tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post1028699002447919661..comments2024-01-02T22:01:12.976+00:00Comments on Avedon's Sideshow: As I rise, the stakes get higherAvedonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04702100335744054401noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-65441907564416979962019-01-31T07:47:09.366+00:002019-01-31T07:47:09.366+00:00Forsenthal: [53:37] I want to ask Rutger one quick...<b>Forsenthal:</b> [53:37] I want to ask Rutger one quick question and then I will go to you. Just turning it to politics because I- the data are complex about whether and where growth is raising wages for the poorest in the world. By some measure wages are going up but so is cost of living. What isn't in doubt is the reality and perception of inequality is driving incredible political upheaval.<br /><br />I mean it's remarkable to me here at Davos this year this many of the world leaders- we're talking about shaping global architecture, the priciple architects are locked in their basements, the world leaders are back in their homes dealing with upheaval caused by the topic we're talking about today. And Rutger I just wanted your historical perspective on how that plays out. We can debate the data but the reality is we have a political world that is under siege.<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> OK, so let me give you both a historical and a personal perspective. Now I was born in 1988, so that was one year before the fall of the Berlin Wall. And I grew up in the nineties when people believed we that we had arrived at the end of history and that all that was left to solve was climate change maybe a bit of poverty and inequality but that's it, we were all liberal democrats and the rest of what was supposed to follow.<br /><br />And then we had the financial crash in 2008, now we've seen the rise of populists around the globe. Right? Trump and Bolsonaro, we've seen Brexit and what gives me great hope right now is that there's a new generation that is actually waking up. It's actually waking up.<br /><br />It doesn't believe the myth anymore that the vast inequality we see today is just a force of nature, you know an inevitable consequence of globalization or technology. There's a new generation that just doesn't believe it anymore, that sees that most of the wealth that's being possessed by many of the participants here has not been earned by hard work but has been extracted from workers who are doing the real work but not being paid a living wage. So that is what really gives me hope, that's what all these movements are about, it's about people waking up and realizing that they've been sold a lie. That's what's happening. [56:08]<br />CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-69156123641679564432019-01-31T07:33:44.992+00:002019-01-31T07:33:44.992+00:00Forsenthal: [48:45] I think, Winnie, it gets back ...<b>Forsenthal:</b> [48:45] I think, Winnie, it gets back to a question from earlier, which is there is this paradox of tremendous growth in many parts of the world. Many people, I mean China is an example, millions of people lifted into the middle class, and yet inequality has been growing. How do you reconcile growth and inequality at once?<br /><br /><b>Byanyima:</b> OK, I think it also depends on what you're counting. The world bank tells us that with this rate of inequality, extreme inequality, that we will not be able to eliminate, eradicate poverty, extreme poverty by 2030, as has been promised, unless that inequality has been reduced.<br /><br />Alicia [Barcena Ibarra, panelist] has told us that this [inverse] correlation between inequality, or rather, between equality and efficiency has now been disproved, that you actually achieve sustained growth when you reduce inequality and [the opposite] when the other way around. So, we need now to debunk the myths that you need first to achieve high growth before you can reduce inequality, that [instead] after when you reduce inequality you can achieve more sustained and faster growth.<br /><br />That's one. Two, we're not just talking about taxes. Taxes are important. Yes, we're talking about corporate taxes, income taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains taxes, all these wealth taxes being reduced and reduced and reduced to the point where they've been abolished in some countries. We need to get fair taxation.<br /><br />Bill Gates, himself, says the most important responsibility of a rich person is to pay their fair share of taxes. So that's- we can't avoid talking about that. But we also talk about tax evasion, the loopholes. We're in a digital economy but the tax system is from the 1920s, it's full of loopholes that don't allow revenues to be collected. And what happens when you don't collect them? Then you don't put money into people's health and education and you widen inequality.