- Since 2015, the richest 1% has owned more wealth than the rest of the planet.Book - Bourgeois Equality
- Eight men now own the same amount of wealth as the poorest half of the world.
- Over the next 20 years, 500 people will hand over $2.1 trillion to their heirs a sum larger than the GDP of India, a country of 1.3 billion people
The individualistic ethos of the era of financialisation has affected wealth transfer over time in other ways. The American economist Laurence Kotlikoff created the concept of ‘intergenerational accounting’ to describe the government’s transfer of wealth over time. 15 The journalist Tom Brokaw coined the phrase ‘the greatest generation’ to describe my parents and their contemporaries, who grew up during the Great Depression, fought in the Second World War and (in Europe) suffered privation in its aftermath. 16 Another author might term my generation of ‘baby boomers’, ‘the luckiest generation’ or perhaps just ‘the most selfish generation’. We have not only been successful— and perhaps this is to our credit— in enjoying a time without major armed conflict or deep economic depression; we have also been effective in transferring wealth from both past and future generations to ourselves.
We reduced the debt we owed to our predecessors by rapid inflation. We promised ourselves generous state and occupational pensions, and then argued that the burden of providing them for subsequent generations could not be afforded. We sold assets that had been accumulated in the past, and would yield prospective benefits in the future, for our own current benefit, privatising state industries and monetising the goodwill in Goldman Sachs and Halifax Building Society. We let house prices and share prices rise to new highs in real terms, forcing our children to buy the nation’s assets from us at prices much higher than those we had ourselves paid. To add insult to injury, we seem to have been inadequately mindful of the national infrastructure: enjoying shopping malls, to be sure, but building few houses and allowing the transport system to decay.
The John Kay of the 1980s, transported twenty-five years forward in time, would not be able to afford to buy the house I still live in, would have incurred substantial debt in higher education, would have to make greater provision for his own retirement and would look ahead to a tax burden inevitably rising to meet the costs of an increasingly adverse demography. When Jeff Skilling toasted the capitalisation of energy contracts in champagne, he was celebrating the twin benefits of the prudence of his predecessors and his own imprudence in relation to his successors. And I could join him in that toast. Lucky indeed to have lived through the era of financialisation. (Kindle Locations 4541-4560)
I will refer to the combination of institutions, rules, norms, and organizations of a country as its social model. Even among high-income countries social models differ considerably. America has particularly strong institutions and private organizations, but somewhat weaker public organizations than Europe, and Japan has much stronger norms of trust than either of them. But though they differ in detail, all high-income societies have social models that function remarkably well. Quite possibly, different combinations work well because the components adapt so as to fit each other: for example, institutions and norms may gradually evolve so as to be well suited given the state of narratives and organizations. But such adaptation is not automatic. On the contrary, hundreds of different societies existed for thousands of years before any of them happened upon a social model capable of supporting the ascent to prosperity. Even the Glorious Revolution was not undertaken with the objective of unleashing prosperity: it was triggered by a mixture of religious prejudice and political opportunism. The English social model that emerged in the eighteenth century was replicated and improved in America. This in turn influenced social revolution in France, which exported its new institutions by force of arms across western Europe. The key point I wish to convey is that the present prosperity enjoyed in the Western world, and which is belatedly spreading more widely, is not the outcome of some inevitable march of progress. For thousands of years until the twentieth century ordinary people were poor, everywhere. A high living standard was the privilege of extractive elites rather than the normal reward for productive work. Had it not been for a fortuitous combination of circumstances that relatively recently produced a social model conducive to growth, this dreary state of affairs would most likely have continued. In poor countries it continues still.
