Global Ecomonomics

[RWebb]

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

thought it would hot link the image but...

[island911]

Originally Posted by RWebb

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 ...




well that was easy.

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

[pwd72s]

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

[island911]

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, .

[pwd72s]

Originally Posted by island911

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!

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by island911

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

amazing incompetent arrogance ...




well that was easy.

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

thanks, Troll

[jluetjen]

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...

"The buzz-word is 'ecosystem services': the favours such as food and fuel; protection from storms, disease and solar radiation; regulation of water and climate; creation of soils; and inspiration for art, literature, religion and culture that the natural world bestows on us." and "The current political focus on climate change has brought this pressure on our ecological support systems into sharper relief."

Hah! Climate Change! This sounds like a PARF thread!

Srinivasan et al.1 present for the first time a global-scale quantitative analysis of the distribution of major environmental costs across nations in three income groups: low (representing 32% of the world's population), middle (50%) and high (18%). The timescale of the study is 1961–2000, and it covers six categories of environmental change: climate change; stratospheric ozone depletion; agricultural intensification and expansion; deforestation; overfishing; and mangrove conversion. In the case of climate change, the authors calculate that nations in the low, middle and high income groups were responsible for 13%, 45% and 42% of greenhouse-gas emissions, respectively. The resulting climate damages were estimated to be distributed 29%, 45% and 25%.

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.

[Shaun @ Tru6]

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?

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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.

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.

[jluetjen]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

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?

[RWebb]

it's not marketing, John-boy

[Shaun @ Tru6]

Originally Posted by RWebb

it's not marketing, John-boy

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

[RWebb]

you should go back up and read his post

[Seahawk]

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.

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa

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.

If they are incomplete, they are not indicative of anything other than a potential trend. No valid results can come from incomplete data sets.

Some significant environmental changes have been omitted: the destruction of coral reefs, the dispersal of persistent pollutants and the costs of biodiversity loss.

The highlighted portion is the most interesting to me and I am looking for more data on the cost of biodiversity loss. I have no idea how a baseline value would be assigned to BD, how it is measured and more so how calculate what or who is responsible for the BD 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.

Not sure how the authors went from incomplete data sets, omission of data to a posit 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 they do in the final paragraph: "and how such changes both create and alleviate poverty."

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.

Again, now discussion on the underlying causes. This is where I thought they would make the leap to China, the sacrifice of the environment to creation of wealth, etc. Then compare it to the US where environmental regulations have arguably stifled growth.

I am also interested if they delve into the political aspects of poverty, the geographic limitation facing many countries, etc.

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?

Agreed with everything as written.

[RWebb]

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)

[wdfifteen]

Originally Posted by jluetjen

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

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

[jluetjen]

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.

[techweenie]

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

[tevake]

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

[Hugh R]

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.