I'm trying to think of one that demonstrates that inequality is not necessarily a bad thing in itself. There's always the brain surgeon/ road-sweeper analogy. — counterpunch

I have pointed out elsewhere that inequality is not simply "different outcomes". But regardless, the problem isn't that some theoretical amount of inequality might perhaps be good. It's that the current amount of inequality is bad.

My view is that inequality isn't a problem if the poorest have enough, and effectively limitless clean energy from magma can do that sustainably. — counterpunch

Just be careful not to forget actually involving the poor in your calculation of what's "enough", because they won't just sit around watching you build your utopia if they're fed only the scraps.

Capitalism can be sustained — counterpunch

The proof on that is still out, I'd say. It has collapsed once before (into two world wars).

I think the left are better pushing on a living wage than trying to sneak communism in by the back door, by handing out a big bag full of someone else's cash! — counterpunch

I'd personally he happy with the left getting any kind of political momentum going somewhere, but for the time being, they appear gridlocked most anywhere.

As for handing out others people's cash: it's very important that we start doing it, because right now it's much too concentrated.

I have pointed out elsewhere that inequality is not simply "different outcomes". But regardless, the problem isn't that some theoretical amount of inequality might perhaps be good. It's that the current amount of inequality is bad. — Echarmion

In what sense bad? If you're saying it's bad because the poorest don't have enough, then your argument has my sympathies. What can be done? How about increasing minimum wage? But if your argument is that inequality is bad because some people have pot-loads, I don't agree. Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand.

Just be careful not to forget actually involving the poor in your calculation of what's "enough", because they won't just sit around watching you build your utopia if they're fed only the scraps. — Echarmion

I'm trying to think of ways we can carry on much as we are, and suggest an approach I think means things would get better over time as wealth trickled up through the economy and magma energy opened up the way to a far more prosperous sustainable future. I think all legitimate interests can be reconciled - insofar as magma hydrogen would not need to compete with existing fossil fuel technologies right away, and so infrastructure costs could be divided from environmental benefits - gained by extracting carbon directly from the atmosphere. Tackling the problem from the supply side does not imply authoritarian government imposing poverty on people forever after. If not wanting equality of poverty is utopian; if wanting genuine sustainability is utopian, then I'm utopian, but not unrealistically so.

Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand. — counterpunch

Certainly, robust economies require capital to function properly. The problem with 'concentrated capital' is that too few agents control it, and may apply it towards unproductive ends such as furthering the concentration. That is precisely what has happened in the global economy. A tiny number of Uber-wealthy individuals control a very large percentage (50%+) of capital. (How tiny? It numbers in the dozens.). It doesn't matter, in some ways, whether it is a few dozen super-rich individuals or a government. A soviet-style monopoly of wealth is as counterproductive as a yacht full of gold plated parasites.

Highly concentrated wealth deprives a few million (out of 8 billion) individuals from fielding and developing new ideas. Your geo-thermal/hydrogen idea will probably remain undeveloped for lack of capital.

There will probably always be poor people, because "poor" is relative, A man with $1,000,000 is poor among multi-billionaires. A third-world family with enough to eat and a roof over their heads is poor among affluent first-worlders. I don't know how to define "absolute" (non-relative) poverty. Starvation, unsheltered exposure to the weather, and lack of somewhat clean water to slake one's thirst would probably qualify as "absolute poverty", but that doesn't help someone with zero cash living in an urban homeless shelter and being fed slop twice a day.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon.

But if your argument is that inequality is bad because some people have pot-loads, I don't agree. Large concentrations of capital are necessary to an economy - in ways I don't pretend to understand. — counterpunch

It's genuinely baffling to see someone so confidently make an argument from ignorance.

In what sense bad? If you're saying it's bad because the poorest don't have enough, then your argument has my sympathies. What can be done? How about increasing minimum wage? — counterpunch

It's bad because it damages social cohesion, in ways that are already quite obvious. You cannot expect people to not notice that their real income doesn't go up, while the stock market breaks record after record and managers in large companies get millions of dollars in bonuses even if they fail. You can't expect people to not notice that lots of new flats are being build, but they are build for international investors who buy them and sometimes don't even rent them out, on the grounds that the value of real estate increases so quickly that it's better to leave them empty. In order for people to work together in a society, they need to actually feel that there is a minimum level of justice involved. Else they turn to one extremist or the other. Europe has been there before.

