Saturday, January 26, 2019

Jennifer Morgan and Sharan Burrow — Tackling The Twin Challenges Of Climate Change And Inequality

These crises are interlinked. The richest 10 percent are responsible for nearly half of carbon emissions caused by consumption, and yet all around the world, it's the poor and marginalised that are most at risk from the devastating effects of climate change.
Growing inequality and rising climate disruption are both the result of the "profit first" neoliberal economic model Davos elites have adopted in recent decades. The good news is that also means addressing climate change and inequality can go hand in hand. We can change the rules of the global economy to benefit people and the planet alike.…
Good luck with that. Nothing will happen until the next crisis to provoke the needed reset of the world order. If not then, will the last person left please turn off the lights as you leave.

Why not? The solution is to preempt economic rent and tax away the residual. That means the end of "capitalism" as the elite know it and have come to love it, and now believe it is the natural order of things.

You have heard of "class struggle," right?

Al Jazeera
Tackling The Twin Challenges Of Climate Change And Inequality
Jennifer Morgan and Sharan Burrow


Bob Roddis said...

Since fiat money and fiat money loans induce overbuilding, sprawl and excess CO2 emissions, banning fiat money would be a good way to cut down on those emissions. Without inflation, there is no need for an inflation hedge like real estate. The incentive for overbuilding and sprawl into the countryside would be eliminated.

And of course, the modern money system facilitates the transfer of wealth from average and poor people to the .1%.

Noah Way said...

Yes, because history shows that under the gold standard there was no fiscal abuse, no banking empires, no industrial pollution, no sprawling developement, no wars ...

Roddis thinks he is John Galt. In reality he's just a greedy little shit who preys on the misfortune of others.

Bob Roddis said...

Noah Way: You do know that one of the consistent criticisms of the "gold standard" by MMTers is that there would much much less economic activity under a "gold standard", right? How is what I've said inconsistent with that?

You guys are amazing.

Noah Way said...

As stated above, history does not support your asinine conjecture. You are clearly incapable of debating the issue.

Libertarianism is by definition an oxymoron:

A political philosophy based on the Non-Aggression Principle, which holds that people should be allowed to live as they choose and make their own choices without interference from government or others, so long as those choices do not involve the initiation of force or fraud against others.

What is to prevent individuals from committing violence in any form against others?


The essential purpose of government is to protect us from each other. Your fantasy libertarian utopia would throw open the gates to slavery, rape, and pillage because there would be no protections. You can't have it both ways: either the state provides protections or it is every man for himself.

Pirates are a perfect example of libertarians. And thus the necessity of the state.

Ryan Harris said...

Noah Way fiercely anti Austrian. How sad.

Noah Way said...

Nah, just anti-stupid.

Bob Roddis said...

The essential purpose of government is to protect us from each other.

Exactly. There is a great necessity for DEFENSIVE violence or the threat thereof and institutions that provide it. Libertarians want to strictly prohibit AGGRESSIVE violence. I fail to see how a rigorous enforcement of personal safety through the normal use of defensive violence while banning aggressive violence would result on any bad outcomes.

Apparently libertarianism would result in both:

A. Petty and outrageously restrictive property lines and associated petty disputes; and

B. No property lines or enforcement of property lines at all SIMULTANEOUSLY with A.

From the brilliant minds of "progressives".

Noah Way said...

“Defensive violence” is the First Strike Doctrine.

Funny how you are st odds with your own cause. Even funnier that you are too dim to understand that.

Bob Roddis said...

Murray Rothbard:

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the ONLY proper role of violence is to DEFEND person and property AGAINST violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another.

Noah Way, it’s a positive thing that you find it necessary to lie about libertarian proposals. It shows you have nothing else.

Noah Way said...

RODDIS: One would think that being trained as a lawyer you would have a better grasp of of logic and the fundamental contradictions inherent in both libertarianism and your own writing on the matter.

AXEC / E.K-H said...

Bob Roddis

There is political agenda pushing and there is science. Economics as science tries to figure out how the monetary economy works. Austrian economics is proto-scientific garbage and a smokescreen for agenda pushing which comes under the euphemistic heading of Libertarianism.

Clearly, Austrians violate the principle of separation of politics and science since von Mises.

Your discussion of defensive or aggressive violence has no economic content. Worse, it misses the point. Compared to open violence, continuous low-intensity aggression/violence is currently the greater problem.

The upshot is, that this type of almost imperceptible violence is built right into the price system. And this brings us back to the heart of economics.

Contrary to Hayek, the major function of the price mechanism is NOT information processing and signaling but imperceptible redistribution. What is advertised as optimal functioning of an anonymous and apparently non-violent market system is, in fact, an impenetrable mechanism of continuous low-intensity redistribution.#1

To paint the market system as a superior information processor instead of a merciless slow-motion executor is one of the greatest deceptions of Austrianism.

Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

#1 Pareto-efficiency, Hayek’s marvel, and the invisible executor