guy who hates carbon taxes (because they raise prices and hurt the poor) but loves banning fossil fuel production
There's no solution to climate change without shifting consumption from fossil fuels.
The first step is simple: A strong and rising carbon tax and dividend, which shifts income from rich to poor, and a massive green public investment in energy, manufacturing, & construction
We *need* to consume fewer fossil fuels. That does *not* demand climate austerity or degrowth.
The investment required to restructure our economy toward zero-carbon is massive and can deliver even GREATER economic prosperity -- embrace green growth! postkeynesian.net/working-papers…
Neither carbon taxes or green investment alone can keep global warming below 2.5dC (left)
We must pursue (right) a mixture of fossil fuel consumption reductions (which reduce econ growth) and green public investments (which increase econ growth)
DEFINE model:
TLDR:
- We need to reduce fossil fuel consumption. A carbon tax achieves that.
- A carbon tax also hurts the poor and reduces economic growth.
- A carbon dividend helps the poor and boosts growth -- as do green public investment programs.
No contradiction -- we need all of them!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the early Islamic period, despite being extremely urbanized, Jews were disproportionately proletariat and petit bourgeoise. It another religious minority that dominated finance: Christians !
The best explanation for any overrepresentation of Jewish people in finance is simple: Cities!
Finance and trade live in cities. In Europe, few Christian but most Jewish people lived in cities. Excluded from other places + strong religious preferences for cities, as below:
Lefties: What moral argument do you think is most persuasive for your vision of socialism / anarchism / social democracy?
imo the big three are:
- Egalitarianism: unequal power/wealth, esp. very unequal or unearned, is unjust
- Utilitarianism: classless world makes average person better off
- Flourishing/freedom: decomodification of labor enables real human flourishing / positive freedom
this is where I want to start my theory blog series -- essentially asking what moral arguments for socialism are persuasive for different sets of people (not everyone values equality; not everyone values well-being of others; not everyone values positive freedom)
The myth of "homelessness by choice" is pernicious. Here are the two main reasons that we know it's false:
First, we can ask homeless ppl.
The two studies that've formally done so (afaik):
- Stark 1984 in Phoenix: 93% of 345 ppl wanted to get off the streets.
- Caulk 1983 in Portland: 78% of 125 ppl said the same.
That's ~89% who say their homelessness is not their choice.
Second, we can give homeless people the choice: They overwhelmingly choose housing.
After Finland adopted "Housing First" in 2008, long-term homelessness dropped from ~4,000 to ~500 by 2017. That's a 7/8 reduction in 9 years, and just ~5% of the size of the 11k unhoused in 1987.
reposting as an OP: Nitzan and Bichler 2009 present a foundational problems with the Marxian labor theory of value:
the metric of labor (socially necessary (SN) abstract (A) labor-time (LT), or SNALT) cannot be directly observed; we can only observe actual, concrete labor-time:
The first conversion of "actual" to "socially necessary" is more feasible.
If competition forces most capitalists to produce efficiently (use no more labor-time than socially necessary), then average actual LT may be close to socially necessary LT.
Shaikh, Cockshott argue this.
The second conversion of "concrete" to "abstract" is much less feasible.
Concrete labor, observable labor-- cutting a log, hammering a nail -- is heterogenous. It is done by different people, in different places, with different skills and education, in different ways, etc.