Global Ecomonomics
 

Figure*1 : Environmental economics: To the rich man the spoils : Nature

thought it would hot link the image but...

. . the Parfessor is 2 smurt 2 cut & paste so do yer own research..?

amazing incompetent arrogance ...



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1067a-f1.2.jpg
well that was easy.

But at least the Parfessor talks down to everyone. . .regularly.

I'm sure that the head of the IMF will make things clear to us...eventually

Why clear things up when there is hand wringing to be had?

Money aside, I expect that material wealth and health 'wealth' are much better now (across the board) than in the bad old days, .

Exactly!

thanks, Troll

Nature? Why would you be reading nature for a basic Economics 101 type of article? That's like citing an article on hominid mating rituals in the Economist! There are countless better sources for economic studies.

The particular article that you cite is so awash in socialogical mumbo-jumbo -- things like... Hah! Climate Change! This sounds like a PARF thread!

So the entire premise of the paper is built on the unvalidated (or potentially more accurately described disproven) concept of man-made climate change. In reading over the article it would appear that economic concepts discussed are as shoddy the climate science.

From the article

Several caveats are needed to put these striking results into context. First, any study is only as good as the available data. Globally robust data sets on environmental externalities are incomplete, and therefore the results are indicative, not absolute. Some significant environmental changes have been omitted: the destruction of coral reefs, the dispersal of persistent pollutants and the costs of biodiversity loss. The authors are up-front about these limitations. But they justly suggest that the omissions indicate that their estimates of ecological debts are conservative.

Furthermore, the study does not look at the benefits of increased trade to material wealth and human health. But it is unlikely that this would change the balance of the results: the available, albeit partial, evidence indicates that, despite some gains by poorer countries through the liberalization of trade and finance, the number of people living in poverty has increased or stayed the same during the past 25 years, and the gains of economic globalization have been heavily skewed towards wealthy nations2 (Fig. 1). One of the most detailed studies on global inequality concludes9 that income divergence between rich and poor nations has "at best ... decelerated after 1950, but [has] not reversed". Large areas of Central and South America, and almost all of sub-Saharan Africa, have been left behind.

Srinivasan and colleagues' work1 should raise the scientific profile of issues vital to human well-being, including research into ecosystem services and the effects of large-scale ecosystem conversion, and how such changes both create and alleviate poverty. We must better understand the complex interactions between our economic, social and ecological systems, and the biological diversity that supports them. Scientists and society as a whole need to ask of our current economic paradigms in an era of globalization: why do they produce such inequities; who pays the costs; and are they ecologically and socially sustainable?

Income divergence has been a fact within the US for the past 25 years too. Real income for middle income Americans has been stagnant, while income for the wealthiest has continued to increase. Twenty five years ago the top 10% owned less than 35% of the country's wealth, now the top 10% owns 50% of the wealth.

Reference please. What data do you have to support that claim that the top 10% owns 50% of the wealth?

it's not marketing, John-boy

let's drop the tone, save it for PARF.

you should go back up and read his post

Many moons ago I was offered a job doing in-country economic and political analysis for a large corporation. I really, really enjoy doing that type of analysis but decided to go fly for the Navy. In the years since I based a lot of my investment portfolio on social, economic and political analysis of specific industries in specific countries. The three are absolutely intertwined. I find parts of the what Shaun posted from the link very interesting, but mostly incomplete.

one cost of biodiversity loss is not being able to develop new medicines in the future

another includes things like flooding, desertification, inability to get products (e.g. coffee) out of agro-ecosystems

all are very hard to quantify

the big thing I see in the article, missed by all posting, is that 3rd world poverty areas are doing better than before (on an absolute basis - tho at 0.10 of developed areas, where they were are 0.25)

That's the lowest figure I've read about. Some studies show the actual figure is closer to 85%.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

Interesting, considering that this report is coming from a sociologist rather than from an economist. Specifically from William Domhoff, who has made his living for the last 50 years writing books advocating class warfare. Admittedly the data which Domhoff cites comes from Edward Wolff, who is an economist, but he's got a similar axe to grind. Wolff is also one of the "anointed ones" who contribute to George Soro's Project Syndicate -- which calls into question the objectiveness of the whole project.

The other key reference is Arthur Kennickell from the Federal Reserve, who seems to have made a career out of tracking wealth distribution.

But so what? -- I don't care how many people you line up with $0 of savings or income, they are not going to control the economy -- and why should they? Or rather, if "the early bird gets the worm" -- why should it be taken away from him?

