Seleziona la tua lingua

28/05/2021 13:13 19 commenti

1. Why doesn't an open market economy bring prosperity to all?
2. Post-communist countries have implemented all market reforms. Why, after 30 years, is their economy not at the level of, for example, Austria?
3. East Germany introduced all market reforms + got 2 trillion euros. Why doesn't it work?
4. Do economists have a formula for a prosperous economy that will applies in every country of the world?
5. Does the economy serve the people or the people serve the economy?
6. How to eliminate homelessness?
7. How to eliminate poverty?
8. How to eliminate unemployment?
9. How to prevent the depopulation of regions?
10. How to ensure prosperity in each region?
11. Should robotics and automation bring benefits to all?
12. Is GDP the best indicator?
13. Can we find an indicator to show the true level of welfare of citizens?
14. Why has competition - price cutting - stopped working?
15. Does lowering the cost of credit help the economy? Will a firm take a loan just because it is cheap?
16. Have stock markets become a Ponzi scheme?
17. Is it right to corrupt investors with tax breaks? How to bring manufacturing to poor areas?
18. Where are the trillions of euros from the ECB's quantitative easing (€10,000 per resident)?
19. Is the economy functioning properly when most of its entities are in debt?
20. Is it normal for people to repay a mortgage all their productive lives?
21. A consumer can buy goods from all over the world. Where he will get the money for his purchases?

Filtra i risultati per categoria: Un'economia più inclusiva e più equa

Sottoscritta da

Jakob Thomsen

Technology enabled economy of abundance without human exploitation

Jakob Thomsen

2 Sottoscrivi

Riferimento: cofe-PROP-2021-05-19108

Versione n. 1 (di 1) vedi le altre versioni

Controllo delle impronte digitali

Condividi link

18 commenti

Ordina per

Andrejs Ancis

29/05/2021 16:46

Contro

Then answers to Your questions boils down to two points point - 1) how strongly countries promote science, R&D; 2) how strongly countries adopt new technologies and industrial robots.

I suggest - you can compare the share of GDP for Research & Development for Germany (3%) and for Latvia (0.5%) and for China (2.2% and growing to 3% in next 3 years). Of course, the R&D investments results in the human capital, innovation, creation and adoption of new technologies, additional investments etc.

There are 2 issues here:
1) if governments are not willing to invest in R&D, education and technologies, then progress is slow. You can compare the growth rates China vs Eastern Europe. The story is telling. More R&D investments, more support for industrial policies and new technologies, the more growth. No miracles. It is not the market economy per se. It is - how we adopt the market economies, how we share the income.

Andrejs Ancis

29/05/2021 16:50

Contro

And second point - regarding intra-society variability:
2) much depends how accessible the education and skills building is. The largest share of income has gone the capital owners in the Easter Europe countries. What should we blame for this? Their citizens. Nothing else. It is citizens of those countries who decided to vote for right wing parties (maybe because of national, religious reasons, because of "Russia comes" reasoning) and they decided that capital income goes to the pockets of wealthy and not to the educational opportunities, R&D.

So, here are the results.

We should not blame market economy for this. We should blame voters, citizens for their choices, for what they did with their liberty.

But there are good news! We, the people, can correct this, take a different course, enable new social liberal policies.

That is why I suggested my idea:
Technology enabled economy of abundance without human exploitation

29/05/2021 17:33

This is a misunderstanding. The question is written to all, not to someone.

Conversazione

31/05/2021 00:08

A favore

I think, you are totally right to ask these questions. It's necessary. It's also right to address the problem to our economists & politicians. Because they are in charge.

Is there a simple answer? I guess no. Perhaps that's why we are here

I also suppose, you have some answers or background yourself. I have recently read several things about these problems. Some economists still believe the trickle down saga, the austerity story etc. But some say, we should reframe - at least partially - business (social business vs for profit). Some say, we should rethink growth. Others say that we have to talk about money. There are quite interesting ideas around. Some even have proven to be viable, scalable & sustainable. I guess, we should rethink & talk quite a lot. For example sustainability tax for all products from inside and outside the EU based on the sustainability goals of the United Nations. Social business hubs & microfinance banks, living wages, affordable plus energy housing.

Comment moderated on 31/05/2021 14:40

01/06/2021 16:01

Text deleted by admin. I repeat the text, but without a link to my website.

Thanks for support. Yes, I have some solutions. They are surprisingly simple. And completely different from the views of economists. That means, of course, misunderstanding. Even through FutureEU, I am looking for support for my ideas.

31/05/2021 00:28

A favore

How to eliminate homelessness?

My suggestion is a model close to social business concept. Build modular multi storey houses with what's required (real demand). The people have to show up & decide. For example single rooms with greater shared spaces or shared apartments, maybe a mixture. Use state of the art 21. century technology to make them sustainable, climate friendly, water & energy independent. Create jobs and business opportunities through a social business approach like in Bangladesh. Find an affordable price for rent. Let people pay back the original investment with their rent. Make thus the whole process sustainable. The project sustains itself & keeps building. The people in the buildings sustain themselves. The buildings sustain themselves.

