Thread by @swardley

X : What do you think of the environmental protests in UK.
Me : I'm for political protests.
X : Will it help?
Me : In the 90s, when I was active and we could have made significant differences, many of today's bleeding hearts were opppsing in pursuit of careers and wealth ...

... the problem is not with the younger generation but those with their hands on the levers of economic wealth and power. I suspect many talk a good game but will be unwilling to sacrifice in any meaningful way.

X : What do you mean by meaningful?
Me : Well, I would argue for a 15% one off wealth tax to fund both social and environmental programs levied on all property, shareholding, pension and other assets both individual and corporate where the combined value exceeds £500k.

... the problem is, that many people I know want to see environmental issues resolved but in a way that doesn't impact their own personal wealth. They are not willing to sacrifice but instead are looking for some magical low impact solution i.e. do a bit of recycling etc.

Of course, £500k causes howls of protest but remember, our society has borrowed from the future by discounting it to pay for some of the lavishness of the past. In the interests of the common good, we need to pay it forward and for many, £500k is a fortune beyond their dreams.

X : £500k is not a fortune.
Me : You live a very blessed and somewhat delusional life if you believe that. For many in the UK, £10k is a life changing amount of money. You need to spend more time reaching out to the wider society.

X : £500k would impact teachers and doctors.
Me : Do you think climate change won't? Back in the 90s, we could have solved this cheaply. Now, we need to act with haste. 15% of net wealth would be a bargain compared to failure. There will be consequences - one way or another.

X : Do you really think protests are necessary?
Me : If we're talking about impact, these protests are mild. Remember, I used to work in the field in the 90s and most of my colleagues who continued switched from preventing climate change to surviving it ... long ago.

X : As it becomes important, the market will find a solution.
Me : Oh, don't. We're in this mess precisely because the market discounts the future. Don't tell me that a primary cause of the problem will magically find a solution with no evidence of this ...

... it's like inequality and slavery. Both driven and supported by the market. In the days of abolition, economists were arguing against as slavery was the quintessential example of a well functioning market. Positive change nearly always requires Gov action against the market.

It's like regulation in food or drugs. The market choice would be to have no standards and instead insurance against deaths caused by faulty products - it's the economically cheaper path. Fortunately Gov has a need for voters not to be dying from dodgy products, hence regulation.

Never underestimate the ability of the market to make a profit from shifting costs elsewhere i.e. the true cost of poor food being pushed onto healthcare. Ditto with climate change. Don't expect the market to solve it ... in fact ...

... if an industry polluted the atmosphere so badly the air was unbreathable then the market would view this as an opportunity for gas mask sales. There is no long term planning, vision or care for society embedded in the market. It's a means of exploitation. Nothing more.

X : Are you against capitalism?
Me : Quite the opposite. But I do understand the market is nothing more than a tool, not a reason to live or purpose in itself. The market should be managed as a tool for wider societal benefit and not allowed to run amok.

X : The market has brought huge numbers of people out of poverty.
Me : We have 14M in poverty in the UK. It's relative but most of the global reduction has been driven by China. A country that also realises the market is a tool for society and not society itself.

X : Are you a communist?
Me : This seems to be a standard retort to anyone questioning the dogma of the market. No, I'm not. I view the market as a useful tool but a tool that needs careful management through constraints and a realisation that it is not appropriate everywhere.

X : You either believe in the market or central planning. Which one?
Me : I believe in neither. Both are useful tools in the right context and furthermore the situation isn't binary unless you're a US economist struggling to understand why China is the world's largest VC.

X : China isn't the world's largest VC.
Me : Oh, China Gov is and it's one with a very strong social conscience though it might have very different views on what that involves. There are many great Chinese economists worth reading, a particular favourite of mine is Deng Xiaoping