The G20 outcome, a plan to make the earth a worse place?

Date Published:

The recent G20 wrapped up with a commitment to target economic growth level for the G20 of 2.1% by 2018.

Global population grwoth is over 1.1% so this means the worlds richest countries will be getting richer by just over 1% avove population increase per annum by 2018.  Is there any suggestion that this addional wealth to the richest will be distributed to the poorer? No.

In fact there is not really a plan to have this additional wealth distributed internally in each rich nation.  For reference, see this bloomberg article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-02/top-1-got-93-of-income-growth-as-rich-poor-gap-widened.html

In other words, most of the 2.2% over the entire economy will be distributed to the richest 20% (5% in the article, but lets be conservative any allow for things to get radically better) leaving significantly less than 1/4 of the amount to provide growth for most people.

In other words, the net wealth of most people in G20 nations will decline within the target period, but the rich will make real gains.

Of course the G20 is a meeting of governements, and governments tax the entire population so they WILL get 2.1% increase. In fact, the more the increase wealth is skewed to be earned by the rich, since the rich pay higher percentage taxes, the better for governements.

So we have a target that sees the richest governents, and the richest people within the countries with the richest governments, have increased wealth at the expense of most citizens of these G20 nations.

But wait, the truth is when you put it in perspective, it is actually worse than that.  This is a plan of the richest governements to manage their own wealth and totally ignore what happens to the poorest nations, who, let face it, are the ones who most need an increase in wealth.

Imange the news coverage for a conference in your country where on the rich could attend that was designed to purely increase the wealth of those rich attending.  Would it receive positve press?  Isn’t this the same simply on a global scale?

[TheChamp-Sharing]
[TheChamp-FB-Comments]

Table of Contents

Categories

The innocent child assumption: even Hitler?

I recently watched an episode of “Comedians in cars getting coffee”,(C6:E4 11:55) where Ricky Gervais has a photo of Hitler as a baby. And relates, “I talk about sci-fi, and I always go back and kill Hitler”. And I go, I go, they go “well people tried all the time”, and they go “No I’d go back and kill him as a baby”. I go, “You’d go back, and kill baby Hitler, who hasn’t done anything wrong yet, and just strangle him? Have you seen Hitler as a baby” and I pull out this photo and I go “He was adorable”.

Read More »

Environmental Damage: The Overpopulation Indicator

Overpopulation is when there when population cannot exist sustainably without damage to the environment.

Warnings of overpopulation often focus on the eventual starvation that could occur following environmental collapse, rather than the time bomb of declining living conditions for multiple species.

Although such a substantial human population existing unsustainably wreaks havoc on the planet, borrowing from the future though unsustainable agriculture can delay any starvation for decades.

However, as those who profit from overpopulation are sufficiently rich that they can improve their living conditions even as average resources per person declines, the wealthy will keep advocating “population growth is the path to prosperity”. But can we risk becoming an Easter Island story by prioritising population growth to please the billionaires over a return to sustainability?

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading