benmorleybrown

[benmorleybrown]

My Theory on the Economy, and Other Things

This is a great TED Talk by Greece’s ex-Minister for Finance (https://goo.gl/3EdU2C).

One of my favourite parts is his point about capitalism being like a predator that is so successful at catching its prey that its prey goes extinct (capitalism's prey being the political sphere).  He says:

“I spoke about my quarrel with capitalism. If you think about it, it is a little bit like a population of predators, that are so successful in decimating the prey that they must feed on, that in the end they starve.

Similarly, the economic sphere has been colonizing and cannibalizing the political sphere to such an extent that it is undermining itself, causing economic crisis. Corporate power is increasing, political goods are devaluing, inequality is rising, aggregate demand is falling and CEOs of corporations are too scared to invest the cash of their corporations.”

Mobilising idle cash

In addition to has great point about capitalism cannibalising itself by dominating the political sphere, another point I like from this talk is about the mountains of idle cash and the great wastefulness that creates.

Varoufakis says this in the talk:

"This is my quarrel with capitalism. Its gross wastefulness, all this idle cash, should be energised to improve lives, to develop human talents, and indeed to finance all these technologies, green technologies, which are absolutely essential for saving planet Earth."

But how to "energise" that cash?

I recently watched a TED Talk by Piketty from 2014 (https://goo.gl/NLe7KJ) which got me thinking.  He has pointed out that wealth inequality is far greater than income inequality, and that, in terms of redistribution, an income tax (no matter how strong and progressive) is not sufficient by itself, not by a long shot. We need taxes on accumulations of wealth/capital.

Imagine if there was such a disincentive for people to accumulate massive amounts of essentially idle wealth (and stash it in, I don't know say Panama… or New Zealand).  This could be achieved through some form of taxation and/or through greater financial transparency and the pressure that comes from that, as endorsed by Piketty.  I believe that nothing would get that money moving quicker back into the economy and new ventures!  As Kahneman illustrates in Thinking, Fast and Slow, people are more motivated to avoid loss than to obtain a gain, so losing $5 to wealth tax is more motivating than gaining $20 by investment.

That to me is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy, and ensure that money continues to flow around the economy (ie, to increase the velocity of money and create a more circular economy).  Nothing else seems to really be working post-recession.  It is becoming pretty apparent that fiscal and monetary policy isn't working; if anything I wonder whether they aren't making the overall situation worse!

Continuing with quantitative easing, effectively printing more money and giving it to the banks in the hopes they will responsibly lend it or invest it to get the economy (as a whole) kick-started, seems mad.  It seems to me that that new money just gushes through the existing financial infrastructure straight to a handful of individuals at the top, with some minor leakage ('trickle down') along the way - there's a reason it's called "trickle down" and not "rain down".  No wonder QE is so popular!  But unlike physical or civic infrastructure, those minor cracks in the financial infrastructure seems to be monitored closely and always under repair to ensure minimum leakage.

If they are to continue printing money, then at least give it to the Government to spend on improving infrastructure or other services, or inject it directly into socially/environmentally worthwhile projects, both of which should create jobs and provide beneficial services to society.  (Although I remain wary of the fact that the way things are set up means that any money injected into the economy ultimately, and far too quickly, ends up in the hands (read offshore bank account) of the rich rather than continuing to circulate around the economy.)

Nor does lowering interest rates to encourage borrowing and investment seem to work, as far as I can see.  The rich (I kind of hate referring to the rich elites who are hogging all the cash and corrupting the political process, as it makes you seem like some sort of whacky lefty conspiracy theorist, but the Panama papers (amongst other things) demonstrate the truth behind some of these assertions).  Anyway, the rich who are sitting on massive sums of money could essentially fund any large project or venture that would materially impact the economy with cash (no lending required).  And I can see at least a couple of factors that might put everyday people (the rest of us) off taking up these low interest rates and getting our comparatively measly sums out there.

The first is, would you take out a loan (and/or invest your hard saved cash) into a business or venture that is large enough to affect the economy, where there is likely to be a gigantic multinational competitor who will probably use its endless financial, legal and political resources to cut you out so they can retain their market share and their ability to further accumulate such resources.

The other reason, I reckon at least, is that you need to give people confidence in the future before you can stimulate them to spend their savings, or take out a loan, to fund a business venture, or just to fund consumer spending or buying a house.

In the case of buying a house, it would help if they were affordable in the first place and the market weren't dominated by investors and speculators.  It doesn't matter how low the interest rates are if you can't afford the deposit - if anything, lower interest rates in such circumstances only serves to further benefit the wealthy (those with capital).

In the case of confidence in the future, before committing to spending their savings or taking out a loan, people need to have confidence that (amongst other things):

their job won't be lost to automation or their set of skills otherwise marginalised or made redundant

that bankers won't fuck the economy again and screw over everyone but themselves

that their salary compared to the richest 1% won't get relatively worse over the next decade (that is, that income inequality won't continue to worsen)

that we aren't facing environmental disaster in the next decade or two, and that their country or region (or their country's key trading partners) aren't going to be overrun with people displaced by civil war or the effects of climate change, as is apparently becoming the case in Europe - and by all estimates this is set to get substantially worse worldwide on our current trajectory (off the top of my head, I think the projections are for around 200 million climate refugees by 2050; that dwarfs Europe's "crisis" of 1-2 million migrants)

that we aren't facing a foreseeable future where security of food supply and sources of fresh water are a very real concern

that if you take up the Keynesian carrot of lower interest rates and start a business your gigantic multinational competitors aren't going to improperly exercise their financial/political/legal muscle to push you out (as mentioned above)… and so on

Nothing makes you want to spend your hard earned cash, or take on the burden and risk of borrowing (and thereby help the economy get back on its feet) than the prospect of facing one if not all of the above threats in the imminent future…

There's a whole bunch of things required to "fix" the economy (by which I mean get it moving again), a lot of which I would suggest would also improve society and also move us towards a different version of capitalism - for instance:

fixing inequality and social mobility (I have other thoughts on the social and economic benefits of these more generally, which I will refrain from talking about here)

meaningful climate action and actions to preserve natural resources

taxing offshore funds, or idle capital generally (as well as appropriate income and other tax schemes)

having appropriate safety nets for displaced workers and those with redundant skills (incidentally, I think if people had confidence that such measures were in place, we might see increased support for stronger action on climate change in particular, but also equality, because many people might be scared that laws and regulations designed to combat those problems will negatively affect the economy (and therefore them), and whether or not that is true, if they had some confidence that they lived in a more just, equal and egalitarian society that would not leave them out in the cold if they lost their job or if some other hardship befell them, then they might be more likely to support the necessary policy measures

education, to not only ensure your populace is able to meaningfully engage in society (and not be led astray by the ramblings of a narcissistic nutter like Trump), but also to ensure your workforce of tomorrow is able to (out)compete others in the globalised workforce by having something to export to the world other than unskilled labour and manufacturing jobs, rather than resorting to backwards (and ultimately useless) protectionist measures of the kind peddled by Trump (two Trump jabs in one bulletpoint, but he and his supporters epitomise what I believe is wrong with the world, so I am unapologetic for this)

supporting genuine stability and peace in various regions in the world (quite apart from the fact that political instability fuels extremism, and apart from the eye-watering cost of war (including the massive profits to be made by the industrial military complex), it is hard to build a stable and robust economy when you have millions of refugees to process (or not…) and when the public's attention on political matters is dominated by fear of mass migration/terrorism. That public fear then pervades and severely interrupts all aspects of policy and politics - for instance, Brexit (a terrible decision from an economic perspective, but many Brexiters are persuaded, wrongly I say, by the allure of closing our borders and regaining sovereignty), or the rise of the far right and populism…and Trump (sorry, again). All of these would be terrible for the economy (and society), and would not I think actually fix the problems they purport to fix

But politicians seem more interested in patching up effects than fixing causes… Perhaps they are driven by the popular vote, but I will avoid a rant on the impact of the media on that for now.

Paradoxically, I believe that in doing many of the things we are told will be bad for the economy, and not doing many of the things we are told are good for the economy, we might instead actually strengthen the economy while also creating a better society, as many of those things would substantially increase people's quality of life and confidence: confidence in people, confidence in their future, confidence in government and in the fact that the government is looking out for everyone's interests, and not just their cronies. What else drives a healthy economy than booming, well-founded confidence?

Bernie Sanders seems to get it, and has even been endorsed by a major Wall Street player, Asher Edelman (video here, https://goo.gl/DSccN7).

[benmorleybrown]

Scary times

Things that scare me:

Climate change

Rising inequality/wealth divide

Increased automation of jobs

The TPP/TTIP

Loss of biodiversity, loss of animal species (eg bees and fish) and the general fucking up of ecosystems and habitats

Food security and the amount of food waste in the world

Antibiotic resistant diseases

Generation rent/student loan

Things that don’t scare me:

The chance that some refugees/migrants are terrorists

The thing that scares me the most:

The fact that lots of people are significantly more concerned about the things in my second list than the first

Addendum:

To further qualify my second list, while the thought that we could let in actual ISIS fighters is scary, here are a few thoughts:

If they (ISIS terrorists) wanted to get into these countries aren’t there other, easier methods of doing so?

What is the counterfactual?

Do we put up fences and let these refugees/migrants die on our doorsteps by the hundreds of thousands? Practical question - what do we do with the bodies? Can anyone actually imagine being okay with such a world?!

Or, do we send them back to their countries of origin?  Practical question - how do we do that; how do we actually turn them around and physically make them go back?  Would that exercise be more costly than letting them in?  Once they are back, then what - would they fight, would they die or would they convert to an extremist group (I giving them some credit here and assuming they aren’t already part of such a group)? Best case scenario, if they fought and won what would their view be of the western world? Would they (quite justifiably) be just as hateful towards us as ISIS?

To the extent they are economic migrants, what is wrong with having people in the country who want to work? I fit the category of an economic migrant, but no suggestion that I shouldn’t be allowed in. It could in fact stimulate some economies.

To the extent they are refugees, then surely we owe a duty to help them?

To the extent they are terrorists, then can we not deal with that through “usual means”, like our intelligence agencies would if the person got off a plane at Heathrow rather than the underside of the Eurostar - I am led to believe that governments don’t mind spying on us so I feel reasonably confident they can counteract many threats - why is a Trojan Terrorist more dangerous than a Tourist Terrorist?

[benmorleybrown]

Left out to dry

The results of the latest UK election are gutting, and makes me genuinely terrified as to the direction we are heading.

The Tories (right wing conservatives for those “at home”) will not only be the government for the next five(!) years, they have gained so many seats that they can now govern alone (without a coalition partner to keep them in line).  It was a decisive win.

I am not gutted because I thought Labour would fix all of our problems, far from it.  Nor am I gutted because I think David Cameron is a completely nefarious plutocrat, although that is closer to the truth.  My guttedness [bro] doesn’t stem from my love of one or hatred of the other.

I am gutted because it shows that we, the voting public, are moving (or perhaps more accurately diving headfirst) in the wrong direction.

Despite all the challenges we face – such as those that I have been so eloquently ranting about, including (but not limited to) environmental degradation (pollution, overuse of resources, climate change, loss of biodiversity, mass extinctions of animal species) and inequality (the outrageous wealth and income gaps, the acceleration of that through outsourcing and automation, and the failings of government and society to adequately protect the poor, weak, disenfranchised and displaced) – in the face of all these challenges, we are not heading in the right (read “left”) direction.

For some reason, despite all this talk of us being in the defining time in human history, of humanity being at a cross-roads where we face unprecedented challenges, which if not confronted quickly and decisively could well risk the end of mankind (at the very least, mankind as we know it; but not the planet, that would bounce back just fine after a few thousand years – what a nice thought), despite all of that banter about change, the popularity of right wing conservative governments in the Western world seems to be soaring.*

I have traditionally been a pretty staunch supporter of National (right wing), however, it is probably quite clear that I am now a leftie.  Upon reflecting on the massive and terrifying (indeed existential) challenges we face, I am 100% confident that, although perhaps a better option for me personally (in the short-term), a right wing conservative government will not only fail to fix these problems, but will make them worse.  Granted, a left wing government (by today’s standards) probably won’t do much better, but to at least feel that people are moving left rather than farther right, and deeper into capitalism, would give me hope.

You can expect a longer rant on this later, but for now let me put some points out there:

- We (should) acknowledge that we are facing an environmental crisis, the two most important aspects of which are resource depletion (to keep up with our insatiable demand) and climate change (both interrelated, as all these problems are).

- To tackle resource depletion and climate change, we are going to have to (in addition to other things) reduce our consumption, which in turn will decrease production and which will consequently decrease those jobs related to mining, manufacture, transportation, warehousing, distribution, retailing, you name it. That equals job losses and redundancies.  The only alternative to this is “business as usual”, which sounds fucking fantastic, but the thing about unsustainable consumption, funnily enough, is that it cannot be sustained.  So, we can either choose to consume less now (with a little weaning off period)** or we can be forced to consume less (with a violent thud).  At this point in time, we can still choose.

- We also (should) acknowledge that a lot of people (and I mean a lot of people) face impending job losses and redundancies in the next 20 years as a result of outsourcing and automation -- hopefully they will find new jobs (which perhaps don’t exist now), but with the increasing need to also consume less, without the benefit of psychic powers I cannot imagine how all of the current working population will be gainfully and fulfillingly employed in the future.

- Many people vote for right wing governments because (amongst other reasons) they are averse to giving people handouts or encouraging laziness.  But in a (perhaps not so distant) future world where access to higher education is so expensive and restricted, where the only jobs available are extremely high-skilled (because all the low/medium-skilled jobs are taken by robots) and where the only non-robotisised jobs available are completely unfulfilling and/or degrading, many people, no matter motivated will not be able to find work, let alone fulfilling work.

- Of course the instinct is to think that we should not encourage people to sit around and expect something for nothing, but that is the whole premise behind the tech-boom, and its social justification: that it is good for society because it allows us to do just that!  It liberates people from menial and manual labour, while allowing the owner of the technology to continue making money; everyone wins!  Except that, as so often happens with the newly liberated, they get left out in the cold, to enjoy their liberty (for example, take the appalling numbers of homeless war veterans, prisoners released from prison with grossly inadequate rehabilitation leading to recidivism (reoffending), the Jews post WWII which has led to the never-ending Israel-Palestine Conflict, and so on).

- We also (should) acknowledge that there are unbelievable levels of wealth inequality around the world, which are getting worse, and the effects of high inequality on economies is dire - any government that is serious about delivering a “strong economy” (as is the right wing war cry) is stupid (or bullshitting you) if they ignore the fact that a strong and robust approach to fixing inequality and to redistributing wealth is absolutely crucial to delivering said “strong economy”.

- This wealth inequality compounds the environmental problem, because as people have less money they cannot “vote with their wallets” and they can’t participate in “conscious consumption” - they can only buy the cheap, unsustainable, unethically sourced and unethically sold shit from Walmart or wherever.  Then these massive companies don’t put the dots together (besides their best efforts *sarcasm*), and they see demand for cheap, unsustainable, unethical shit soaring, and what does the market do when demand soars: it gives the people what they want!  ‘Murica!