Tackling the problem from the supply side does not imply authoritarian government imposing poverty on people forever after. If not wanting equality of poverty is utopian; if wanting genuine sustainability is utopian, then I'm utopian, but not unrealistically so. — counterpunch

But the supply still does need to be build first, and then the question of who decides how the supply is handled needs to be answered. Not everyone will own their own geothermal plant. I imagine you don't want one giant profit-driven conglomerate to own all the new power plants, and for good reason.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon. — Bitter Crank

Certainly not while people fervently defend the right of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates to be arbitrarily rich on the basis that any kind of redistribution is born from jealousy and leads to communism. It also doesn't help that very few people are aware of the economic history of the last century in their own country, let alone the world.

It's genuinely baffling to see someone so confidently make an argument from ignorance. — Echarmion

You've questioned the veracity of scope of my knowledge base and I've admitted my limitations. Now you're baffled? Surely not!

It's bad because it damages social cohesion, in ways that are already quite obvious. You cannot expect people to not notice that their real income doesn't go up, while the stock market breaks record after record and managers in large companies get millions of dollars in bonuses even if they fail. — Echarmion

If there's anyone here putting a strain on social cohesion, I'd argue - that's you. Indeed, it seems to me that the left's standard strategy is to point out things that strain social cohesion and exploit the resulting discontent. Thing is it doesn't matter to me that large concentrations of capital stand as surety for insurance and pensions and goodness knows what? What matters to me is that I've something to do I'm capable of doing, that justifies my existence, and keeps the wolf from the door. But then I don't suppose you'd understand the pride there is in coming home, covered in dirt, having performed heroic labours, and slapping an envelope down on the kitchen table.

Certainly not while people fervently defend the right of Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates to be arbitrarily rich on the basis that any kind of redistribution is born from jealousy and leads to communism. It also doesn't help that very few people are aware of the economic history of the last century in their own country, let alone the world. — Echarmion

Building the magma energy infrastructure would require political agreement in the first instance, but also, backing with significant amounts of capital. Were it the fossil fuel industry's capital, for example, they would be in a position to help determine how magma energy were applied - and that might be sufficient to earn their cooperation in what would ultimately be a transition. The problem is disorderly divestment. Magma energy would give us time to transition.

But the supply still does need to be build first, and then the question of who decides how the supply is handled needs to be answered. Not everyone will own their own geothermal plant. I imagine you don't want one giant profit-driven conglomerate to own all the new power plants, and for good reason. — Echarmion

Were it Jeff Bezos' money, or Bill Gates money I imagine an LNG tanker full of liquid hydrogen fuel emblazoned with their logo - pulling into harbour within ten years. That's an economic future I could live with; given an economic history I'm very well aware of from a political perspective, thank you, even if corporate taxation is a huge and complex specialty I'm not overly familiar with. My apologies if you're still baffled, but I don't consider it utopian, or even unlikely. It is out of the box thinking in a very real sense; but then the most probable course doesn't lead anywhere good, and so arguably, the answer would initially appear improbable. My concern is to show that it's possible.

BC, my dear old friend, long time no see! It's always good to chat with you however briefly.

It is desirable to have wealth vigorously percolate up the economy (rather than a glacially slow trickle-down), but getting the wealth to the base so it can percolate up requires a revolutionary change in the way wealth is controlled. I don't see that on the horizon. — Bitter Crank

That's my point though, I don't think it does require revolutionary change. UBI is revolutionary, but governments already have the tools in the form of minimum wage legislation and business taxes, and no-one could look askance upon government setting those to achieve a trickle up effect. How vigorous a percolation that could be would depend on things like inflationary pressures - and would that be such a bad thing with interest rates close to zero? I don't know. My concern is that the subsequent economic growth would be sustainable - and because I think it could be, an anti-capitalist, neo communist approach to sustainability is not necessary, and indeed, would be counter productive in a sustainable future.