<br /><br />The gentleman who talked about- who said we just talked taxes and the jobs are there and there's low unemployment, unemployment rates are low, let me tell you something, we're talking about jobs but the quality of those jobs- I've just told you about Dolores in the United States who wears a diaper to work. That's not a dignified job. I can tell you about a company, I took a taxi in Nairobi recently and I was charged the minimum charge. I was charged less than $2 for a taxi ride. Where in the world do you go in a taxi for less than $2? I asked the taxi driver, he was from one of these companies, I won't mention which [Uber, no doubt], I said how much are you getting out of this? He said 20% must go to the global company that owns the network. So then I said what about the rest, he said the rest I have to share with the owner of the taxi. Out of $2. I asked him where he rents his home, where he lives. He said they rent a room, three taxi drivers, they sleep in turns, six hours, five hours, because none of them can afford to rent a room. That's the job. Those are the jobs we're being told about, that globalization is bringing jobs. The quality of the jobs matter, it matters. These are not jobs of dignity. In many countries workers no longer have a voice, they are not allowed to unionize, they are not allowed to negotiate for salaries. So we are talking about jobs, but jobs that bring dignity. We're talking about healthcare. The World Bank has told us that 3.4 billion people who earn 5.5 dollars a day are on the verge, are just a medical bill away from sinking into poverty. They don't have healthcare, they are just a crop failure away from sinking back into poverty. They have no crop insurance. So, don't tell me about low levels of unemployment, you're counting the wrong things, you're not counting dignity of people, you're counting exploited people. [53:33]<br />CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-1079746190240177702019-01-31T07:28:52.016+00:002019-01-31T07:28:52.016+00:00Goldman: [44:00] Ken Goldman from Silicon Valley, ...<b>Goldman:</b> [44:00] Ken Goldman from Silicon Valley, I am going to make a couple of comments, actually. I actually came because I do believe we have an issue here. But I have to say, honestly, this is a very one-sided panel, it's extremely one-sided. I was surprised the we created this panel.<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> The whole conference is very one-sided.<br /><br /><b>Goldman:</b> Can I talk, please. You like to use swear words, too. Jane [Goodall, panelist], thanks for, I saw you yesterday at lunch too, it was quite good. We make comments with swear words and anecdotes and so forth.<br /><br />And all I've heard about here is talk about taxes. I haven't seen anything of correlation of growth, so I'll come back to it again. Just a couple of comments, today the U.S. has the lowest unemployment rate ever, the lowest black unemployment rate ever, the lowest youth unemployment ever. We've actually reduced poverty around the world, no one is talking about that at all. People negated philanthropy.<br /><br />Just read a couple of weeks ago, the article on Bill Gates and what he's done in Africa in reducing malaria, reducing polio so why don't we talk about that. So I really have a question for the panel. Yes, I agree tax avoidance is probably a big issue, probably a bigger issue than we think. But instead of taxes, what else, instead of redistributing wealth what are we talking about in terms of creating wealth.<br /><br />Frankly, what people really want, what [they] really want is the dignity of a job. And we've given more jobs in the U.S., we've increased the minimum wage in southern California with the minimum wage going to $15 an hour- may not be a lot but it's up from seven.<br /><br />So I'd like the panel to talk about, beyond taxes, which every one of you have talked about, the only thing you've talked about on this whole panel on inequality, what can we really do to solve, to help solve inequality over time beyond taxes.<br /><br /><b>Byanyima:</b> Can I answer that?<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> Shamina [Singh, panelist] since you're in the trenches on this thing... [46:00]<br />CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-82390523020574584562019-01-31T07:18:01.335+00:002019-01-31T07:18:01.335+00:00Byanyima: The chief executive of Zara is one of th...<b>Byanyima:</b> The chief executive of Zara is one of the highest paid people in the world. So, we have a business model that has, over the years, grown to maximize for a few owners of capital and to cheat everybody else. And the business people who run these businesses, on top of that, avoid paying their fair share of taxes, have built loopholes across the tax system.<br /><br />We have a tax system that leaks so much, that allows $170 billion of money every year to be taken to tax havens and to be denied the developing countries that need that money most. So, we have to look at the business model and we have to look at the role of governments to tax and plow back money into people's lives. [27:38]<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> [37:39] Rutger, and then we should open it up, what, you're a historian, what would it take, and does history suggest it's possible, to make it so that five years from now when you fly back here on your private jet...<br /><br /><b>Bregman</b> No, on a bus.<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> ...on a bus, walk across the Alps, something we will have made some headway.<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> Yeah, well you know the lessons of history are pretty depressing to be honest. So the times that we've seen that we've managed to decrease inequality radically were during times of war.That's what is the most effective way.<br /><br />Now I'm, obviously, not suggesting we start a war here, but what we do need is what the philosopher William James, a hundred years [ago], called the moral equivalent of war. And I believe the challenge of climate change can be exactly that. So we need to realize that we are standing at a point in history as a species that we just don't have much time left and what we need is a New Green Deal, I believe.