- Then the killer, as if this marginalisation and guaranteed gradual personal and environmental degradation isn’t enough, right wing conservative governments, by their very nature, do not give a shit (in an actual tangible way that isn’t just lip-service or their de minimus duty as a government of a first world western country) about the welfare of unemployed people - that’s left to the market, but funnily enough there’s no market for helping the homeless or unemployed.  For instance, one of David Cameron’s first agenda items is planning massive cuts to welfare as a means of saving £12bn, leaving his super-rich mates alone otherwise they’ll run away (sounds like they’re not very good friends Dave-o).  Remember too, that with decreased consumption and increased automation, any one of us could find ourselves in a redundant industry, with a set of skills that were “so two thousand and fifteen”; or that could happen to one of our family members, our partners or our friends.  Even if, by some miracle, we and all those we care about manage to hold on to meaningful jobs, who wants to clock into work in their suit, wrapped in a glass tower, while misery abounds?!

So when you vote for a conservative government that is interested in maintaining the status quo (which is probably why conservatism is so popular - because people think they want to lock-in their current situation, like a snapshot in time) the reality is that that magical place called "status quo" does not entail the current state of affairs remaining the same (it does not lock-in the current levels of consumption, waste, pollution, inequality as they are and it does not guarantee you the life you have now into the future); the status quo entails the current trends remaining the same (the continued growth of those things, consumption, inequality etc).  As I see it, what we need is change (strong progressivism, a jarring change of tact) to decelerate and hopefully reverse the growth of those troubling trends.

People want to maintain or regain the quality of life they once enjoyed, but they are putting their faith in the very system that is fucking them.  The irony is the effects of this election will be hardest felt by the loyal readers of conservative media (the Sun and the Telegraph, like the Fox News of Britain).  And like a vulnerable child idolising his abusive father, people go and vote for these shysters, placated by the front page of the Sun which tells them everything’s okay, the economy is in safe hands.

While a decisive Labour win wouldn't have magically solved all our ills, it would've signified that people get it and are moving in the right direction.  That's all I hoped for.

* I could be wrong on this, I haven’t looked into it extensively, and perhaps my views have been biased by this Tory landslide last night, but I’m just thinking about National’s overwhelming popularity in New Zealand (at the last elections at least), Tony Abbott in Australia (god save us), and America’s fucked up and totally delusional views on freedom, free markets and liberty.

** I am not naive or utopian enough to believe that everyone would voluntarily consume less, or indeed that big business would roll over and accept (or god forbid encourage) people consuming less without a serious fight.  Indeed, on a personal level, most of us are employed by businesses that rely on consumption, so we are stuck in a bit of catch-22: by day we want people to consume our employer’s products, but by night we strive to consume as little as possible.

[benmorleybrown]

Response (2)

Good post Tom - really good points, and I agree with the majority of what you are saying, including your point that we should have a lot less technology and no supermarkets -- laterz Pak N Slave and Tescos!

My response is to do with use of the terms “dependence”, “technology” and “system”, which you say we need to eliminate, cut back on and become independent of (respectively).

Dependence

My first point would be that humans are a very weak and vulnerable animal.  We aren’t well designed for the wild, at all... especially not after the last couple of hundred of years of devolution we have gone through.  To survive and thrive we rely (or should I say relied) on our intellect (to build tools and figure out the best ways of doing things) and our ability to work together (to form communities, to have one person hunt and the other gather, to have a group of people focus on gathering food, and another on making clothes, and so on).

In that sense, we will always be dependent; we aren’t polar bears.  At our core, we humans are and always will be ‘hopelessly’ dependent on our brains and on each other.  Accordingly, we are dependent on technology (in the sense of shared ideas and basic tools, through to things like tractors, bikes, homes for shelter and warmth, and so on), but we are obviously not dependent on all technology, despite thinking we are.  We are also dependent on being part of a society (a collection of individuals) and the benefits that come with this.  This, I would argue, is also not only what guarantees our survival but what brings us the most happiness in life; the feeling of connection with others, and being part of something bigger than ourselves.  We are, therefore, also dependent on that society functioning properly, which requires “a system” of some description to ensure that society is not plagued by violence, crime, corruption, and that decisions are made in everyone’s (or the majority’s) best interest, and so on -- this is the concept, obviously it’s become completely fucked.

So we shouldn’t strive for complete independence or to completely rid ourselves of technology or a system, just of technology and systems that do not work for us or the environment/ecosystem in which we live, which only work (short-term) for a few people, as is currently the case.  Obviously I acknowledge that would entail a substantial reduction in technology, and a fundamental change in the system we have, I just have reservations about casting blanket aspersions over the terms “technology” or “system” or declaring independence from them; they are not inherently bad.

Technology

It is human nature to keep developing ways to improve the status quo -- we invent to enrich our lives, to enable us to broaden our experience of the world.  That, we are hardwired with -- every animal and plant is born into a “system” where you improve upon what previous generations were doing or your line dies or fades away: that’s the fundamental principle behind evolution and natural selection.  We obviously weren’t going to die if we didn’t invent the iWatch, but you get the point; we are hardwired to invent and innovate to improve our lives.

Even in your hypothetical world where people opt-out of the system (which I will take to mean opting out of the industrial capitalist system, not social systems in general), and move to the countryside, build a house and plant food (without owning that land, but merely using it), such people would eventually develop ways to make themselves more productive, and they would probably divide labour and tasks between their neighbours to produce a better outcome for all of them.  After a couple of generations of bliss, their children would probably yearn to explore beyond their immediate surroundings, and would develop transportation methods to do so.  We had this society at one point in time, and it evolved to this mess we have now, although I have a couple of theories as to where we might have gone wrong.

So, when you talk about really considering what is “sustainable”, even that system of subsistence living is not sustainable in the long run, because humans being humans, we will inevitably move towards more complexity... again.  It is just as naive to suggest that humans will retreat to subsistence living and stay there forever more (without succumbing to the inexorable human drive to invent, develop and improve) as it is to suggest that we can somehow continue as is and find a miraculous technological solution to all the human, animal and ecological suffering that is so prevalent.  Neither is realistic or sustainable; the solution (if there is one) must lie in an amalgam of the two).

One of the problems I see with technology and innovation is that this natural process of incremental improvement has been hijacked, like so many things, by commercial interests.  

For instance, we now have planned obsolescence, where products are designed at their outset to fail or become outdated so that people have to buy more.  This started with General Motors when the supply of cars had reached saturation, and continued with stockings and lightbulbs, and through to computers (and pretty much everything in between).  We also have things like patent trolls (or “patent holding companies”) which obtain very broad patents to sit on, with no intention of ever commercialising them, until an inventor comes up with something that may be genuinely useful for society, but the patent troll throws money at a claim for breach of patent, knowing that the inventor will either give up or settle, thereby giving the patent troll more money to continue the process and denying society the chance to benefit from the invention in question.  We also hear similar stories all the time of amazing inventions that could change the world, by bringing more sustainable/eco-friendly/ethical products or services, but they inevitably get strong-armed out by large corporations who are hell-bent on maintaining their market or simply never get produced because there isn’t enough money in it, despite the obvious benefits -- somehow we find money for X Factor, Candy Crush, and tickets to fly to outer space, or to bail-out the banking system, but we can’t find money to clean up the environment.

And then there are other, more everyday practices, like packaging/bundling items in a manner designed to induce bulk buying (eg, where something you only want a small/specific quantity of is only available in a bulk pack so the supplier can increase sales volumes).  And finally, there’s the practice of designed dependence -- like supermarkets and food chains, or Nestle’s approach to fresh water -- where the companies structure the system, the products, the supply sources, the supply chain, and so on, so that we do become, as you say, hopelessly dependent on them.

Imagine what inroads we could make into curbing consumption and waste if these horrifically uneconomical and (taking a holistic approach) inefficient practices were gone.

But can we blame the corporations?  They are legal persons, but they are no people.  Their sole purpose in life is to make money; it is basically what they are required to do by law.  When you look at why GM plans obsolescence, or why BP funds climate denial, why Nestle basically steals fresh water from villages to bottle and sell to other villages, or why Walmart pays its employees pittance, it is easy to see how these decisions are defensible (and perhaps inevitable) in this sick, deluded system we currently have where profit and growth are king.

I believe this is one of the ways in which we have gone astray, and which needs to be urgently remedied.  Why should we, actual people, put up with these monstrous fictional people ruining our lives and the environment, without constraint?  Why should we further put up with those people who profit from this (the shareholders) keeping the vast majority of that profit, without consideration for the people and ecosystems they’ve fucked up for it?

Unlike actual people, on whom the criminal law has a minimal or at best variable effect, corporations are legal creatures, and unlike actual people, the source of a corporation’s identity and powers and constraints is the letter of the law, and that law can be changed.

Although there are many complex causes of what got us to the position we are currently in, I think this is the first step along our march of progress where we cocked up.  We should have demanded more from our companies.  The second cock up, I believe, was enabling companies, who ought to be inventing and creating technology for the betterment of society, to be owned by a small hand-full of private individuals, rather than on trust for society.  I go back to my earlier points in other posts about the perversity of the conservative view that individuals need profit (like outrageously large profits) otherwise they will just sit on their arse and not invent squat; if that’s their view then fuck em, we probably don’t need their inventions.

Anyway, the point here was that technology per se should not become a pejorative term; the trouble is the weird twist that technology has taken where it is not designed (other than in a very superficial way) to be for benefit society or people, or to work in harmony with existing social and ecological systems, supplementing them, but designed to make maximum profit for the inventor (otherwise he wouldn’t have invented it in the first place).  But to castigate ourselves for inventing the things we have invented (cars, planes, etc), and to view all technology as a bad thing that should be resisted, is not realistic, and denies our fundamental human nature.

Of course we currently have (and are working on) a tonne of technology we don’t need, Angry Birds being an obvious example.  Another good example is Candy Crush, which is carefully engineered to make people psychologically addicted so they pay money to King (the developer) to the tune of US$1.3 bn last year.  This is clearly not good for society as a whole; but again, to take an extreme view and renounce the value of games or entertainment (which can perhaps be classified as technology, or at least invention) is not good either.  There has to be a balance.  Sure, people would be happy as pigs in shit without Angry Birds, but they would not be without any form of games or entertainment (not necessarily electronic, obviously); otherwise life is nothing but toil.  Again, it is when those games and entertainment get hijacked by commercial interests (as in the Candy Crush example) that things get twisted.

System

As I said above, dependence on a system is not a bad thing per se; dependence on the wrong system is, but some degree of dependence will be a necessary element of the right system.  

“System” is another one of those words that seems to have taken on negative connotations, but really it is just the way a society, a collection of individuals, chooses to order themselves.  Obviously certain systems have shown that they can become corrupt, by individuals and corporations, but that does not mean that we should not have “a system” or “systems” per se.

To say that people should have the right to opt-out of the “system”, or indeed that we should all strive to opt-out of the system, is a view which is just as (if not more) individualistic than the prevailing attitude.  What we want to opt-out of is the current system; not social systems generally.  In fact I would say we (individually) don’t necessarily even want to opt-out of this current system; we want this system to die.  I take it that that was your point, it’s just the words “independence” and “opting out” make it sound like there will always be a system that we should strive to be independent of, when I don’t believe that is the case; we should strive to be part of a functional and not psychopathic system.

Moving on to a couple of your specific points, while a dog doesn’t worry about holding down a job, he does worry about his place and role in the pack (the system), otherwise he will indeed die.  You say that a dog isn’t bombarded with conditioning that says they’re going to die if they don't have a socially constructed thing called a job, but they do live within, and are conditioned by, a social construct (the pack) where if they don’t fulfil their role in that pack they will die or be rejected.  I get the purpose of the metaphor, but it denies the pack mentality of dogs and people, and the fact that both are social animals which are dependent on social systems, albeit quite different ones.

Further, you are right that the 40 hour working week isn’t written into our DNA, and that it doesn’t have anything to do with how we are supposed to live, as animals, as part of an ecosystem.  But work does.  Just to play devil’s advocate, if it weren’t for the time that technology affords us, that 40 hours of office work per week might well become 80 hours of physical/menial work.  So while we are pathetically dependent on that system, it is a system that does afford us time to step out of toil and drudgery and, if you seize upon that opportunity, to reflect on life, as we are now, to learn new things, to socialise, to read, meditate, exercise, create, whatever; the thing is though we spend a lot of that time consuming rubbish (media, TV, video games, cat videos -- all of which I am guilty of).  Also, it is a system in which only some people get to enjoy that extra time and breathing space.

As I see it, there are three crucial paths we (wrongly) went down which have led or significantly contributed to this mess: (1) wide-spread acceptance of the belief that individual ownership, rather than collective ownership, and individual profit, rather than collective benefit, is the only way for innovation to occur, (2) the belief that globalisation, rather than localisation, is a good thing, when it only funnels money and resources out of one economy/country and into the hands of one of the aforementioned individual owners, and creates unimaginable instability and vulnerability in local communities who have the weight of the world’s demands on their shoulders, and (3) the free reign that companies have enjoyed whereby they are empowered (almost mandated) to only care about profit and nothing else.

The trouble of course with designing a better “system” is that no one size fits all; each culture, country, and geography has its own needs, desires, constraints and so on.  It is also clear that each proposed system -- be it the green economy, regenerative capitalism, socialism, whatever -- has its downsides that people can point to and go “that won’t work because x, y and z”, but at least those others systems would have a better mandate/mission than just “make lots of money”.

The difficulty with creating a good, fair system which doesn’t cost the earth, is that it should allow for local development and implementation, while also guaranteeing fundamental rights to everyone around the world -- freedom from oppression, violence, torture, ecocide, etc.

That is the difficult part, but I would suggest that starting off by humanising corporations (requiring them to think about more than just profit), and localising them (seriously restricting their ability stomp around the world leaving a wake of human, animal and ecological destruction), and collectivising them (or at least ensuring their profits are more fairly distributed), would be a good start.

Indeed getting people to realise the ludicracy and injustice of this system, and to dream of a better system is a good start.  We can take the next steps from there.

We are currently gripped by paralysis by analysis.  The problem is so massive and multifaceted and none of our proposed solutions or mitigation measures are enough on their own, but we have to start somewhere; the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.  I understand totally what you are saying, but as I see it we will never bring about any positive change by standing at the starting line and telling everyone to simultaneously jump straight to the finish line; if anything I think that just cements people into their current position and makes social movement even harder.

[benmorleybrown]

First they came for the factory workers

As I have been doing these posts on inequality -- both as between impoverished and homeless people and ourselves, and as between the ultra-rich and ourselves -- I have often had this quote by Martin Niemöller in my mind:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me."

The relevance should be clear, but let me spell it out.

This encrazed drive for maximum efficiency, growth and profit that grips society* -- no matter the human or ecological cost -- is leading to more and more people being displaced in society.  I am thinking of blue-collar workers losing their jobs to automation; retail and checkout staff equally being “robosourced”, replaced by those infuriating self-service machines (who remembers prices going down when those were installed, ‘cos I don’t?).  All those advancements do is raise profit for owners rather than lower costs for consumers (formerly known as “people”).  I am also thinking ahead, to taxi drivers and truckies who will probably find themselves competing with driverless cars, and losing.  I am thinking of farmers in Florida and Australia who have lost their livelihoods from mega droughts, or people in Bangladesh who face imminent risk of being displaced from rising sea levels, of people in Brazil facing fresh water shortages; on and on the drive for maximum profit displaces people and ecosystems.

If you think that when your job gets taken over by a machine or an algorithm in the interests of optimum efficiency, growth and GDP (which, remember kids, is good for everyone*), when your livelihood dries up, or when your land gets washed away, if you think that someone will be there to help you out in that situation, you only need to look at how we currently treat the (relatively) newly unemployed factory workers, store clerks and checkout chicks, and how much help or thought we really give to those struggling farmers and Bangladeshis, to know that you are likely deluding yourself.

