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

How big is the US illegal immigration problem and can Trump solve it?

Let me start by saying I do feel unauthorised migration over the US southern border has become a genuine problem and it would be reduced under Donald Trump.

However, I also feel this problem is grossly misrepresented for political advantage, and even the southern border is better managed under Trump, it is not the real immigration problem and will make little difference to other very real problems facing the average American citizen.

Not that Democrats are any better on the real problem. Joe Biden is so committed on using migration to grow the economy that he even labelled allies “xenophobic” for not using immigration to grow their economy, plus Biden trusts economic indicators telling him the economy is fine, instead of the US citizens telling him it isn’t.

Read More »

Population & immigration: Conflict and deception.

Immigration is short-term symptom of a potential long-term problem of the challenges to targeting an ideal population.

We live an overpopulated planet where many governments use immigration to boost what would be otherwise falling population numbers while blaming ‘illegals’ for the very real negative consequences for their citizens from the boost to the population.

It can be argued that reaching sustainability would address the question of overpopulation, but what would it take to end the need for deception, resolve the conflict, and have everyone work towards the conditions experienced in the countries with highest levels of happiness?

Read More »

The economy is about consumer spending not production: Confirmed by Swiftonomics.

All economics seem to agree that the Taylor Swift Eras tour boosted the economy everywhere she went, but while it is clear that there was a boost to spending, it is not so clear people benefit beyond getting to enjoy a concert.

This is a look at whether, at least in some cases, factors that boost an economy may do nothing to increase wealth within that economy and could even reduce wealth within that economy.

Read More »

Biden-Harris, won’t cut it, but will they both take a step back for democracy and the Trump Biden rematch?

A step back for Biden would be to run for vice-president in 2024, and for Harris it would be off the ticket.

From this point on, it seems hard to argue that age will not hinder Biden’s chances of defeating Trump in 2024, and without Harris having generated sufficient enthusiasm, the Democrats really need a team refresh to take the polls.

While technically they have plenty of time, in practice to make a smooth change they are running out of time and would need the support of both Biden and Harris.

Read More »

Pressing problem: Perspective on immigration in America & other developed countries.

I just watched a video I found disturbing on CNN arguing the case that America is a better place than most American’s believe.

It was disturbing not because like everywhere else, the US has imperfections, or that America is a bad place, but because it felt like the commentor, and member of the press, was not focused on interests of the people of America but considered only commercial interests when evaluating the direction in which the country should be headed.

In looking at the instincts of the free press even in a leading country like America, there may be valuable insights is to what is wrong across the planet.

Read More »

Razors vs razorblades: An economic problem for clean energy.

A huge problem with the steps needed to stop burning fossil fuels is they save money, which means less opportunities for profit than there are with fossil fuels.

While “free razorblades” are good for the public, they are just not good for business. Renewables just lack that ongoing revenue stream since none so far profits from the supply of sun and wind. Even EVs erode ongoing revenues streams in the automotive industry and thus negatively impact the economy.

The problem is that while the economy reflects what is good for big business and tax revenues, the economy does not always reflect what is good for the people.

So, which is better, continuing with fossil fuels in order to produce ongoing revenue streams for the economy, or an economy that works for the people with systems require less consumables?

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

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

Continue reading