Today is Wednesday and today. In addition to showing some great music, I would like to comment on the absurd point that even the progressive Green Party also promotes that we need to use the financial resources of the market (Wall Street type) to help the government achieve social freedom. carbon. It has been said that financial CEOs with “trillions of assets” (all at COP26, because they can smell profits) are the key to solving the climate challenge-just as progressives say we need to tax them to fund schools And hospitals. Both of these statements reflect the dominance of mainstream macroeconomics, which leads us to believe that the government that issues currency is like a large family and may be “no money.” This is fictitious, but it is part of the reason why we face the climate crisis. continue reading.
Don’t let the financial market get close to this
A few years ago, I was in a group in Scotland with the leaders of the Green Party there. The theme was green transformation. When it was her turn to speak, she talked enthusiastically about the necessity of “green bonds” and embraced the ability of the financial market to fund decarbonization.
Many progressive people agree with this view.
A few years ago, they also touted the “Robin Hood” tax.
I wrote in these blog posts:
1. Robin Hood is a thief, not a savior (April 1, 2010).
2. Progressive people should get rid of the dependence on “Robin Hood” taxes (September 4, 2017).
Recently, they are about “taxing the rich” so that we can have good schools and hospitals.
1. The government does not need the savings of the rich, nor does it need their taxes! (April 15, 2015).
2. The call to “tax the rich” gives them unfounded importance (February 21, 2018).
3. Tax the rich to deal with carbon emissions, not to get their money (January 22, 2020).
At the same time, the financial markets — casinos that seek huge profits no matter how they make huge profits and the short-term and long-term consequences that follow — are revolving around their ambitious plan to save the world through so-called “green financing”. Circling.
The conversation at COP26 is not about identifying and solving climate change issues, but about how financial markets can use their claws to create more speculative products from which they can profit and are basically whitening the overall effort.
This is from demographic data (beneficiaries of profit), and their per capita emissions in 2030 are estimated to be:
… Is 30 times higher than the global per capita level in line with the 1.5⁰C target of the Paris Agreement, and the footprint of the world’s poorest half of the population will remain several times below this level.
The conclusion comes from a briefing report (November 5, 2021)- Carbon inequality in 2030: Per capita consumption emissions and 1.5⁰C target – Published by Oxfam in cooperation with the European Environmental Policy Institute.
The report provides a link between income distribution (and inequality) and the climate crisis.
this – English version of the report – get conclusion:
1. “Between the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report in 1990 and the Paris Agreement in 2015, the consumption of the world’s richest 1% of the population contributed to the combined carbon emissions of the world’s poorest half of the population Twice as much.”
2. “Approximately one third of the global carbon budget used to limit global heating to the 1.50C target of the Paris Agreement was wasted just to expand the consumption of the world’s richest 10% of the population.”
3. “The share of total global emissions related to the consumption of the richest 1% of the population will continue to grow, from 13% in 1990 to 15% in 2015 and 16% in 2030.”
4. “By 2030, compared to when the Paris Agreement was signed, the richest 1% of the population will account for a greater share of total global emissions.”
5. “Carbon inequality in the world and within most countries is extreme.”
The image below is a copy of Figure 2 in the report, and its sharpness is amazing.
6. Even if the United States cuts its per capita emissions by half between 2015 and 2030, it will still be “5 times the global per capita level of 1.5°C.”
For the rest of us (not at the top of the town), the lessons of this study are:
Maintaining such a high carbon footprint among the richest people in the world will either require the rest of the world’s population to carry out more in-depth emissions reductions, or it will require global warming to exceed the pre-industrial level of 1.50 degrees Celsius. There is no other choice.
This time I agree to use TINA calls.
This means that “the richest and highest-emitting countries in the world must finally commit to their fair share”-including Australia.
This means that reducing income and wealth inequality must be a key part of this process.
This is not just a “technical” solution that the “market” will propose.
The report says:
…It’s time for the government to increase or completely ban consumption of high-carbon-intensive luxury goods, from SUVs to large yachts, private jets, and space tourism. These consumptions represent the morally unreasonable consumption of the world’s scarce remaining carbon budget. .
But… the emissions of the richest people in the world related to capital investment may even be greater than the emissions associated with their direct consumption…
…There is an urgent need to coordinate wealth and massive taxation to reduce inequality while curbing the emissions of the richest people. Now is the time to use regulation and taxation to completely end extreme wealth and protect mankind and the planet.
So this sounds like a “tax the rich” argument.
Which is it.
But this is not a structure that progressives usually consider appropriate.
