game, you don't play the game, you step aside.

Ethics are as good a place to start as another. Maybe a better one.

Ethics are important but focusing on ethics for yourself will just allow the unethical to continue perpetuating the system, because there will always be those whether taught ethics or not who will take advantage to stay on top. People will always be people, there really is no stepping aside, that's just participating in the game with the decision to not think about it, unless you step into oblivion. Moral education has been co-opted by religious education and is the one of the strongest pillars of the system. And democracy is neutered and the curriculum of education is decided by the gamemasters. So is there really any killing or improving of the game?

 

[metalhead]

Also, it should be noted that most of this wealth is in assets and not personal specie. These people aren't sitting on vaults of cash, but trade assets around, or shares, or other such 'imaginary' wealth. I'll be surprised if any of them have wads of cash just laying around.

Assets are far easier to nationalize, or redistribute, ror ecorporate, or w/e. Could basically redoing what happened to Standard Oil work out, or...?

Maybe it'll work out more in places where wealth isn't even with a corporation but a family; such as Angola or the like, or with places with high rule of law like the US or Europe.

One option is to mandate the transfer of a large ownership stake in the company to its employees and any contractors it employs, for companies valued over a certain amount. Also, imposing taxes on wealth would ensure that "paper" wealth in the form of company ownership gets turned into tangible personal specie that is then used to pay taxes.

 

[peter grimes]

It does not illustrate the problem well enough. It`s not about the people. You can meassure and test the impact of CO2. In fact it has been done in relaton to climate since at least the 80s. We have a near consensus on what CO2 emissions do. We can make it react with O3 in a lab etc. Take the economic findings of the 80s and we are non the wiser.

Perhaps I misunderstood your critique. I thought you were pointing out that the conclusions of economics researchers weren't being put into practice by state administrators, therefore you concluded that economics must be all wrong.

 

[Estebonrober]

Perhaps I misunderstood your critique. I thought you were pointing out that the conclusions of economics researchers weren't being put into practice by state administrators, therefore you concluded that economics must be all wrong.

Economists are moving forward. Politicians do lag way behind because economics is a tough field to study. There is a big move on economic theory by Presidential candidate Warren this week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ricans-economist-says/?utm_term=.408c96f985f8

A wealth tax on assets over 50 million and a bigger one on anything over a billion. Estimated to raise 2.7 trillion over ten years. If they were scared of Cortez, this seems much more drastic and considering our debt load I support it.

 

[Hrothbern]

So I skimmed the Swedish wiki-page on Piketty. Not exactly ground-breaking work there (probably more to do with the authors). He thinks taxation is good for redistribution of wealth and he has been able to conclude that the Laffer-curve has very little effect on French economy. There is something about critique of a 1950s Kuznet-curve as well. He also does not believe in trickle-down economy. Not really ground-breaking stuff.

This is very much my problem with this field. It’s so contemporary, vague and brittle that you can’t seem to use it. I would assume it’s mainly to do with ripple effects in society and the fact that human beings and their rules are not at all rational when compared to the rules of say nature. And by ripple effects I mean what is the investment in a high speed train network worth? Depends on a lot of factors doesn’t it?

Here "his" 2018 report global: https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf
At the end some "specifics" on some big countries, but not Sweden (with a clearly deviating system where imo wealth inequality can be very high (not affecting peoples happiness/wellbeing) because of very good social securities and "low" income GINI). Though I don't know how long that will stay so. Why did he not dive deep in Sweden. Too small ??? The same happens with Belgium. Does not exist for him. But Belgium has one of the best, if not THE best equality in the world (disposable income and high median wealth to average wealth at high GDP per Capita). Too small again ???
Why does he come with generic theoretical plans (like he did for the EU as a whole) when he first does not research, deep dives in WHY some countries do very well already ?
I made a post in that Pamela Anderson thread on that with his plans. https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...italist-manifesto.639920/page-7#post-15323014