Your geo-thermal/hydrogen idea will probably remain undeveloped for lack of capital. — Bitter Crank

Echmarion is a handful, but note how the competition has driven me to surpass myself! Imagine I succeeded; I think this is unlikely, but imagine I was given the money to develop this technology myself, and hired people and scoped locations, and built facilities, and started delivering boat loads of sustainability, would you resent me my success? Because I wouldn't resent someone else developing these ideas, (and I think that more likely), nor resent them the rewards of having risked their capital and applied their minds. I'm a philosopher, not a politician or a businessman. I'd still be a philosopher if I had to live in a clay pot in the market square!

I call it 'revolutionary change' only because the installed Uber-wealthy class might not be dislodged by a gradual, evolutionary process. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from major change.

but imagine I was given the money to develop this technology — counterpunch

Major industry develops that way. Someone has a working undeveloped technology with major potential. Investors give a group the money to start production, whether that be a cast-iron steam engine works, new steel plant, a transistor factory, or a large-scale battery storage farm--whatever it is. There is generally risk involved--that the investment might not pay off well, or worse, might not pay off at all. The Uber-wealthy are not risk takers. There is no need for them to take risks--they already have such a large share of the wealth. They can afford to be indifferent.

That is the distortion the disproportionate distribution of global wealth has. The few thousand people controlling 70% of world wealth starve innovation.

Geo-thermal / H-power is just one more good idea languishing on the shelf.

BC, my dear old friend, long time no see! It's always good to chat with you however briefly. — counterpunch

The same to you.

UBI and open borders and free immigration do not mix. Because eventually nobody will do anything (at first), expecting others to do so for various reasons, and currency will devalue. We live in an open society. Eventually nobody will want to do anything, why toil all day in the hot sun or worse frigid arid land if not all to reap what I sow all for myself? To help a neighbor? Sure, that's understandable. Now multiply that by a world population of 8 billion.. it becomes kind of demanding. Unrealistic even.

Or even not, everyone gets more, so I will charge more. Because someone else somewhere up the line will do the same, for what I need, and now it costs me more.

There is little difference between UBI and just marking up the current currency to be twice it's value. It will cost me twice as much, so I will charge twice as much. Just keeps the poor poorer and the rich richer.

There's more room for inequality if I have to pay $250 for a weeks worth of groceries instead of 25 cents, like it used to be (slight exaggeration). Honestly the only blame is the criminals and counterfeiters. It's more about open education, rather lack of mandated raising of children. People steal, people pay for it. Not the people who steal of course. And enter law enforcement. Who need to be paid as well. Criminals. We all know one. But no one wants to do anything about it. And so the cycle will continue. Or will it?

How vigorous a percolation that could be would depend on things like inflationary pressures - and would that be such a bad thing with interest rates close to zero? I don't know. — counterpunch

I don't know either, but I do know that historically (going back a long way--even the Romans) inflation has been a problem. True, interest rates are low right now, despite big cash infusions into the economy. That could change pretty quickly. During the inflation spike in the 1980s, banks were paying up to 15% on savings (for a few months--a splendid rate if one happened to have cash under the mattress). They managed to get that under control, so that the top savings rates were more like 7% in 2006. The big crash in inflated investment values happened in 2008. Since then, interest rates have been low.

One of the reasons Economics is the Dismal Science is that economists rarely (or is it never?) see disaster coming.

How is it exactly that concentrated wealth deprives a few million individuals from fielding and developing new ideas? I ask because if I see concentrated wealth or capital I see an opportunity, so long as it isn’t in state hands.

it isn't merely "somewhat concentrated capital" that is the problem; it is extremely concentrated capital that is problematic, whether it is in private or state hands.

The extremely concentrated wealth isn't invested in production; it is generally invested in paper speculation -- derivatives, currencies... stuff like that. Some of the Uber-wealthy made a lot of money in the sphere of actual goods and services, but once the piles are sufficiently large, it tends to be shifted into the less productive stuff.

