Does the world have it's political priorities wrong?

Maybe it's all about the taxes. Trickle-down economics has failed, even on its own terms. Billionaires meet at Davos to discuss 'creative solutions' which amount to nothing. Philanthropy can't fill the hole that low taxes dig and a rising tide leaves most people underwater.

In my view, Davos has one thing and one thing alone correct: the need for international collaboration. The rich collaborate and share their ideas at these summits and capital is international. To compensate for this, governments also need heavy international collaboration which includes collaboration on tax. Unless the effort to close tax havens is international, then money will just move elsewhere. French economist Thomas Piketty has previously suggested an international wealth tax (on assets, not income) and I think that makes a lot of sense.

This is why nationalism (of the right-wing populist variety) can never ever provide for its citizens as it claims. While it asks some of the necessary questions about 'globalist' free-market capitalism, it can never make good on its rhetoric of defending the ordinary people against the interests of wealth and power. It couldn't even do that if its figureheads did actually have that as a genuine objective, which they don't. Instead of prioritising our own countries (including the elites of your country) against others, we should be concentrating on building international solidarity.

Building a wall to keep people out won't stop capital from jumping the border. The Brexit version of taking back control means Ayn Rand island and 19th-century levels of regulations and protections. For me, the answers are simple but they are obscured by so much noise.

[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ijiLqfXP0]

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

eli1601 · 70-79, M

You can't get much more than 50% of the people in each country to agree on political issues. How many will agree to int'l collaboration.

Are you thinking socially as well as fiscally?

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@eli1601 I'm very much a social progressive but economics matter more.

There is also a crossover point when we are talking about immigration. If that is a 'social' issue then its one which pits the interests of one middle class against the interests of another in terms of economics. My belief is that you can't do that if you want an international consensus on controlling capitalism.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 Economics will automatically bleed into social concerns. Will the new collaboration try to control the drilling of oil, the mining of coal, the building of nuclear power plants. Will the consensus try to get rid of the second amendment in the U.S. If so, that's a lot of jobs gone.

On a smaller scale I would foresee a vast black market, even bigger than what exists now, for things the int'l coalition thinks should be outlawed. Things we can't imagine right now.

Would there be a world court? A REAL world court. Not the one with no teeth that we have now.

Will China, North Korea, and Russia be part of this collaboration, or no.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@eli1601 I don't support a whole world court, that should be done on a national level or even more local. It's not about a one-world government and that would be a bad idea. The EU and Eurozone have meant less democracy because they are not accountable. I'm advocating for international collaboration and making institutions of power more democratic.

I also consider corporations institutions of power and ways of making them accountable. I think you can only do that with international laws and collaboration between governments cos otherwise they will just take their assets elsewhere.

whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 @eli1601 You will pardon me if I watch both of you with great interest here. The understanding that in the end Economics will provide both the direction and the limitations is refreshing.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 The biggest problem I see is that there are two levels of cooperation needed internationally. Public and private sectors in each country working with the public and private sectors in other countries.

You would still have elections everywhere (I assume) and so you will still have the tug of war between the public sector wanting to regulate and the private sector wanting to be left alone and gov't officials elected because they go one way or the other. And it wouldn't be a majority rules thing, either. If the U.K didn't like what 51% of the rest of the world did, would they go along. Not if the Brexit vote shows us anything.

I know this is all hypothetical, but cooperation among countries on fiscal matters really seems farfetched.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@eli1601 We are a long way from it politically but it needn't be as complicated as you suggest. Tax havens could be closed if every major government agreed. Also an international wealth tax could work but would have to be administered consistently.

I don't think you would need complex controls for how public and private work and should leave that up to each nation.

This message was deleted by its author.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 [quote]Tax havens could be closed [b]if every major government agreed[/b]. Also an international wealth tax could work but would have to be administered consistently. [/quote]

That's the problem. Back to the social aspects. Some countries need more taxes to pay for more social programs than other countries. So the social programs would need to be made compatible country to country or you would have some countries paying more for fewer services or services that those particular countries don't want.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@eli1601 You wouldn't. I'm not talking about it on that level.

One way around it is that you can tax countries more for where they do business based on the amount of trade rather than where they are 'based'. You could put political pressure on tax islands to stop their practice and you could do more to enforce existing laws. The problem is the lack of political will because rich people have political influence.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@eli1601 I need to sleep now but I'll probably reply tomorrow.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@Burnley123 Good night

room101 · 51-55, M

@eli1601 I'm not 100% sure about my thoughts on the suggestion, I need to mull it over a little more. However, I think that you are approaching the idea from a perspective that is not intended.

You seem to be talking about international legislation and regulations and, the enforcement of said legislation and regulations. I don't believe that that's what @Burnley123 has in mind. He's talking about simple co-operation between nations. For example, all nations agree that tax havens are counter productive so, they implement tax regulations which close the path to tax havens. They also make it difficult for those countries which offer tax havens to function.

Other examples would be common policies on waste management, pollution, climate change and so on and so forth.

Bottom line, if countries start to co-operate with each other on issues which affect the entire planet (and wealth is definitely one such issue), not only will we have a better chance of solving those issues, the business world will also follow.

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@room101 Yes and thank you.

room101 · 51-55, M

@Burnley123 It's past my bed-time too............and yet..........here I am 🤷‍♂️

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@room101 I understand what you are saying, but without some kind of enforcement mechanism cooperation may only last until the next election in any particular country.

Assuming you could ever get an agreement in the first place.

room101 · 51-55, M

@eli1601 That's a valid point, but not an entirely accurate one. We have many examples where nations have co-operated with each other, regardless of which political party or which political leader has been in power.

But, all it takes is for someone to come along who has no idea what he or she is doing or, has a personal agenda instead of a national duty or, is being controlled and manipulated by an outside force which has a whole different game plan on the go.............and everything goes tits up!

Isn't that what always screws co-operation? When some idiot decides to no longer co-operate?

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@room101 Or maybe the person who won't cooperate is the smart one and can see the looming disaster everyone else is missing.

room101 · 51-55, M

@eli1601 Yes, because co-operating on matters which actually have a positive impact on the world at large is always so disastrous.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@room101 Not always