Conversazione

31/05/2021 13:30

Question number 6 is probably the easiest answer. The solution is reasonably spend money. For example, the projects mentioned by Chiara Margaretha Przybilla.

31/05/2021 14:41

Thanks so much for feedback. That's exactly the point: spend money reasonably! If you combine some problems even from widely different fields, they might - within the right equation - transform into opportunities & resources.
Unfortunately, there still seem to be not so many people thinking like this.

Conversazione

23/07/2021 14:57

Economists can explain everything (after the event), but they cannot forecast anything. Economics in an opinion science. But if you have to ask their opinion, pick a single-handed economist. You get only one answer. No “On the other hand, …”

1) Open free market economy does not bring prosperity to all, because

all people were not created equal; they are genetically unique (except for identical twins), etc.
all people live a different life; they are born, they live and they die at different times and places.

In short, there are more variables, parameters and random events that determine prosperity.

24/07/2021 23:18

Of course. However, the community cannot accept such a model. Even the least capable person should have the right to an adequate standard of living. Simply put, it is the duty of economists to look for other models. That's where the first question goes.

Conversazione

24/07/2021 11:40

2) Post-communist countries have not been able to raise their standard of living to the same level as for example Austria, despite implementing market reforms for 30 years, because:

They started the “race” far behind Austria (their GDP per capital was much lower) after 50 years of communist rule.
Austria did not stop “running”, but continued to grow and raise its standard of living.

In short, it depends on the economic growth rate how long it takes catch up richer nations. The growth rate, on the other hand, depends on many factors (as you can see by comparing e.g. China and Russia or Estonia and Moldova).

24/07/2021 23:45

Of course, that is clear to everyone. Proportions are important. 30 years after the Second World War, the standard of living in Austria was at a different level than in rich countries. The standard of living of the post-communist countries is much lower 30 years after the fall of communism.

I repeat again - Post-communist countries have implemented all market reforms. Estonia's efforts, especially in technology, are really sympathetic. Unfortunately, this is not a good example of an economic miracle. How many Estonians emigrated? When will Estonia's standard of living reach the level of Finland?

The current model does not work. It is the duty of economists to look for models that will work. As well as scientists looking for new solutions. Or doctors who treat but are also looking for new treatments.

25/07/2021 09:55

If my memory serves me well, roughly 1/3 of Estonian population “emigrated” to Siberia after the war. They were replaced by Soviet citizens, whose descendants are still there (but struggle to learn the language). Those who could escaped the Soviet occupation to Finland, Sweden and USA, etc.

Estonians are now also the largest or second largest minority in Finland. Those who work and live there have already reached the same standard of living. They may even have a higher purchasing power if they spend money earned in Finland in Estonia where everything is cheaper. Tallinn is only two hours ferry trip away.

If Estonia keeps growing twice as fast as Finland, it is only a matter of time (15 years) before they catch up and pass by. Fortunes change.

In Finland it took about 100 years to rise from poverty to top 20 in the world. At the same time, Argentina and Uruguay etc. were sliding down in prosperity rankings.

25/07/2021 14:20

Yes, it's all true. I experienced communism, I don't want its return. The citizens of Estonia have experienced decades of oppression. I repeat, I am very sympathetic to their current efforts.

I had in mind emigration after 2000. And the current economic model forces them to do so. You write: Estonians are now also the largest or second largest minority in Finland. The right economic model should ensure the same standard of living in Estonia. So that they do not have to leave their country.

If Estonia keeps growing twice as fast as Finland, it is only a matter of time (15 years) before they catch up and pass by. 15 years + 30 years after communism is 45 years. GDP may be higher. But will wages also rise to the level of Finland?

Fortunes change. But the economy should not be the result of happiness.

25/07/2021 18:26

It is the same planet for everyone. The freedom of movement enables to you to find the place where you want to live and work. Or keep globetrotting if you want to move on.

Towns, cities and countries also compete for talent. All places were not created equal. Silicon Valley offers best prospects for IT engineers. Hollywood is a heaven for movie stars. Wall Street attracts investment bankers. Las Vegas is a paradise for gamblers.

Eurostat publishes statistics on regional GDP per capita (by NUTS for level 1 and 2 areas). Traditionally, Luxembourg has the highest GDP per capita at Level 1. Inner-London (Square Mile and Western London) used to have the highest GDP per capita at Level 2.

Some countries are just lucky: Qatar sits next to huge gas reserves. Equatorial Guinea has oil. But you can also copy and build on the model of successful towns and cities. Macau got rich on gambling. Monaco attracts rich people with low tax rates and nice weather. Etc.

26/07/2021 11:48

For some it is an opportunity, for most it a necessity. I'm still talking about the majority.