When proposing these taxes, the government did not want their funds.
The goal is to deprive them of their funds-to reduce their control over goods and services.
And, obviously, the “market” will not provide what we need, so a “rule-based” policy can work—to completely prohibit things—for example, the Amazon boss on his absurd rocket journey.
But this shows that allowing the financial market to use its “financing” tools has become the main driver of our response.
The last thing the world needs is more financial products. There are already enough gambling tools, as part of the process involving taxes and regulations, the challenge is to reduce these tools through legislative prohibitions.
The elimination of most speculative products that promote wealth accumulation in financial markets must be the goal.
Those deals do No Promote the well-being of most of us.
They should be banned.
First, all derivatives related to food and energy must be banned.
In the absence of food all over the world, it is not a crime to buy major agricultural products such as corn and store them when the market is manipulated to cause artificial shortages and price increases (and sales profits).
Many prohibit it.
However, the acceptance of the “green bond” narrative also reflects the ignorance of our government’s capabilities, which is at the core of the core agenda of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT).
And this ignorance is deliberately promoted by those at the top of the government’s economic policymaking, because they know that it will help create jobs and profit solutions for the financial market.
Why would they do that?
Well, because they benefit from the financial markets.
For example, consider Janet Yellen (2014-2018), the current Secretary of the Treasury in the Biden administration and the former chairman of the Federal Reserve.
As the chairman of the Federal Reserve, her salary is approximately US$200,000 (US$203,500 in 2019).
As of January 2021, the boss of the Ministry of Finance received $221,400.
Most importantly, her financial disclosures indicate that in the past two years alone, she has made $7.2 million in “company speeches.”
Citigroup paid about $1 million for her nine speeches.
A hedge fund (Citadel) paid $800,000 for her speech.
and many more.
The list she disclosed was shocking.
you can see here
Give speeches to various groups lining up and tripping over each other, hoping to get involved in the green transformation in lucrative government spending.
At COP26, she gave a speech—— Secretary of Finance Janet L. Yellen’s keynote speech at the opening ceremony of COP26 Finance Day in Glasgow, Scotland (November 3, 2021)-and say:
… The United States also intends to fully support the climate investment fund capital market mechanism. Through an innovative leverage structure, the plan will help attract a large number of new private climate financing and provide 500 million US dollars a year for the Clean Technology Fund’s plans, including a new accelerated coal transformation investment plan.
with:
There is a big gap between what the government has and what the world needs, and the private sector needs to play a bigger role…The private sector is ready to provide funding to let us embark on the path of avoiding the worst effects of climate change. CEOs representing trillions of assets are here to demonstrate their commitment.
At that time, you knew that the world was in trouble.
The main points are:
1. The desire of financial markets is to profit from speculation, and coincidentally, this is consistent with promoting the well-being of the rest of us.
2. History tells us that they lack morality and are better than trickery and incompetence.
3. According to the Oxfam report, the growth of such speculative activities has exacerbated income and wealth inequality.
4. The US government has all the financial resources needed to get rid of carbon emissions.
5. It also has legislative influence over any activity.
6. For most governments.
It has been said that financial CEOs with “trillions of assets” (all at COP26, because they can smell profits) are the key to solving the climate challenge-just as progressives say we need to tax them to fund schools And hospitals.
Both of these statements reflect the dominance of mainstream macroeconomics, which leads us to believe that the government that issues currency is like a big family and may be “no money.”
It’s time for us to learn.
Music – Bobby Hutcherson
This is what I have been listening to at work this morning.
It comes from one of the best albums around—— Element – go through – Bobby Hutcherson – On resonance and marimba.
It was released by Blue Note in 1966 and I purchased it in 1970.
This is an album with two styles, where the A side is hard pop (all Hutcherson’s works) and melody. This is a traditional swing with many complicated rhythm changes. Side B is experimental and avant-garde.
All the great players are in this album:
1. James Spalding -Alto saxophone and flute.
2. Herbie Hancock – Piano and organ.
3. Ron Carter -Double bass.
4. Freddie Hubbard -Trumpet.
5. Joe Chambers – drum.
The selected track is called – peaceful -A folk song featuring Freddie Hubbard’s trumpet, then Hutcherson, then Herbie Hancock’s piano solo.
This is a very thoughtful piece-gentle but beautiful in melody.
My favorite of the album.
It’s nice to play in the background while people are thinking about things.
Bobby Hutcherson developed into a post bop later in his career, but it was no better.
That’s enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2021 William Mitchell. all rights reserved.