Of course, many of us believe that there is nothing we can do about all of these things, and we are right… to an extent.

While it might be too much to ask us all to boycott automated teller machines and self-checkouts, and renounce technology (which I am quite a fan of myself), it is not too much to demand that those who profit from such “advances” share that profit with those who are displaced.  It is not too much to ask that we all stop blindly and aggressively driving for more and more (more things, more growth, more profit, more GDP, more things) without stopping to question why we want more, and what exactly we want more of: I believe it should be more education, equality, compassion and connection; these would bring us more happiness and prosperity than the consumption of things ever can.

And, it is not too much to ask that we all, globally, declare that we have had enough.  Enough of being told that economic growth is good for everyone.  Enough of being distracted and sedated with mindless shit, sideshows, bollocks and scapegoats.  Enough of being told that it’s our problem and we should not consume as much because its unsustainable, while simultaneously being assaulted with endless deeply psychologically geared advertising telling us the opposite, hiding the unsustainability behind advertising fluff and euphemism (what the fuck is the difference between “cage free”, “barn raised” and “free range” - give me a goddamn picture of the chickens and I’ll decide based on that).

We are stuck in this vicious cycle where we must vigorously pursue national economic growth, because everyone else is doing the same, lest we get left behind (financially speaking).  Speaking from first hand experience (or, more accurately, from right testicle experience), I can tell you that growth for growth’s sake is the mindset of cancer.

Discrete individual and national action are not enough alone**; the only way out I can see comes from a concerted global change of consciousness and direction, driven by the people, demanding a new system which is as obsessed with collectivism and sustainability*** as the current system is with individualism and wealth.  To do this, we should learn from the phenomenal successes of multinational corporations, and exploit our global networks (but for good), let our ideas spread across borders and cultures, and not put up with anyone standing in our way.

As I have made clear in earlier posts, I do not accept the argument that an equal society -- where wealthy people and companies contribute more to society than just new shit and the minimum number of jobs paying the minimal amount possible -- would disincentivise people from investing and innovating.  Bollocks.  We wouldn’t all just sit around on our arse if the wealth gap was closed****.  Depending on how “right” your arguee is, they may even assert that wealthy people would be punished, god forbid.  I can tell you now, no one gets punished because of a more equal society, and no one is disincentivised; quite the contrary.

But instead, we have national leaders around the world, pulling their pants down (pants being an extremely clever metaphor for taxes and regulations), for multinational investors to inspect just how bare that arse is, and just how vulnerable that leader is, most often choosing to invest with (I will refrain from carrying on the metaphor here, but it starts with “f” and rhymes with “phuck”) the leader with the lowest pants.  With the TPP and TIPP in play, those “leaders” may as well strip off and strap in, ‘cause they ain’t gonna have any control once that ride starts… (that’s a rant for another day).

But hey, it’s good for the economy.

* Read this short LinkedIn post by Mark Weinberger, CEO and Global Chairman of Ernst & Young, and supposed “INfluencer” (goo.gl/jAQtPf) to get an insight into how deep this delusion runs -- but on a more positive note look at the comments from people from a wide range of professions who are anti his short-sighted, conservative sentiment. You will see that of all the people who have read his post, only 0.65% liked it.

** Obviously individual actions (like recycling, consuming less, consuming more ethically, vegetarianism - I’m getting there) is important, but it is nowhere near enough alone, and in fact doing that alone can make you feel even more powerless and alone.  I highly recommend this article from Films for Action (goo.gl/UBLvsY). National action can also have an impact to the extent that our politicians push for international change and don’t lay down to wealthy corporates and individuals.

*** When I say sustainability, I’m not talking only about environmental sustainability, although I think that should be paramount as nothing else can be sustainable unless that is.  I am also talking about social and economic stability.  This is a good wee LinkedIn post on this (goo.gl/R64DHC). My comment on that post was about when Florida not only banned use of the words "climate change" and "global warming", but also "sustainability". Banning use of the first two phrases is obviously stupid and short-sighted, but banning use of "sustainable" is beyond comprehension. If the “sustainability” of Rick Scott’s (the governor of Florida’s) job and income were at risk, he would be shouting it from the rooftops? In fact, paradoxically, it was probably his own personal concern over the sustainability of his job and income that led him to ban that very term.

**** I am not advocating for absolute equality; I am advocating for substantially more equality.

[benmorleybrown]

Response

Thanks for the response Matt Harris, really appreciate the input!

I should start off by saying that I would advocate for a capital gains tax (CGT) that exempts the family home.

My response to the arguments you’ve raised against CGT (which may well not be your own opinions on the matter) would be that the benefits to society are not solely comprised of the actual dollar amount of CGT that comes in the door.  There are other benefits that should be considered on the “pros” side of the ledger, not least of which is the overall societal and economic benefit of reducing wealth inequality (which is a well-researched and reported on topic, eg see this brief OECD report, http://goo.gl/584IN8).

I would challenge the assumption that large accounting firms are the real winners.  Sure, they may benefit substantially, but that is not a good enough reason not to introduce CGT.  That type of argument sounds like those experiments in Game Theory where people do not want to take a course of action which is beneficial to them because it is of greater benefit to someone else (“I don’t want $2 if that guy’s going to get $8… but I’ll take $4 if he gets $6”).

To me, having CGT has the effect (although this is obviously not how the money flows) of liquidating a portion of locked up assets, and allowing that (to some extent) to trickle down through the economy.

For instance, let’s assume that following best practice is not currently enough to cause high net worth individuals (HNWI) to keep accurate records of their capital assets.  That work (and the inevitable additional tricksy work involved in staving off the taxman) would be a new type of work introduced to the economy.  To match the demands for such new work, accounting firms would have to hire new staff and generally increase their capacity.  Although perhaps not the most worthy candidates for (some of) this redistributed wealth, the partners of PwC will have their increased earnings/drawings taxed.  When totting up the monetary benefit of introducing CGT, that income tax (of the partners and the new staff) should be added to the CGT collected.  Tweak income and enterprise taxes at the same time and you compound the benefit.

There could also arguably be an indirect tax benefit (twice removed) in the form of goods and services tax when these partners’ bloated wallets are “taxed” by their wives (sorry horribly sexist): chuck a nominal amount of additional GST into the mix with CGT and PAYE.

There is also the element of job creation in the public sector, with the IRD having to increase its capacity.

Even if the result of all this is a cost of $99 to raise $100, that is still worth it.  It creates jobs (in a more real way than the HNWI would), and helps to redistribute wealth downwards.  Even if it runs at a loss, I would still support it: pretty much every government policy that is not connected with tax or state-owned enterprise – eg health, education, policing, military (yeah right) – is operated at a loss for justifiable reasons (ie, for the indirect benefits/positive externalities it brings about).  Why should considerations of CGT be any different in light of the indirect but very real benefits?

What about the benefits of potentially curbing rampant overseas investment – I’m thinking of course of the overheated (*understatement*) Auckland property market and ads like this one (http://goo.gl/ZBzoPC) which is advertising to Chinese people along the lines of “How would you like people in New Zealand to give you around half their weekly wages? There’s no stamp duty, no land tax, and … generally no capital gains tax either. It’s an investors dream, and very affordable”.  While CGT wouldn’t eliminate this problem, it is likely to reduce the attraction.

On the matter of excluding the family home, I don’t see the relevance of the fact that the main investment for 75% of New Zealanders is the family home.  We are looking at way of wrenching wealth down from the 1% to the 99%, or to be less extreme, from the 25% to the 75%.  I would be curious to know the basis of the arguments that CGT should apply equally to all investment types?  It seems to be ingrained in New Zealand’s mentality about tax that it has to be a blanket, case in point being GST.  Why can’t GST be lower for fruits and vegetables, milk, health care, whatever, and higher for other less desirable or more luxurious goods and services?  Why can’t we have a more nuanced approach?