<br /><br />Look at the experience of France, so what happened in France is you had this whole Yellow Vest movement after a tax on petrol, if I'm correct, and then an explosion of protest. A French CEO explained to me this week that, actually, the most important reason for all these protests was the abolition of the wealth tax in France. So, again, it's not rocket science. We need way higher taxes on the wealthy so that we can actually fund this green transition to a much better planet. But the scale of the challenge is so radical that, again, it will never be solved by just a private sector alone, or just by words alone, or by philanthropy. We really need to start to realize that we need something like the moral equivalent of a war. [39:35]<br />CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-15110542826776629952019-01-31T07:09:17.279+00:002019-01-31T07:09:17.279+00:00Felsenthal: [22:19] Rutger, let's talk about c...<b>Felsenthal:</b> [22:19] Rutger, let's talk about concrete steps to get people out of poverty. It's a subject you've written and thought a lot about. I won't get the phrase exactly right, but it's "poverty is a lack of cash."<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> Yeah, that's basically what it is, it's not a lack of character, certainly.<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> Talk about the impact of what happens when you give people, who need cash, cash to pull themselves up, the idea of a universal basic income.<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> Sure, well for some perspective- I must say this is my first time at Davos and I find it a quite bewildering experience, to be honest. I mean 1500 private jets have just flown in to hear Sir David Attenborough speak about how we're wrecking the planet. And I hear people talk in the language of participation and justice and equality and transparency but then almost no one raises the real issue: tax avoidance, right and of the rich just not paying their fair share?<br /><br />I feel as if I'm at a firefighter's conference and no one's allowed to speak about water. [laughter] There was only one panel- [some applause] <br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> We've had one panel, you're the second of our panels<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> Wait, there was only one panel...<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> Let's go there.<br /><br /><b>Bregman:</b> ...one panel hidden away in the media center that was actually about tax avoidance. I was one of the fifteen participants. Something needs to change here. I mean- ten years ago the World Economic Forum asked a question, "What must industry do to prevent a broad social backlash?" The answer's very simple, just stop talking about philanthropy and start talking about taxes. Taxes, taxes. We need to- just two days ago there was a billionaire in here- what's his name? -Michael Dell and he asked a question, like, name me one country where a top marginal tax rate has actually worked and, you know I'm a historian, the United States is where it has actually worked.<br /><br />In the 1950s during Republican president Eisenhower, you know the war veteran, the top marginal tax rate was 91% for people like Michael Dell. And the top estate tax for people like Michael Dell was more than 70%. I mean, this is not rocket science. I mean, we can talk for a very long time about these stupid philanthropy schemes, we can invite Bono once more. Come on, we've got to be talking about taxes. That's it, taxes, taxes, taxes. All the rest is bullshit, in my opinion. [24:48]<br /><br /><b>Byanyima:</b> [24:51] Rutger is so right. The top- last year alone the wealth of billionaires was rising by $2.5 billion dollars a day, and the wealth of the bottom half of humanity, 3.8 billion people, was declining, reducing by $500 million a day. It is not difficult to see why if yo look at the business model.<br /><br />We work, Oxfam works with government workers in many of these Asian countries. Take Bangladesh. A woman, who is stitching clothes for the clothes we buy in H&M and Zara in the high street shops, earns $4 a day. She is always in debt. When she gets sick she is not paid. She works twenty, twenty-one hours a day. When she's pregnant she's fired. That's in Bangladesh.<br /><br />Then we also work with poultry workers in the richest country in the world, the United States. Poultry workers, these are women who are cutting the chickens and we buy them in the supermarkets. Dolores, one woman we work with there, told us she and her co-workers have to wear diapers to work because they are not allowed toilet breaks.<br /><br />This is in the richest country in the world. It is a business model that continues to maximize for shareholders and to cheat the ordinary people down the supply chains and damage the environment, damage communities, and then don't pay their fair share of taxes. The top executives of these companies are among the highest paid in the world.<br /><br /><i>continued...</i>CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-26835778336400468052019-01-31T06:52:56.397+00:002019-01-31T06:52:56.397+00:00Emma Vigeland of TYT recommended this tweet which ...Emma Vigeland of TYT recommended this tweet which feature four and a half minutes of video from the recent Davos panel on "The Cost of Inequality" <a href="https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1090045108064579584" rel="nofollow"><b>LINK</b></a>. The entire program ran for an hour and I doubt too many people around here have the time to sit through it. However, there was some content not in the clip that I think is, at least, worth reading through <a href="https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting/sessions/the-price-of-inequality" rel="nofollow"><b>LINK</b></a>.