I'm not suggesting you buy Thomas Piketty's books; but check out an article or two about him. At least, that's the way I understand it.

BTW, you are over-estimating the harm of money in state hands and under-estimating the harm of money in private hands.

Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll take a look.

Maybe I do underestimate the harm of private money. That’s why I’m wondering why I should believe I am deprived wherever wealth or capital is concentrated. I see opportunity in private concentrations of wealth and capital. It’s approachable, reasonable, and ultimately, through varying degrees of effort, accessible, I can provide services, seek employment, investment or opportunity. This is an obvious oversimplification, but the basics hold, I think. If the terms are not to my liking I can refuse them. Nothing leaves my pocket that I have not willingly given them. So I have trouble seeing what it is that deprives me of anything.

On the other hand there is an all-powerful institution dedicated to taking my wealth every day and skimming from every purchase I make. This transfer of wealth is what concerns me because I have no say in it. I am unable to bargain or engage in common enterprise with it, or refuse its terms. It sets the rules and enforces them. And it is for this reason private wealth tries to curry favor with them, at everyone’s peril.

Anyways I’m just trying to understand the fear.

You've questioned the veracity of scope of my knowledge base and I've admitted my limitations. — counterpunch

The problem is you're basing your views on your ignorance.

If there's anyone here putting a strain on social cohesion, I'd argue - that's you. Indeed, it seems to me that the left's standard strategy is to point out things that strain social cohesion and exploit the resulting discontent. — counterpunch

A lot of things "seem" to you this way and that, which is a nice way of saying you don't really know, and you're just making stuff up to suit your existing narrative of evil lefties out to destroy the world.

But then I don't suppose you'd understand the pride there is in coming home, covered in dirt, having performed heroic labours, and slapping an envelope down on the kitchen table. — counterpunch

Because in your mind I'm a leftist, so I must be an unemployed guy living in his parent's basement with a Che Guevara T-Shirt, right?

UBI and open borders and free immigration do not mix. — Outlander

What country has open borders and free immigration?

I see opportunity in private concentrations of wealth and capital. It’s approachable, reasonable, and ultimately, through varying degrees of effort, accessible, I can provide services, seek employment, investment or opportunity. This is an obvious oversimplification, but the basics hold, I think. — NOS4A2

What it is is obvious word-salad.

On the other hand there is an all-powerful institution dedicated to taking my wealth every day and skimming from every purchase I make. This transfer of wealth is what concerns me because I have no say in it. I am unable to bargain or engage in common enterprise with it, or refuse its terms. It sets the rules and enforces them. And it is for this reason private wealth tries to curry favor with them, at everyone’s peril. — NOS4A2

This is exactly backwards. It's the private wealth that is completely unaccountable and gives you no say in how it is used. If every service was privatised tomorrow, you'd be less able - not more, to refuse any terms. You can refuse any terms as much as you can refuse to have over your money to a robber with a gun - the freedom is there, just the consequence is obvious.

The problem is you're basing your views on your ignorance. — Echarmion

I'm declining to speak on subjects I don't know much about, precisely because I don't base my views in ignorance.

A lot of things "seem" to you this way and that, which is a nice way of saying you don't really know, and you're just making stuff up to suit your existing narrative of evil lefties out to destroy the world. — Echarmion

It seems like you're talking about the debate, rather than the subject of the debate. Am I wrong?

Because in your mind I'm a leftist, so I must be an unemployed guy living in his parent's basement with a Che Guevara T-Shirt, right? — Echarmion

No. I imagine you're a Russian chained up in a server farm somewhere - stirring shit in the west through divisive propaganda. Or worse, a well to do left wing academic!

For my part I'm content that I've brought my enormous knowledge to bear on this, and because you're talking about the debate, rather than the subject, it seems I've given you something to think about. Just generally though, one of the principal considerations in forming the magma energy plan for a sustainable future, has been discovering the least disruptive ways to achieve the goal. Because when things change rapidly and drastically, people suffer.

No. I imagine you're a Russian chained up in a server farm somewhere - stirring shit in the west through divisive propaganda. — counterpunch

Oh yeah, that's an even better story.