These sorts of stories also never take into account the transitional nature of wealth. The assumption is that it can somehow be handed down from generation to generation. Taking a look at the super-rich of the past, and you'll discover that in only a couple of generations the wealth has often been divided across many descendants, and squandered by many. So how many of today's "wealthy" came from the wealthy of the 1950's or the first decade of the 20th century??? How many have become wealthy in the last 40 years? If it's a different cadre of people every generation, than the premise of the whole piece (the concentration of wealth) is hosed because there is a revolving door to the wealthy class -- as there should be. The report also cites the "richest families" -- how is that defined? In all of my searching on the web, I couldn't find any description of how the raw data was collected. The fact that the data is not publicly available calls it into question.

The other piece to consider is the mathematics of the situation. Specifically -- The Pareto principle -- which was named after Vilfredo Pareto and built on observations of his such as that 80% of the land in Italy was owned by 20% of the population. The reality is that this distribution is true of just about anything, and is routinely used in the business and Quality Assurance realms for focusing on "the vital few" as opposed to the "trivial man". The only time that there won't be something similar to a Pareto distribution is when there is a perfectly even distribution, or a very low correlation to a given input variable -- say effort or intelligence. To put this into economic terms, the only way to not have wealth concentrated is through communism (which history has demonstrated means that nobody has much of anything), or else to make the benefits of hard work, thrift and craft to be negligible, in which case most people won't put in the effort to excel because it's not worth the meager benefits. Both of these concepts are anathema to the free enterprise concepts which the United States was founded on, and would be the death of any economy since there would be no growth.

Yet another thread that will spiral into PARF in 3... 2... 1....

But just to play along, some folks seem to want to claim climate change, and specifically man-made climate change is a hoax -- in every thread touching on politics, economics; whatever.

Just for the record:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1305689838.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=734

With an eye on the on going stability of our current system, and ongoing wellbeing of our country. It is useful to have a look at history.
That of the French revolution, or that of Russia. Both were cases of extreme lack of distribution of wealth. And the common man rising to over throw the system that lead to the mass poverty most lived in vs the lavish wealth enjoyed by a few.

Todays titans of industry and finance are in the position of controlling the wages and prospects of the common man. And controlling the laws of the land with their monetary stranglehold over our political process.
I'm not saying that there is no opportunity for those that want to work hard and think creatively. And to apply both in their lives.

But increasingly the common blue collar working man and woman feel that the cards are stacked against them. And that they are loosing ground
History shows that this may not be a sustainable situation.
Sometimes the willingness to share a little can gain all a lot.

Cheers Richard

The CEO of the Corp. that I work for makes $Millions, he also has raised the bottom line of the company by $Billions. I may have saved the company my salary and then some, but certainly not millions or billions. Some people here think if someone gets rich it must be because others got poorer. Bill Gates made billions by CREATING wealth, not taking it away from someone else. He created tens of thousands of jobs, I don't begrudge him a penny. He also made a lot of small investors better off in their 401Ks, ditto for Steve Jobs.

Sounds like many of you are takers, not makers.

More research and reporting will be done; the last paragraph challenges the scientific community to do the work and I think the call-to-action will be heard. This little vignette in Nature is nothing more than a fluff piece, designed (optimistically) to get more people aware of the research needed, and that research (flawed that it is) is even being done.

and it is fascinating work given the rate of globalization. In the last 5 years, I've seen garment manufacturing run from India to go to China to now run to Vietnam in search of cheaper and cheaper labor, with significant impacts on social, economic and political issues in the leave-behind countries and the latest sweethearts.

There is opportunity out here - my companies and I are proof. But the cards are stacked against us on every level.
I don't even want them to share, I just want them to play by the same rules I have to play by. There are pages and pages of reports of big companies getting grants and tax breaks that aren't available to us little guys. USA Today had a big story of the tax iniquity just in my state. Proctor and Gamble got a $250000 grant - partially paid for with MY tax money - to repave their parking lot. When the big guys don't pay their share, the little guys have to take up the slack. It makes a mockery of the old American dream that you can get ahead by working hard and playing by the rules when the rules don't apply to the wealthy.

If he had raised the bottom line by firing you you might think differently. You have a job now, but if the axe came at your neck and some guy got a bonus for firing you, would you still think he was a genius?

The executive's job is not to create wealth, it is to increase the bottom line, as you said. If CEOs busied themselves growing their business and creating wealth instead of focusing on the bottom line they wouldn't need to cut staff and throw people out of work, they would be growing the company and increasing employment.

You want a real eye-opener? Look into the Northern Mariana islands -- before and after the boom of the 80s-90s.

