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

Crime: A litmus test for inequality?

Around the world, many countries have both a battle with equality for some racial groups and minorities and also a battle with crime-rates within and by those same groups.

Should we consider crime rates the real sentinels of problems and a solution require focusing on factors behind crime rates? Or is the correct response to rising crime rates or crime rates within specific groups an adoption of being “tough on crime”, thus increasing rates of incarceration and even deaths in custody for oppressed minorities and racial groups?

This is an exploration of not adjusting the level of penalties and instead focusing on the core issues and inequalities behind crime-rates. It is clear that it is “damaged people” in general rather than specific racial groups that correlate with elevated crime rates, so why not use crime rates to identify who is facing inequality?

Read More »

Ideal/optimum human population: How many people can, or should, each country, and the whole planet support?

It seems like the human population has forever been growing, but any analysis makes it clear growth must stop eventually at some level. Perhaps consider that the wealthier each person, the less people the planet can support when answering the question of at what level should growth stop?

Do we go for the maximum possible people just before everything collapses, even if average living standards could be far better with a smaller population? When caged hens are farmed for eggs, people advocate for a lower population to allow living free-range for a better existence, yet with people being farmed by multinationals, billionaires and politicians growing the human population to grow the economy, it seems that denser and denser housing and reduced resources per person for human workers is accepted.

Most countries seem to agree that global population growth should end but and state that ends its own population growth faces economic disaster.

Read More »

Influence: There’s no free lunch and they use your data to make you pay.

It can seem all those tech companies are so dumb giving away services for free.

I recently read another comment containing the “I don’t want Google getting more of my data to sell” and it reminded me of the question, ‘why is your data valuable?’ people too rarely ask. The common myth is that Facebook and Google etc want your data so they can sell it, but even with companies that do sell your data, it still requires someone to turn data into money, and enough money to fund the “free” services of the tech companies and allow them enough spare to make profits beyond anything seen in the world previously. So how does the data turn into so much money?

There is no such thing as a free lunch. Google and Facebook etc make their money from advertising, not from selling data, and unless they use can the data to persuade you to buy products at prices inflated by advertisers paying part of the sale price to Facebook/Google etc, they would lose money.

Your data is used to inflate the cost of living and earn votes for politicians with an agenda that gives them a budget to spend. They (Google/Facebook etc) don’t want to sell your data, but the reality, is more sinister: they use it to have to change your thinking, so more of your money will go to make them richer.

Read More »

COP27: Climate change action sabotage?

Reports from COP27 seems indicate the key initiative this year to make wealthy nations cover the cost of the damages poor nations will incur as a result of emissions that have main originated from those wealthy nations.

The proposal as it stands has a missing an essential piece, and trying to cover for that essential piece, appears most to likely to increase emissions, and move COP away from a focus on solving the climate crisis and instead toward just fighting over the cost.

This is a troubled look at the key flaw in what has been put forward and the real solution that should be in place.

Read More »

Did Al Gore nail it: Is climate change merely inconvenient, or is it an existential threat?

Claims that +1.5oC warming would be ‘catastrophic’, and that climate change represents an ‘existential threat’ can be quite vague as just what is ‘catastrophic’ or an ‘existential threat’?

This webpaper, seeks to translate ‘catastrophic’ outcomes and ‘existential threats’ into more concrete outcomes.

“We recognise climate change is a serious problem and are committed to net zero by 2050 in order to prevent the disastrous consequences anticipated to occur by around 2026”

Typical government position: Is it ok?

Read More »

The Power struggle in Australia.

From “the biggest corruption scandal ever” in Brazil, problems in Venezuela, human rights in Saudi Arabia and Iran, to the problems caused by lobbyists against action on climate change, an abundance of fossil fuels is a source of political power, yet rarely force for good, and Australia, with a wealth of coal and gas, is not spared.

The current crisis in Ukraine not only drives up energy prices globally, but it also creates a dilemma for gas producing nations.

Read More »

Discover more from One Finite Planet

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

Continue reading