<br /><br />Moderator: <b>Edward Felsenthal</b> Editor-in-Chief, Time Magazine<br />Panelist: <b>Rutger Bregman</b> author of Utopia for Realists<br />Panelist: <b>Winnie Byanyima</b> executive director of Oxfam<br />Audience member: <b>Ken Goldman</b> former CFO at Yahoo<br /><br /><b>Felsenthal:</b> Winnie, I'll start with you because you've been sounding the alarm about inequality for many years. And it's hard to go anywhere at Davos this week where you don't hear people expressing concern about inequality. Is anyone doing anything about it, either government or in the corporate sector are you seeing any movement towards addressing it?<br /><br /><b>Byanyima:</b> [4:46] You're right- I'm delighted to be on this panel -you're right, they're talking about it now. That does make me happy but not happy enough because extreme inequality is really out of control. Talking about it isn't good enough. And it's bad for all of us. It's undermining out economies, it's fracturing out societies, it's fueling crimes, it's fueling ill health, it's bad for everyone. And yet we just talk about it.<br /><br />I just want to tell you about this man I met, an amazing person from Denmark called Salchi, Jaffer Salchi [sp?]. He's a multi-millionaire, he came from Iran, he is an immigrant. He said to me that he visited a friend of his in a Latin American country that I won't mention. And in that country he visited his friend in that very posh apartment, great views, beautiful place. But he said he had to go through three security checks and that there were bars across his windows. And he said to me the people in that country live like they are in cages. He said, "For me, here in Denmark I pay high taxes but all I have in front of my window are flowers. That's the difference."<br /><br />So we're seeing the result choices, political choices that governments have chosen to make. That's what our report talks about this year, that governments have chosen not, for example, to tax fairly, to get rich companies and rich people to pay their fair share of taxes. And because they don't collect those taxes they don't put enough money in to health, education, and social protection of their people. So public services are crumbling as a result. We don't want governments to come here to talk, or business to talk. We want business to commit to good tax behavior, not to dodge paying their fair share of taxes. We want government to tax fairly.<br /><br />We've shown in our reports that companies used- that the top income tax rates in 1970 were around 62%. It's been negotiated down by companies and rich people to now less than 38% in rich countries, 28% in developing countries. A lot of the taxes on wealth have been abolished in many countries. So we want the burden of taxation to be put on the rich, on companies. And there's space for that, the IMF says there's space for that it won't undermine economic growth. And then we want the money plowed into services for people to be able to thrive, to be able to contribute in growth. [8:14]<br /><br /><i>continued...</i> CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-22314345280926184212019-01-29T03:04:34.054+00:002019-01-29T03:04:34.054+00:00ks or ksix. I seem to have lost control of my ide...ks or ksix. I seem to have lost control of my identity.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00425331857746171063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-74727108130500026462019-01-29T03:03:28.026+00:002019-01-29T03:03:28.026+00:00:) Well, Kevin Drum...:) Well, Kevin Drum...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00425331857746171063noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-80467989996937739232019-01-28T20:36:11.654+00:002019-01-28T20:36:11.654+00:00Guess which labor leader was spinning in her grave...Guess which labor leader was spinning in her grave at high speed last Saturday, January 26, the day after President Trump caved on the government shutdown <a href="https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/01/nancy-pelosi-ended-the-shutdown-not-the-air-traffic-controllers/" rel="nofollow"><b>[LINK]</b></a>:<br /><br /><b>[QUOTE]</b> <i>Let’s assume that the sickout by the air traffic controllers, followed by the threat of a strike by the flight attendants, really did play a big role in ending the shutdown. How happy are we about that? Plenty of observers have noted that we can cause endless pain to ordinary workers and no one really cares, but produce a minor bit of chaos in our airports and suddenly it gets a ton of attention from reporters, CEOs, lobbyists, and other white-collar types who fly a lot. And once you have their attention, a solution must be found. Pronto.<br /><br />I dunno. Is this what we want? Do we really want the folks who run our air travel system to have this kind of power? I’m not so sure that would be a great thing. Luckily, I don’t think it’s what really caused the compromise measure to pass, so I don’t have to worry about it too much.... Nancy Pelosi Ended the Shutdown, Not the Air Traffic Controllers</i> <b>[END QUOTE]</b>CMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13481861530761114492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5598883894140893389.post-89611613393734436302019-01-19T16:00:39.823+00:002019-01-19T16:00:39.823+00:00Russian disinformation … it's not real clear h...Russian disinformation … it's not real clear how much impact it had, but there was a huge amount of it (yuge, just yuge.) Hard to see how it could have made no difference. The whole story? Probably not. But it might have swung close elections in several states.<br /><br />And, really, no-one ever went lost an election by underestimating the taste and discernment of the average voter. I canvassed last year, and it was <em>scary</em>.Raven Onthillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06634556869209594389noreply@blogger.com