IHS Child Slave Labor News :: Stop Sweatshops in Mariana Islands

Opening up the US to more Chinese imports recently has diminished the abuses in the Northern Marianas. But they literally imported labor from mainland China to make goods that could be labeled "Made in USA."

I expect my boss to do what is best for the company, not necessarily for me. If the situation doesn't suit me, I'll leave. I've done it in the past. There's always something else. On the other hand, I've also had to let people go. It was not pleasant, but it needed to be done. In one case it was a pretty obvious case of a square peg in a round hole, or as they say in Skip Barber -- "Other Careers Beckon". In the other case we just had too many people and not enough work, someone had to go and I had to make the unfortunate decision. Not pleasant, but if work was always fun they wouldn't have to pay people to do it. Then as I mentioned, in one job it was becoming clear that they didn't value my contribution any longer, so I quit and found another (better) job. I'm sure that my boss of the time was doing what he thought was right. So now he doesn't have my contributions any more and I'm happily employed at another company. It's most likely best for both of us

The job market is no different then being a free-agent athlete. You've got the job as long as it makes sense for both parties, otherwise it's time to move on. Change is a good thing, it reinvigorates organizations and provides the opportunity for people to grow and develop. Change also happens to organizations. Nothing goes on forever. I don't care who the CEO is or was, if your company was making buggy whips, something will have to change in order for it to survive, or else it will need to be downsized until it is at a size that matches the market. That change may mean changing the staff if the existing staff's skills don't match the new requirements. It's not a bad thing, but rather just a fact of life.

The whole concept of people being entitled to jobs is akin to denying gravity. It just doesn't work, and will most likely cause more pain and suffering than if you just accept the reality and learn to deal with it.

Well said...and the environmental impacts.

The reason we cannot have an intelligent discussion here on interesting topics like economics, social and fiscal policy or even biology or environmental sciences is not because RWebb posts information about the growing (this is a fact BTW, which is not even debated among economists) gap between the rich and the poor, or because techweenie suggests that the VAST majority of climate experts believe humans are causing global warming. The reason we cannot have these discussions is because folks like Island911 blow the discussion to smithereens with personal attacks.

I don't discuss interesting topics with people who are afraid of those discussions to the degree they will revert to personal attacks in order to avoid them. If I get together with techweenie or RWebb, or anybody else who is brave enough to permit a civil exchange, then I will very much enjoy the experience. I think these kinds of topics are very important and very interesting. But again, some folks are apparently very frightened by them.

Backatcha, Supe. Personal attacks (on sobriety, sanity, intellect) are the last resort of the debater who has run out of logic-based ammo. Happy to share a beer with you, anytime.

I've got a question. Again, I am reluctant to offer it here because there are folks desperately hoping to BLOW UP these exchanges, but here is my question:

I imagine that a trade war would create some fallout. Some damage we would rather avoid. But......since the US is, hands down, the most robust consumer market on the planet, wouldn't the US benefit from a trade war? I mean......what if we applied huge tariffs to imported items in order to create those manufacturing jobs here? Apparel, for example. Apparel manufacturing is largely mechanized anyway, right? I am a big fan of "Made in the USA" purchase decisions. What if we bought products from each other, here in the USA? Economically, we would stop the flow of our economic blood to other countries. We would create jobs, etc. What would China do to punish us for closing our markets this way?

I'll avoid the technical economics speak -- You can buy "made in America" products any time that you want. To force the rest of us to do so does a few things....

1) It limits our choices
2) By definition you are increasing our costs, which mean as a business I'll need to pass these increased costs downstream, and if I'm a consumer will mean that I have less money available to buy other things, or to pay-off debt, or in the worst case will force me to assume more debt in order to buy the things that I need.
3) Any tariffs collected will mean more money for the government to waste.
4) It will pi$$ me off

But as I said, you're welcome to make your purchase decisions based on any criteria that you'd like. Just don't inflict them on me.

Agreed. It needs to be voluntary.

But it's voluntary now, and virtually everyone knows the consequences.

As a marketer, I can tell you that selling a product with "Made in USA" on it is no more than a tie breaker. If it costs 2% more than its Chinese-made equivalent, consumers will save 2%.

the economists I talk to, and AFAIK, all say that isolationism & protectionism is bad - if we all bought Made in USA only, others would still buy elsewhere

eventually, the chasing of cheaper labor that Shaun noted will end -- as other countries develop their labor rates will rise - how long that takes I dunno

also, there will be increasing automation of high labor product manf. & design - we are not nearly done with that process

I don't know what will happen to people with a low educational level -- it seems like they will get hit hard. And, not everybody wants to or is fit to get more and more education -- of those that can or will do it, many are still not able to tolerate the sort of technical education leading to a good job (e.g. the artistic types).