It seems like you're talking about the debate, rather than the subject of the debate. Am I wrong? — counterpunch

You're right. Mostly because this debate is a microcosm of debates about economic policy elsewhere. Very little knowledge, no talk about concrete proposals or specific effects. Just a lot of "seems" and "I reckon" coupled with some nicely simple metaphors.

It's a testament to the power of the current orthodoxy that we are unable to even properly talk about alternatives. It's like 1615, only our God is "the invisible hand of the market" and our doctrine is Neoliberalism.

I call it 'revolutionary change' only because the installed Uber-wealthy class might not be dislodged by a gradual, evolutionary process. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from major change. — Bitter Crank

I'm thinking about selling up and moving to Portland. What do you think? Buy a house there, start a business. Send my kids to school. I was hoping to get your advice.

Major industry develops that way. Someone has a working undeveloped technology with major potential. Investors give a group the money to start production, whether that be a cast-iron steam engine works, new steel plant, a transistor factory, or a large-scale battery storage farm--whatever it is. There is generally risk involved--that the investment might not pay off well, or worse, might not pay off at all. The Uber-wealthy are not risk takers. There is no need for them to take risks--they already have such a large share of the wealth. They can afford to be indifferent. — Bitter Crank

The wealthy cannot afford to be indifferent to climate change. And indeed, they're not. I read the communique from the G7 virtual summit on 20/21 May. Things are happening; they're moving on climate change. The only question is if they're making the right moves, and I'm arguing that their approach is sub optimal.

Little wonder, given that the left have so monopolised thinking on environmental issues, you actually have people believing there's a dead end ahead when in fact that's you, using environmental issues as an anti-capitalist battering ram that excludes thinking about realistic solutions. There are better answers than taxing people into poverty to save the world. It requires looking beyond the world as described by ideology, to a scientific understanding of reality; and I seek to assure the wealthy that putting the science out front does not preclude acting for profit, and very great profit too!

That is the distortion the disproportionate distribution of global wealth has. The few thousand people controlling 70% of world wealth starve innovation. Geo-thermal / H-power is just one more good idea languishing on the shelf. — Bitter Crank

The wealthy look at issues like climate change through an ideological lens first, and it's the art of the possible in those terms. That's why wind and solar are so obviously inadequate to the challenge, yet are popping up all over. They'll get kickbacks, and it won't hurt mining stocks, but that's just business. They'll create some skilled jobs, and take the edge off carbon emissions. It won't be enough, but the will is there.

Looking at things through a different lens first, a scientific lens, there's enormous untapped potential in magma energy. I believe resources are a function of the energy available to create them, and given sufficient energy we could balance human welfare and environmental sustainability, very much in our favour. We can get there from here, as we are, without turning the world upside down. And surely, that's to everyone's benefit.

According to Oxfam in 2020, the world’s 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people, i.e. 60 percent of the world's population.

According to Statista, the wealth of US billionnaires grew by a trillion dollars since the start of the pandemic.

According to inequality.org, "US Billionaire wealth is twice the amount of wealth held by the bottom 50 percent of US households combined, roughly 160 million people."

According to americansfortaxfairness.org, "From 2010 to March 2020, more U.S. billionaires derived their wealth from finance and investments than any other industry. The financial sector boasted 104 billionaires in 2010 -- ten years later the number had grown to 160."

UBI amounts to a forced redistribution of capital from this tiny minority to everyone else. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I suspect that there aren't any billionnaires participating in this forum thread, so I am somewhat confused by the personal anxieties in this thread concerning the idea of UBI.

It's a testament to the power of the current orthodoxy that we are unable to even properly talk about alternatives. It's like 1615, only our God is "the invisible hand of the market" and our doctrine is Neoliberalism. — Echarmion

The invisible hand is a miracle. It's not a God, but it is a miracle. Imagine you are in command, over a command economy, and you want to make socks. First, you need to organise labour to plough the field, and the labour available gets paid whether the field is ploughed or not. Do you get where I'm coming from? The invisible hand distributes that decision making - by making it profitable to the individual, to foresee the need and plough the field, and plant the cotton - to sell to the sockmaker, who buys elastic from South America or something, brought here by a ships captain who thought, I know someone who would probably want to buy that. All these self interested economic decisions knit together miraculously, to produce and distribute what is needed and wanted. If you truly understand it, I think you have to recognise that's miraculous, particularly in relation to the alternative. The alternative is you will plough the field or I'll have you shot! I'd much rather get paid! Then I can go buy something from someone else, anticipating my needs!