In his database there is BTW not that much on Sweden. Only the 1%, 10% wealth. Not how it distributes further. The same with income !
https://wid.world/world-inequality-lab/
I clicked through a lot of countries. His database needs a lot of filling up. Perhaps that happens at high rate, perhaps not.
I am afraid that when he does work hard and is honest, he has to rewrite some of his books to get his heritage better. Now he is easy to shoot down.
But he is great in having historical data of some countries of before the industrial era onward to now. (not always that accurate ofc)

That high speed train network... well... kind of silly proposal. There are at the moment better places to allocate money for Climate.
The embodied energy cost of that high speed train are wrecking any comparising with renewables and storage in terms of reducing carbon footprint for money and in terms of Net Present Energy reduction (using embodied energy as invest and saved energy as return).

Pikkety is simply transgressing the border of economy and politics and not a solid economist in what he presents publicly.
But is sounds great.

 

[Estebonrober]

Pikkety is simply transgressing the border of economy and politics and not a solid economist in what he presents publicly.
But is sounds great.

Basically all of the academic economist world would disagree with you so I think you should realize that you are probably just wrong.

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

 

[Hrothbern]

Basically all of the academic economist world would disagree with you so I think you should realize that you are probably just wrong.

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

That wiki list does not impress me at all.

That he is the first to collect thoroughly a lot of data with some findings insights of the kind he produces is great, but not spectactular.
He shows mostly that you can and should slice and dice these data. And computers and databases and most of all the tax systems and bureaus of statistics collecting for their own mundane purposes these data made it inevitable that someone would do it as first one.
And that says nothing about the quality of the insights... it says only that he was the first to engage full throttle.

And yes
The high level conclusions resonate ofc very well for many people who would like to believe his conclusions.
But when he goes to political/intellectual statements.... is that really science bottom up ? or is that political top-down and looking for data supporting, with himself the first collecting massively data.

And yes, he is good to have on board to give his angle.
But is that seeking confirmation ?, or risk mitigation not to miss something ? Or using his status (which increases his status). Typical university & literature behaviour.

I would like to see more countries analysed by him that have good equality in one or more aspects.
And countries without a strong (modern) nobility background.
And challenges from people who are genuine leftish or left.

 

[Estebonrober]

That wiki list does not impress me at all.

That he is the first to collect thoroughly a lot of data with some findings insights of the kind he produces is great, but not spectactular.
He shows mostly that you can and should slice and dice these data. And computers and databases and most of all the tax systems and bureaus of statistics collecting for their own mundane purposes these data made it inevitable that someone would do it as first one.
And that says nothing about the quality of the insights... it says only that he was the first to engage full throttle.

And yes
The high level conclusions resonate ofc very well for many people who would like to believe his conclusions.
But when he goes to political/intellectual statements.... is that really science bottom up ? or is that political top-down and looking for data supporting, with himself the first collecting massively data.

My point is that he is globally recognized and applauded economist, so even if you consider him a dotard yourself I don;t think you can say he isn't a "solid economist".

Being the first to anything is usually lauded...

 

[Hrothbern]

My point is that he is globally recognized and applauded economist, so even if you consider him a dotard yourself I don;t think you can say he isn't a "solid economist".

Being the first to anything is usually lauded...

I grant, and granted him that.

But hey... look at someone who got two Nobel Prizes, Linus Pauling (the Vitamin C story).
What a hype he was.
And his most significant contibution is that vitamins and micronutrients in food do indeed matter more than just preventing deficiency diseases. A bit higher than that clinical level of disease they help health.
A breakthrough.
Not remediating disease, not preventing disease, but building health.

But in details he was not that right. The idea was right.
And his second lasting contribution to mankind is his Linus Pauling Insitute, which is an excellent and good accessable database for food freaks and GP's alike.

Great idea, great database.
Pikkety still lives. He can imo grow better than that.