I accept the notion that there is a down side, even a potentially serious downside, to market manipulations. OTOH, some market manipulation is good, and some even necessary. Were it not for some existing market manipulations, the gap between the rich and poor would be wider and getting wider faster, for example. It seems a shame to me that we really ought not to engage in protectionism since doing so would indeed create jobs, increase the domestic money supply, increase domestic commercial revenues, yadda yadda. It is in my personal best interest to buy foreign, but it is in America's interest for me to buy domestic. If we each act in our personal best interest, America loses markets. If we were to apply the tariffs, our economy would benefit and so would our society. Lift the boats.

Plus, as I say, our consumer market is the envy of the world. The cash cow. If manufacturing in the US were necessary in order to access our consumer market, then guess what would happen.

Where did you get that idea? The gap between rich and poor is always far greater in non-capitalist, non-developed nations. The US has a HUGE middle-class, and very few dirt-poor. When you go to developing countries you'll find a tiny group of filthy rich, and huge numbers of dirt poor. It's the US's free economy that makes our middle-class possible. In many countries the governments maintain controls on the economy in order to ensure that their filthy rich cronies stay that way.

What do I mean by "dirt poor"???

I mean the vast slums of people living in dirt floored, tin-roof shacks, struggling to get by at a subsistence level. In my travels in the US, it's something I almost never see. I can't travel 5 miles in Indonesia without seeing people living like this.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1306014760.jpg

By the way, the above is a fairly nice example. That's a picture that I took in Indonesia where you can see an example of how the poor live huddled near an intersection. I'll be honest, I feel kind of embarrassed taking pictures of the how the poor live when I travel since it makes me feel like an "ugly American" gawking at them. But I've seen a lot worse than this on my most recent trip when I went through a section of the city that I hadn't seen, and there were blocks and blocks of shacks with tarps for roofs, no running water, dirt floors.

Indonesia isn't unique with these conditions, China has them, Brazil, India, Africa, and so on. When we allow jobs to go overseas, it provides opportunities for these people to get a productive job. Sure it's unskilled labor, but some of the people can become drivers, basic machine operators, laborers, work construction for the factories, become cleaning people in the hotels. All at rates that are a fraction of what American's will settle for. When that happens, the whole economy becomes stronger. This has happened in Malaysia (there are relatively few tin-roofed shacks left in Malaysia), Coastal China, Taiwan, Korea and other places. In those places the standard of living is now significantly closer to the US's, with people owning cars, houses, TV's, cell phones etc., and the US will get a share of the profits of making those things -- if we're willing to allow our companies freedom to operate.

Most American's don't have a clue what it means to be poor in terms that much of the rest of the world has to live with.

The US middle-class is shrinking fast, tho still larger than other 3rd world nations.

You count us among the 3rd world nations???

Whaa . . ???

It's like you are just trying to blow up this discussion with a personal attack.


:rolleyes:


Supe, Webster has been particularly smarmy lately. ...starting many new threads. And NOT because he wants discussion. He simply wants to (apparently) start new threads to TELL everyone how it is. (Such wisdom to impart, and yet he still can't manage a cut & paste to do so.)

Notice that Webb attracts all kinds of snide payback from many people on the board - not just me.

But thanks for singling out me with your tirade. ...it made it feel . . personal. :cool:

you aren't the only wanker on this bss, islet - now go wrap some xmas packages

getting closer & closer...

Of course his job is to do what's best for the company. If you think losing your job is done for the good of the company, think again. Too many companies have a compensation philosophy that says "whats best for the company is the bottom line." Execs lay people off, which increases profits, the directors and stock holders think that's great, they give the guy a big bonus, and then watch the company circle the drain. If corporate executives did what was best for the company instead of what was best for THEM they would not be making 400 times the pay that their workers get, they would be investing that money in product development, R&D, marketing - ie. the future of the company. (In 1992, CEOs were paid 82 times the average of blue-collar workers; in 2004, they were paid more than 400 times those salaries.) CEO Skill and Excessive Pay: A Breakdown in Corporate Governance?
Average pay for a corporate CEO is $14 million dollars. If you think ONE GUY pocketing $14 mil is better for the company than paying him, say, a measly $4 million and investing the other $10 mil in company growth (and job growth), you fit right in with the current philosophy. Me - I don't buy it. (no pun intended)

Things may change. With the new financial reform SEC companies have to reveal compensation of employees to shareholders, so we can decide whether we are getting fleeced or not.