Without CGT, if you are lucky enough to be able to win, inherent, earn and/or save enough money so that you can put it to work for you (through buying and selling asset), rather than working for your money, not only do you escape the clutches of the 9-to-5, you also pay significantly less tax.  In a system that supports that, wealth inequality is the inevitable result.

People might argue that everyone should be able to earn and save to get to the point of being able to have their money work for them, but I don’t accept that.  With student loans, low starting salaries, and insane rental and property prices, it is almost impossible to get on the ladder.  I’m not saying you can’t; I’m saying the majority of people can’t.

Another argument against CGT or other taxes on the rich could be that the person who puts their money to work takes a risk and deserves a reward, and to tax that reward is to punish them.  If taxing his gain is punishment, then taxing a low income worker’s wage is torture.

Looking at the other end of the spectrum, on the point about a potential tax free threshold for the poor (up to $15,000) being balanced out by some sort of pre-distribution calculation under the Working for Families Package, how is the administration of that system the most cost effective or simple way of dealing with taxing (or not taxing) the poor?  The costs of collecting CGT are too high to justify the cost, but having a money-go-round to produce a net-zero result for poor people is fine?!

I’m not having a go at the arguments you stated Matt, and I really appreciate you putting them forward (possibly as the devil’s advocate)!  It’s really good to discuss and debate these things.

Tom, I agree with you that the flight of capital is hands-down the biggest risk, and the fundamental reason why hard-core tax policies won’t work.  This is a hard issue to resolve, and would seemingly require international cooperation to work, short of some sort of fundamental rethinking of our ideas of money and capital.

To get the ball rolling, how about discussing an International Treaty on Tax Evasion: A Global Net?  Trade embargos for countries that refuse to cooperate?  Criminal sanctions for perpetrators and facilitators?  National greed and corruption would quickly corrode such a system I imagine, but I am just suggesting it to get thinking.  Think of what has been achieved (from the point of view of demonstrating international cooperation between major financial centres, rather than a results point of view I imagine) with anti-money laundering and countering financing of terrorism.

I also fully acknowledge, as you have probably gathered from conversations since your post Tom, that income caps and income tax are no panacea, although they would obviously help reduce income inequality (which in turn would lessen the acceleration of wealth inequality); the true societal benefits will come from a dramatic reduction in wealth inequality.

For me, a key weapon in the fight for wealth inequality is refusing to glorify and revere selfish greedy people.  Who would want to be stinking rich if everyone around you thinks you’re a tool?  Of course this may be utopian, but you can live and hope.  Wealth for no good reason (or worse, for a bad reason) shouldn’t be impressive; but somehow, for some primal reason, it seems to be.  Wealth shouldn’t be so readily equated with success, or happiness. 

Of course, not all ultra-rich people are Dr Evil or Mr Burns.  Some of the ultra-rich give generously and fight for good causes.  I suspect some others may get so blinded by their own glow, patting themselves on the back about how many jobs they’ve created and inventions they’ve commercialised, to step back and consider their impact on wider society or the environment.  And, I suspect many just don’t care.

Over to you guys.

[benmorleybrown]

50 (unperceived) shades of poverty: A distorted view from the top

Imagine being in a 100 storey building looking down on a load of 1 storey houses and 10 storey apartments. All those buildings down there would look pretty much the same to you - it would basically look like a sea of rooftops. Now imagine being in one of those 1 storey houses, looking up at the 10 storey apartments, and the 100 storey skyscraper.  You would be acutely aware of how much higher up those people in the 10 storey apartment are, and you probably wouldn't give too much thought to the wankers up there in the skyscraper. The point of this? It illustrates how we, the rich, living on $100 a day (give or take), view poverty - we see everyone 'down there' as equally poor.  The extreme poverty line (where you often cannot afford food or shoes) is around $1 a day, and 1 billion people live below it!  That's a tonne of people (1 million tonnes of people to be more precise).  If those people can get up to even just $10 a day (or less), life is dramatically better - they could afford clothing, shelter, maybe a bike to get around, access education, and so on. Just thought I'd share, because it gives you a good perspective on poverty.

Here's a really good video where I got this from - if you don't want to watch the whole thing, this point is made at around 36:00 into the video (or if you're really in a rush, go to 39:30) - https://youtu.be/Wd7K4cgrjng.

As an addendum, there are 1 billion people living on $100 dollars a day, which makes them the top 15%.  The top 1% are in obscenely tall buildings, to the point where I don't think they can even see the rooftops... As for the top 85 people, they are on another planet; or at least they act like they are...

[benmorleybrown]

Give me this day, enough bread for 1 billion people

This is a post on the appalling wealth inequality in the world, but I should start off by explaining the title.

I am not religious, but I am spiritual, and when you don’t take the Bible or the Koran or whatever religious material literally, there are some great things you can take from them.

The line from the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day, our daily bread”, could be taken to mean that all we need, day by day, is enough bread for that day; we do not need enough bread for the next 5 days, 40 weeks or 2 years.  It also says, give “us” our daily bread; not give “me” my daily bread. The bread is supposed to be shared, not appropriated by one person, hoarded and then eked out by the crumb.*

On to the main point of this post - wealth inequality and greed.

The fact that the wealthiest people in society have become even wealthier from the recession that they caused is just crazy... and sick.

"[T]he wealthiest 1,000 individuals and families now have a combined fortune of just over £547bn – or £547m each on average" (http://goo.gl/rf7Qug and http://goo.gl/jnMvNe).  (That's NZ$1 trillion in total - or NZ$1 billion each!!)

The average US CEO's salary is 330x that of their workers and 770x that of minimum wage workers (Forbes 2014 - http://goo.gl/F6ZWQF). Trickle down economic theory is flawed and broken, and I cannot support any argument in favour of a system that allows a hand full of individuals to hold this quantity of money or make these eye-watering salaries. It cannot be justified.

Think lowering these incentives would discourage innovation and entrepreneurship? Shouldn't earning twice the dosh of Average Joe cut it? Obviously not under the current system, because Average Joe gets shafted; but under a system where that mountain of wealth at the top is distributed more fairly, earning twice the salary of someone earning a respectable and dignified wage should be enough of a carrot. (Imagine how much better off you'd be if you doubled your dough.) Even earning four times the amount of Average Joe should be enough to spur leaders and innovative people into action. But 300-700 times more?!

Or, what about expecting people to be innovative and entrepreneurial for some reason other than money? Or is that out of the question. Aren't true entrepreneurs those who are passionate about their ideas and products first, then the money comes if that turns out to be what the people dig.

Think that by lowering salaries, top firms will lose top talent to other firms? Not the case if there was a market-wide cap on CEO salaries, or if they were all getting taxed at the same high rate. If money is the only motivator for you to be at the top of your game, maybe you shouldn't be allowed at the top of that game - after all, how much do you really want to be there?

Also, I still haven't got my head around why New Zealand shouldn’t have a capital gains tax, other than the totally personal reason of "well, I don't want my gains to be taxed"? I would love it if someone could give me a (non-personal/selfish) reason - even if you don't necessarily support the reason, please tell me so I can ponder it and tell you why that reason is flawed.

That money could be put to such better use than what these people use it for -- I'm not thinking Robin Hood 'take from the rich and give to the poor' through handouts for doing nothing.  I'm thinking of spending it on worthwhile public projects -- things like renewable energy, education, the arts (which are hugely important for society but sadly undervalued and getting cut all the time), beautifying/fixing desperately neglected neighbourhoods (the broken windows theory), health, on and on there are areas of severely corroding public services and infrastructure.

People say that renewable energy and sustainable products cannot compete because they require subsidies... so why the hell do oil companies and unsustainable fisheries get tax breaks and other forms of effective subsidies? Why can't they be taxed like everyone else and left to run in the free market which they advocate so strongly for, and then we could subsidise renewables? Or, like I suggested in the “Repackaging packaging” post (http://goo.gl/r1w4Oz), tax plastic; tax fast food and subsidise locally grown healthy produce (which is more nutritional, better for the environment, and better for local business); and actually tax the rich (like the proper rich).

