I'm now starting to think, that the only solution to the predicament we are in, is a highly focused campaign to place progressive taxes on the top 1%, with the highest levels being on the very top, the billionaires, to tax them out of existence.
1/🧵
Without removing the malignant influence of the oligarchs, and their ability to corrupt and manipulate our societies, with their stupendous wealth, we'll only ever get the oligarch agenda. Then afterwards, we'll be on a level playing field, without this manipulation.
2/
What I'm talking about is a new political direction, and temporary party, with the simple aim of neutralizing the undue influence of the very rich, by reducing their wealth, to more modest levels, to remove their malign influence.
3/
The rest of this policy, would until this change has been created, be middle of the road general policy of the rational kind. It should be as non-ideological as possible, to attract support from both sides of the political divide.
4/
There's lots of support, for decreasing the influence of the very rich and it'd provide funding for public services. After the influence of the very rich had been neutralized, we could get down, to how to fairly run our societies, without the influence of the very richest.
5/
By the top 1%, I mean the top 1% of voting age people, in each country, meaning this heavy progressive taxation, wouldn't apply to 99% of voters.
What we'd need to avoid, is anyone wanting to use this, to apply their personal agenda. This is why I suggest neutral policy.
6/
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I realize that many others have suggested this, which is why I am suggesting it, and it could work. However, it is the implementation, which will need to be worked out, for it to succeed.
I cannot see it working with conventional political parties. 1/
Most conventional mainstream political parties, seem to be vehemently opposed to wealth taxes, for reasons that are not all obvious, aside from neoliberal doctrine, which they all deny having, and they have too much affinity with the top 1%.
2/
It would seem, that it is something to do with an undeclared (probably neoliberal doctrine), that sees low taxes on the wealthiest, as necessary for economic growth. Or maybe they just are the most generous to our politicians.
3/
Let me explain the rationale of this statement, because I mean this absolutely.
It was always the case, that politicians, claiming they wanted to balance the pursuit of economic growth, with a responsible attitude to addressing the climate and ecological crisis, were lying.
1/🧵
Since politicians made these pledges at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, we have seen those obsessed with economic growth, make no attempt whatsoever, to reduce emissions, to stop the ongoing biodiversity decline. They make a few token gestures, that make no overall difference.
2/
Since world leaders pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, we have emitted more anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, than in the whole of human history prior to that.
As @Keir_Starmer and @RachelReevesMP are obsessed about economic growth, to the point of excluding all else, I thought I would give non-economist's view of why their arguments, are utterly bizarre and fallacious.
1/🧵
The arguments of Starmer and Reeves, tacitly assume that other politicians/parties, have neglected economic growth.
In the whole postwar period, every mainstream politician has been obsessed economic growth, to the exclusion of everything else. It's hardly a new idea.
2/
What are they actually claiming? That somehow, that they have some sort of special insight into producing economic growth?
What is the basis for such a claim?
Where is the evidence for their claim, that they have some special economic growth sauce the others didn't?
3/
The problem I see with the dynamic I've described here, is there appears to be no name for it. No concept to identify, what is a serious intellectual trick, an act of deceit, to manipulate the public. And no one can say what it is, even if they recognize it.
1/🧵
This crude trick, involves dishonestly, pretending you are not aware of the evidence for something, and just refusing to acknowledge it. It is simply, bare-faced lying. What makes it worse, is the pretence there is some sort of reason or logic to it.
2/
So, say with climate change denial, they will use the same crude climate change denial argument, even though it has repeatedly been debunked and contradicted thousands of times in the last 20 years.
3/
I want to create a thread about the most serious, problem in the thinking of our culture, which I haven't really seen anyone describe. It can best be described as a dynamic. I'm scrabbling for words to describe it. It facilitates climate crisis denial, genocide, and more.
1/🧵
What I'm talking about, is where denial of something by a powerful group or clique, can send our whole society off in an entirely dangerous direction, creating a whole new, malignant reality.
I call the start of this denial, a hinge or pivot, around which the denial starts.
2/
I will illustrate it with climate change, denial, but it is the same with many other serious problems.
What is taken for granted, is how in everyday dialogue, we rely on people, to just honestly accept self-evident facts.
3/
There are lots of references to "suggests February will be around two and half times more likely to be milder than average", "December was warmer than average", but not one mention of climate, at all. I did a word search.
2/
How in an article about the storms impacting the British Isles, not just this year, but in previous years, can the BBC's "Lead BBC weather presenter and meteorologist", @SimonOKing, not mention climate, let alone climate change, once? I'm not blaming him personally.
3/