UBI amounts to a forced redistribution of capital from this tiny minority to everyone else. Correct me if i'm wrong, but I suspect that there aren't any billionnaires participating in this forum thread, so I am somewhat confused by the personal anxieties in this thread concerning the idea of UBI. — sime

Piketty argues that seeing it merely as "people voting against their interests" is mistaken. Every system is propped up by ideology as well. The ideas of the meritocracy, of the primacy of the market and perhaps above all the idea that there is simply no alternative to massive inequality are very pervasive.

The invisible hand is a miracle. — counterpunch

And just like miracles, it doesn't actually exist.

All these self interested economic decisions knit together miraculously, to produce and distribute what is needed and wanted. — counterpunch

Human ingenuity is indeed miraculous. No need to invent some fiction to hide it behind.

The alternative is you will plough the field or I'll have you shot! I'd much rather get paid! Then I can go buy something from someone else, anticipating my needs! — counterpunch

Yes, that's the only alternative. Nothing but orthodoxy is possible. Everything else leads to hell. So recant your heresy and buy a coke, lest your soul be forfeit!

Piketty argues that seeing it merely as "people voting against their interests" is mistaken. Every system is propped up by ideology as well. The ideas of the meritocracy, of the primacy of the market and perhaps above all the idea that there is simply no alternative to massive inequality are very pervasive. — Echarmion

All I see here is an appeal to authority and abuse. You offer me no reason to continue an argument I consider, conclusively proven. Thanks for the chat.

All I see here is an appeal to authority and abuse. You offer me no reason to continue an argument I consider, conclusively proven. Thanks for the chat. — counterpunch

Your philosophical training was apparently insufficient to distinguish a reference from an appeal to authority.

But it is quite obvious that you have long since made up your mind.

What it is is obvious word-salad.

Not much of an argument, I’m afraid, though I did put a comma where a period should have been.

This is exactly backwards. It's the private wealth that is completely unaccountable and gives you no say in how it is used. If every service was privatised tomorrow, you'd be less able - not more, to refuse any terms. You can refuse any terms as much as you can refuse to have over your money to a robber with a gun - the freedom is there, just the consequence is obvious.

I never wrote about having a say in how private health is used or accountability. I said I had no say in the transfer of my wealth to the government. So you not only have it backwards, you’re trying to mislead.

I said I had no say in the transfer of my wealth to the government. — NOS4A2

This means you're not American. Americans are glad to pay taxes because every American benefits from them. Maybe some think they pay too much, and a few not enough. But only a foolish, silly person inveighs against taxes in themselves.

Only servile soyboys are glad to pay taxes. You don’t know whether your money goes to blowing up children or Joe Biden’s pencils.

Tell me something you use or interact with that is not directly or indirectly the result of taxes used.

Maybe you should just skip to your argument be done with it. It’s unbecoming wen you start begging me to answer your questions.

Taxes pay for things we want, need, use, and for the most part are the better for having and glad to have. Very likely every thing in your world a result of the use of taxes. What would your world be like if none of that were there?

That’s true. Taxes and the spoils of taxes are ubiquitous. Those in power have confiscated the wealth from the citizenry since time immemorial and have spent it on things such as infrastructure and the like. But for me the benefits received from stolen money do not outweigh the moral costs.

I said I had no say in the transfer of my wealth to the government. — NOS4A2

So you do not live in a democracy? I thought you were living in Canada?

If I do not pay my taxes I am subject to many penalties, up to and including jail time. If I do not pay a the federal or provincial sales tax on food I do not eat. If I do not pay property taxes I lose my home. Do you suppose I have a say in this?