Although not entirely on point, but still about redistribution, Russell Brand says this in his book Revolution:

"The crime of occupying an Apple Store and redistributing its contents is nothing, nothing, compared to the larceny that took place to get those goods on the shelves. That torching a Nike Town is no crime at all compared to the incessant immolation of the rights of the workers that made the goods within, the burning of the codes that means those that profit from the store do not give back to the society in which they flourish."

Why are we expected to be impressed rather than outraged by these peoples' grotesquely disproportionate wealth and income?

* Credit has to go to Russell Brand, Revolution, for spelling this one out to me.

[benmorleybrown]

Shame and Fortune

Rant time again.

This time the topic is immigration, poverty and compassion - not directed at you lot, obviously, but at broader society.

Had this quite confronting article pop up on my newsfeed - "Devastating Photographs Reveal Terrible Human Cost of Europe's Continuing Imperialism" on Films for Action (link here - http://goo.gl/KZax3x).

There’s a lot of attention here in the UK at the moment on immigrants, with far right parties like Ukip surging in popularity.  If you want a hint on what Ukip’s immigration policy is, here’s a hint: say it in an Australian accent (“you-kiiip”).   Their logo is a pound (£) sign, but it may as well be a closed door or a big red halt-hand... or a boot.  They could even incorporate the U-turn symbol into their name, to align with their message of “turn around, we don’t want you”.

Thing is, I don’t really care what your views on immigration are -- whether you think they should be let in, or you think the doors should be shut -- you simply cannot look at pictures like these, and read about these people’s stories, without feeling compassion for them, rather than just fear and hatred.

Remember, they didn’t choose to be born into the countries they were born into; their purpose isn’t to come and make our lives' worse, it’s to try make their own better.  They were randomly born into a life where the prospect of giving their life-savings to a human trafficker, risking their life on a perilous boat trip, with a slim chance of being accepted upon arrival, not to mention then attempting to establish some sort of life thereafter (something most of us find difficult without the pre-show); all of that, is better than life in the place they were unfortunate enough to be born into.  (I recommend this TED talk to give an insight into just some of the challenges people living in extreme poverty face, "The hidden reason for poverty the world needs to address" - http://goo.gl/fjj1F6, but there are a whole raft of other excellent TED talks, Vice documentaries on YouTube, etc, on this.)

Perhaps compassion isn’t enough.  Perhaps we should also feel shame.  The state of these countries – which, incidentally, we exploit for minerals and materials, so it’s not all on them -- should be seen as a great failing of the ‘civilised’ world.  It makes me feel ashamed, and at the same time extremely fortunate.

Looking at the pictures, I couldn’t help but think that these kinds of epic journeys are the stuff movies are made of!  Take the picture of the guy on his knees, having just arrived in the Canary Islands in Spain.  Imagine sitting through 90 minutes of film, following this guy’s miserable life in Ghana (say), taking us through how, against all odds, he saved up for his shot a freedom, chuck in some death-defying boat scenes, some mean-spirited, intolerant and probably heavy-handed Italian coast guards, with no time for boat-people shenanigans, and finally, in the 100th minute of the movie, he lands on the beach. That scene, the scene of him on his knees, exhausted, looking at the sand in his hands, that would have us in tears. "Good on him!  He made it!  Happily ever after [yeah right]... Credits"

But, consumed by fear that these people are going to ruin our country and our lives, we don’t see this human side -- we see the chocka boat full of anonymous dark faces, all coming to overrun our country and take our jobs.  That is a legitimate fear.  Their country is fucked up; they’re just going to come in and have kids here and do what they do over there and fuck this one up; no thank you, our country is running just fine.  To me, that is a totally legitimate fear.

But if we weigh up the options, and decide to follow the Australian model and turn the boats around, then we should at the very least do so with the utmost compassion and respect.  There may well be good defensible (albeit ultimately selfish) reasons for not allowing these people in our countries, just like there may be good reasons for not employing an ex-criminal from a hard-up neighbourhood with no relevant skills, or for not giving a homeless man your loose change, but there’s no need to be a racist, entitled dickhead about it.

We can (and must) make these tough decisions with compassion, and recognise that they are still people, desperate people, driven by needs and desires that ought to be familiar (or at least recognisable) to us.  Usually they will have very little choice or control over the direction of their lives.  How frustrating.  How depressing.  How hopeless.  In the case of immigrants, that could be enough to make them strap their adorable baby to their back (did you see that picture?!) and risk it all for a chance at a better more dignified life.  In the case of homeless people, that could be enough to make them turn to drink, or drugs, or violence.  That, in turn, could further marginalise them from society.  Indeed, this seems to be a major reason why people don’t give money to homeless people – “they’ll just blow it on alcohol or drugs”.  If that is your decision, fine, but have some sympathy for them, for why they’re addicted – look behind the symptoms and look at the disease that this human is suffering from.

I’ve given two ‘lucky’ homeless people £10 since I’ve been here, one after having a conversation with him about where he was from, and how he looked after his dog, etc, and the other after looking him in the eye and asking him what he was going to do with it.  Neither asked me for anything, and neither were up to the "usual tricks".  The second guy looked me in the eye (I feel you can usually get a sense of a person from looking into their eyes), and said “Honest m’an, I’m clean. I’m go’nna stay in a nice B n B to’nite. Bless ya m’an”.  I saw more honesty and truth in his eyes than I had in the grey soulless eyes of some of the wealthy hedonistic ex-pats in Ko Samui (they’re called “ex-pats” not “immigrants” because they’re white and western).  Anyway, homeless guy numero dos may have rushed off and spent his tenner on alcohol, but let’s be honest, that’s what I was going to do with it.  I don’t care what he spent it on; it felt good; and he had a choice.

I suppose what smacks me in the face, being over here in London, is this sense of entitlement from a lot of people in the rich and middle classes, and the lack of empathy for those less fortunate.  It’s animalistic.  Maybe we should just accept that we are animals, ruled by survival of the fittest*.  Or maybe we should strive for more.  If we’re not going to properly strive for more, why not just give up the whole charade of striving for equality, and at least be honest with people - "Unlucky mate, better luck next time; here, have a tenner, but don't blow it on substances that will make this life bearable for a moment".

For my part, I am acutely aware that I am where I am due to 95% sheer luck and good circumstance, 10% hard work and determination, and 2% mathematics ability.**  I have been lucky that I live in a country where you can study having blown high school; lucky that education is not inhibitively expensive; lucky that I have a family who could (and did) support me throughout university; lucky that our public health system is so good, and free; lucky that my home and university weren’t destroyed in the earthquake; and so on.  Of course some unlucky things have happened, but not enough to tip the scale.  And undoubtedly I have worked hard, but those fortuitous circumstances above have enabled that work to take root.  Luck was the prerequisite, without which my work would have amounted to naught.  And I will never lose sight of that when dealing with those less fortunate.

The philosopher, John Rawls, talks of the notion that a just society is one in which, if you knew everything about it, you would be willing to enter it in a random place.  The idea of entering the world in a random place terrifies me – we all would have a 1 in 7 chance of living in extreme poverty, and I personally would have less than a 1.3% chance of being better off***.  Fuck that.

* If you’ve ever studied Darwin’s theory of evolution, and survival of the fittest, you will know that your “fitness” is not due to anything you’ve done; it's due to random genetics – there's nothing you can do to make yourself fitter for the fight, and to the extent you do, that too is probably just due to genetics (but now we are getting into free-will and determinism).  In the human context, we may as well call it survival of the fortunate, or survival of the heirs.

** If you want, look at this post I did earlier for my views on the place of luck and how we kid ourselves into thinking we played a predominant role in creating ‘our lot’ (“Feed the poor guy, then teach him to fish” - http://goo.gl/vUUDSl).

