Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tax Research UK Blog is written by Richard Murphy unless otherwise stated and published by Tax Research LLP under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Design by Andy Moyle
Klein & Sanders are a formidable duo. But it’s not rocket science is it? Unfortunately for humanity there are too many selfish & greedy people who won’t sign up to it for fear of losing control &, hence, their money. Paradoxically it’s this mind-set that could ultimately lose them their lives – or those of their grand-children. So what will it take to get the message through? A seismic catastrophe in their own back yards? Sustained global civil disobedience by enough people might have an effect.
In order to achieve the inspired, international co-operative initiative that Bernie talks of, first there’s the need for a national coalition here, especially since we don’t have PR. You really would think that, for the sake of the planet & future generations, they could put their individual and tribal egos aside for long enough to join together in common cause, wouldn’t you? Maybe, & hopefully, there are serious discussions going on behind closed doors, but the wretched Brexit fiasco is consuming way too much time and energy – and will continue to do so. Nero fiddles ……
There’s no logical reason why a GND couldn’t be implemented by a Tory-led administration, if that’s what it takes. What does the climate have in common with MMT? In theory they’re both apolitical! But, ofc, in reality they’re not. And there’s the rub. By definition, conservatives find change more challenging than progressives. But their innate conservatism should translate into positive action to conserve the environment for posterity. However, while they would agree on the overall objective, I’m guessing it’s probably the macro-economics required to achieve it that they can’t get their heads around – or choose not to. There’s a lot more work still to do, in an ever diminishing time-frame. There’ll be no kudos in saying “I told you so” if there’s nobody around to hear. I know one needs to remain positive but it’s difficult not to despair, isn’t it?
Good night 🙂
Two points:
Tragedy that the Democrats chose Hillary Clinton and yes, climate change is the most important issue but all our governments are faffing on about less important issues and they’re not even dealing with the trivia in any effective way. That goes for all governments everywhere. Populated by self serving individuals whose only interests are lining their own pockets. 12 years! Quite scary.
As long as there are people like Bernie in America, there is hope for America – and the rest of us.
I first bumped into him during a Michael Moore documentary. He was a revelation.
And I love his accent.
I’d love to see him speak passionately to the House of Commons.
Unlike Jeremy Corbyn, Sanders has managed to retain the spark of Promethean fire. A pity he wasn’t the Democrats’ choice for Presidential candidate – but what else could we expect? There’ll be no change in the ‘mixture as before’ until enough people have motivated themselves to take control of their own destinies. I’m hoping – because I must – that this will happen in the next couple of years, but it’s the young who must now take up the cause of the planet, and who must show the energy and vision to turn humanity from self-destruction.
Bernie for PM!!!!!
Seriously though, just imagine how much better things would be right now, for ordinary people, if someone as passionate and compassionate as him could lead the way to change.
The obstacles are massive, powerful vested interests. They’d take some convincing!
The only way is to convince them that they can make big profits out of it, since that’s the only thing which will work for them, that and the certainty that if they don’t go along with this, their polluting habits will bring them huge fines from environmental protection government agencies, as well as huge bills from insurance claims when damage is caused to wildlife,people or property. All these measures would act as deterrents, while attractive taxation discounts could be incentives. Give them more to gain than lose.
The biggest polluters are China, India, and the USA. They need to be convinced first.
As for ordinary people, so long as their jobs and living standards are protected, even improved, they’d go along with a GND. They know their health would improve.
What a shame Bernie didn’t get selected against Clinton though. Think of the message to the world this would have been, coming from America.
I think green qe on manageable projects is the start. I don’t regard this or MMT as apolitical. Science is hardly apolitical for that matter. Very few of my old lab colleagues were Tories and a Pew poll (2009) showed few scientists are Republicans, Political education for scientists is zero. Conservative voters are known not to understand complex coupled networks well. If we could get some GQE projects up and running a lot would be learned.
I’d like more quantitative knowledge on how actual QE worked (links anyone?) – implementation of GQE would be political imo because of what it is likely to reveal of the current bent investment system through banks etc. Presumably we fund resources and workers – this has effects including any multiplier in the general economy – this leads to some worry on groaf and changing what there is to consume. This is a profound challenge to current politics that seeks to keep us as groaf-oafs on all sides through sloganeering.
The IPCC target that Klein and Sanders buy into – of halving emissions by 2030 – assumes the invention of “Negative Emission Technologies” to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Such technologies do not exist and are completely unrealistic.
We must listen to the scientists, not the IPCC which is a political body.
We don’t have until 2030.
For a more realistic assessment of the urgency of the situation, see this video by Dr Rupert Read of the University of East Anglia:
https://www.chu.cam.ac.uk/events/shed-light-rupert-read/
@ Nick H
Some exciting research going on all over the world right now, and in our own corner too.
http://storytelling.research.southwales.ac.uk/rice/
They have a brilliant EU funded team working there, and they are making quick progress. This is replicated all over, so do not despair.
It won’t be enough, but it’s a big step forward.
Scientists estimate that 2 months ago we passed the tipping point into runaway climate collapse leading to the death of most species on this planet, including us.
Let us hope they are wrong.