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

Births Per Woman: Not quite what you would expect.

TLDR; The magic number is around 2.3, not the 2.0 you might expect, results in a stable population.

This is an exploration of what ‘births per woman’ means, and how it is measured. Key to discussion about population is population growth, which is most commonly analysed from ‘births per woman’, which is also called ‘fertility rate’. But what is ‘births per woman’? Answer: not quite what you might expect, which means a small adjustment is required for interpreting births per woman when predicting population growth.

Read More »

Andrew Yang: Dangerous? Or too different?

Andrew Yang is a U.S. 2020 Democratic presidential candidate with several policies fit well with conclusions reached from the deliberations on this website. Recent stories on gizmodo and the atlantic have branded the views expressed by Andrew Yang as dangerous (gizmodo) and ultra conservative (the Atlantic). So, what are the views, and what is ‘dangerous’?

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

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

Continue reading