*** Check out how fortunate you are here - https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/get-involved/how-rich-am-i.  Also, if your interested, this TED talk is good - "How equal do we want the world to be - you'd be surprised" (http://goo.gl/vgY5j9).

[benmorleybrown]

Repackaging packaging

Here's a thought, for when I'm in charge of things.

Wouldn't it be great if it was mandatory for goods that are sourced from unsustainable materials or means (or by inhumane means) - or at least from a controlled list of particularly troublesome materials/means (eg, palm oil, caged chickens) - to have a big ugly prominent label on them, like those on cigarette packets, that say "This product is not sustainable", "Animals have been harmed in the making of this product"* (like in movie credits, but the sad version) or "This product has been brought to you by some form of rapacious human activity" (this one would probably require a definition of "rapacious" to be of any effect - hint replace "acious" with "e").

Then we could have a little picture of a stripped forest or the deep sea trawling net (full of fish and coral and dolphins) that was required to bring this product into your life.

This could connect the dots between that documentary that shocked you two years ago when you watched it, but is now a blissfully repressed memory, and the offending article (sitting on the shelf like male peacock on heat) willing you to purchase it.

Better yet, why not make the packaging predominantly white (excluding the confronting image, of course) - like what is happening with the plain packaging of cigarettes. (Homebrand may not have to change much.)

There could even be a two year lead-in period, where the affected corporations can consider their options (or work on both in parallel) and gear up for the change - Team A, responsible for the exciting new packaging ("Have we got that picture of the rabbits we tested the make-up on?"); and Team B, responsible for desperately ensuring Team A's designs never get their day in sun.

Can't afford to repackage your goods? Well, I imagine bland plain white get up wouldn't be that expensive to design and implement; you could save millions on fancy marketing campaigns and colour printing costs! Or, you could avoid having to repackage by going clean. If going clean is more expensive than changing your packaging, then that could just be seen as the price of running a dirty operation - another economic decision, like the one that lead to this quandary in the first place.

Then Mr Average (but Conscious) Consumer mightn't have to stand there like a chump at the supermarket, or wherever, diligently going through all the fine print on every product he's are thinking of buying, like a top notch contract lawyer on a late-night due diligence session - does this have palm oil, were the pigs (who, incidentally, are more self-aware and intelligent than dogs) crammed into a little cage the size of the pig, were any puppy tears necessary for manufacture.**

You could see, from a cursory look at the shelves, what products to buy - they'd be the ones with the nice looking packaging (simple, that's what we like).

The chump mightn't be the Denny Crane/Harvey Specter-wannabe, taking 2 hours to fill his three shopping bags (made from bamboo of course), but the dude who rocks away with a plastic sack full of white packaged goods with pictures of the Apocolypse on them.

Just a thought.

Also, why don't plastic bags cost £1 each (0.001p plus 0.999p tax)? I've paid more than that for much less useful shit. Can't afford that? I would have £40 worth of plastic gold stuffed in a drawer that I'd be happy to donate (now that they are worth money it's a donation rather than recycling) to some poor soul.

Also, why do I have to battle through three layers of plastic packaging to get to my mushrooms? When staying at the Ibis in Italy recently, we had plastic cups that came wrapped in plastic which we had to throw in a plastic bag rubbish bin after use - what the fuck?!

* I was thinking of allowing an exception to this for products that are obviously meat (being the lawyer I am, this exception would have exceptions, eg, for chicken nuggets and Sizzlers, as they are not obviously meat, or in the case of Sizzlers just simply not meat). However, we have labels on coffee cups that say "Contents hot", so fuck it, why not have a label on a steak that says an animal was harmed in the making.

** This one sounds like a joke or hyperbole, but think of cosmetics testing on rabbits - that literally entails little rabbit tears. A friend of mine has a gorgeous Beagle who was saved from animal testing - hence, puppy tears.

[benmorleybrown]

Feed the poor guy, then teach him to fish

Just read this interesting article (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141117020751-36792-do-not-teach-a-starving-man-to-fish). Here are some extracts:

“When a person is starving, that’s not the time to fill their head with knowledge. The right thing to do is to first give the person a fish - banishing their hunger - and only then teach them to fish.

Few of us understand the anxiety, confusion, and uncertainty that comes with overwhelming need.

It makes far more sense to help them regain their equilibrium. Once this happens - once their ears, heart and mind open - then you have an opportunity to teach a new skill.”

In the metaphor, hunger (lack of food) could equally be replaced with poverty (lack of money), ignorance (lack of education), unemployment (lack of skills/education) or a whole manner of other things that a person may be lacking, which they could arguably obtain for themselves if they had the right skills.

Of course we should still strive to give people the skills to enable them to look after themselves, but this article points out that sometimes (I imagine quite often) a person needs to be pulled out of desperate, all-consuming need before they can stand a realistic prospect of learning, retaining and implementing new skills.

This may involve “hand-outs” to the people being pulled out of such desperate need (the beneficiary-come-student), and they may be accused of not wanting to help themselves, or of being a freeloader, and so on, but I think that is overly simplistic, and not the least bit empathetic to their circumstances.

Imagine walking up to a homeless man, with a bag full of fish you’d caught as a result of your fishing skills, sitting down next to him, kindly teaching him how you’d caught these fish, and walking away without giving him any of those fish - thinking “he’ll be right, he now knows how to fish, and if he doesn’t catch any fish after my sage words, it must be because he doesn’t want to fish or he’s too lazy to try”.

Maybe he’s too hungry to have the energy to try; maybe he doesn’t have the right equipment; maybe he doesn’t know the right fishing spots, or if he does, maybe he doesn’t have the resources to get to those spots; maybe he gets to the spots, and there is so much competition at the fishing hole that, despite his excellent fishing skills, he cannot get a look in.

Now imagine walking up to a person without a job, or who is living on a subsistence wage (enough for food, shelter and clothing), yourself with an account full of cash you’d earned from your good job as a result of your education, sitting down next to them, kindly teaching them how you’d got this job and made this money, and walking away without giving them any of that money - thinking “they’ll be right, they now know how to get a good job, and if they don’t get a good job after my sage words, it must be because they don’t want to or they’re too lazy to try”.

Maybe their minds are too maxed-out with stress about where the next pay-check or meal is going to come from, or when the next unexpected bill is going to arrive, to fully utilise your advice; maybe the reason they don’t immediately jump at the idea of working harder or smarter is because their only experience of work is making widgets for pittance, or selling the latest iWidgets to the oft rude/demanding general public, neither of which would bring any degree of job satisfaction. I imagine such a person simply cannot fathom the possibility of work being satisfying or fulfilling. Who, in that situation, would relish the idea of springing into work, if that was your only experience of work?

I am not suggesting literally going around and giving your money to unemployed people or those on subsistence wage, or indeed giving fish to homeless people. I am suggesting being open-minded to a system that does. And we are not talking about giving desperate people tonnes of money - certainly not enough for them to enjoy the quality of life you enjoy without further effort on their part; we are talking about providing enough of a starter motor to enable them to “regain their equilibrium” so they stand a realistic chance of changing their lives (perhaps even reaching your quality of life) on their own steam.

(PS. I also watched an interesting TED talk called “Does money make you mean?” (http://goo.gl/xkIxGV). Spoiler alert: it does (although it obviously doesn’t make you a rampant psychopath). The experiment that stuck with me from this talk is a game in which two players play a clearly rigged game of Monopoly. Without fail, the player who wins believes that the reason they won wasn’t that they were lucky enough to be on the right side of a rigged board (ie, sheer luck and the ability not to throw it all away); they believe they won due to good decision-making, buying the right properties and building the right houses at the right time, and so on. It just highlights that we can (and often do) kid ourselves into believing that our position in life is 100% (or even 50%) due to our good decisions and determination, when it is often (to follow the fishing metaphor and to bastardise a quote from the Castle) 10% brains, 95% luck and the rest is just good decisions and determination.)