If the prosperity of the high-income world rests on this platform, it has crucial implications for migration. Migrants are essentially escaping from countries with dysfunctional social models. It may be well to reread that last sentence and ponder its implications. For example, it might make you a little more wary of the well-intentioned mantra of the need to have “respect for other cultures.” The cultures— or norms and narratives— of poor societies, along with their institutions and organizations, stand suspected of being the primary cause of their poverty. Of course, on criteria other than whether they are conducive to prosperity these cultures may be the equal of, or superior to, the social models of high-income societies. They may be preferable in terms of dignity, humanity, artistic creativity, humor, honor, and virtue. But migrants themselves are voting with their feet in favor of the high-income social model. Recognizing that poor societies are economically dysfunctional is not a license for condescension toward their people: people can as readily earn the right to respect while struggling against a hostile environment as while succeeding in a benign one. But it should put us on our guard against the lazier assertions of multiculturalism: if a decent living standard is something to be valued, then on this criterion not all cultures are equal. (pp. 33-35)
EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Education for sustainability is more than just a new curriculum. It is about how the content and process of education can be interwoven with real-life contexts to create opportunities for young people to take the lead in building sustainable communities and societies. Peter Senge (2014, p. 325)
Peter Senge (2014) recounts the story of 12-year-old Analise during a student presentation evening. There were 250 people gathered to hear about the students’ sustainability projects. Analise represented her group and briefly described the wind turbine project that she and her peers had created at their middle school. Installing the wind turbine had involved many of the steps that Zhao (2012) outlined in product-oriented learning, including a presentation to the principal and the town’s mayor, as well as garnering expertise from parents to explore engineering and investment options. The scope of the project itself is impressive. Even more impressive is her wisdom and courage to challenge the adult audience. Senge tells us that once her presentation was finished,
Analise set aside her notes and standing calmly, some 75 pounds of fierce determination said, “We children are often hearing that ‘you children are the future.’ We don’t agree with that. We don’t have that much time. We need to make changes now. We kids are ready, are you?” (Senge, 2014, p. 328)
Analise is absolutely right. We need to make changes now. Muddling along with small revisions to curricula here and there is drastically out of step with the pressing need for educators to demonstrate greater leadership in sustainability education. (p. 85)
"To split or decentralize power is necessarily to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize by decentralization the power exercised by man over man." (Kindle Locations 3980-3982).
"The economic elites, meanwhile, continue to embody a paradox: all the income gains that Keynes expected and more, but limited leisure.
The likely reason for that is that, in many careers, it’s hard to break through to the top echelons without putting in long hours. It is not easy to make it to the C-suite on a 20-hour week, no matter how talented one is. And because the income distribution is highly skewed, the stakes are high: working 70 hours a week like it’s 1830 all over again may put you on track for a six-figure bonus, while working 35 hours a week may put you on track for the scrapheap.
The consequences of all this can emerge in unexpected places. As a recent research paper by economists Lena Edlund, Cecilia Machado and Maria Micaela Sviatschi points out, urban centres in the US were undesirable places to live in the late 1970s and early 1980s. People paid a premium to live in the suburbs and commuted in to the city centres to work. The situation is now reversed. Why? The answer, suggest Edlund and her colleagues, is that affluent people don’t have time to commute any more. They’ll pay more for cramped city-centre apartments if by doing so they can save time."The above (long) quote is yet another piece of evidence in regards to the direction the world seems to be headed. That is a direction that rewards people at the very edge of their fields in ever smaller numbers, while the rest are automated, outsourced, or otherwise paid very minimal wages due to replaceability.
Data released before the Tokyo market opened showed that Japan’s economy slipped back into recession in the July-September quarter, contracting at a 0.8 percent annualised rate, compared with the median estimate for a 0.2 percent contraction.Last year I had fun mocking press reports of a 2014 “recession” in Japan, which I believe was the 4th in 6 years. And now another. However the more sophisticated press is finally beginning to catch on. Here’s the FT:
Bright and early on Monday morning, expect to hear some gloomy news — that Japan is in recession, for the fourth time in just five years. Doom will be mongered; foes will declare it a fresh blow to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “three arrows” of economic stimulus. And I will not believe a word of it.
That is not because the cries of recession will be false — even though the unemployment rate is low and falling, the corporate mood is one of cautious optimism and Japan is manifestly not entering a slump. Output is expected to fall by 0.1 per cent in the third quarter after a 0.3 per cent decline the quarter before — and, on the standard definition, two consecutive quarters of contraction equals a recession.
The trouble is this definition of a recession is anachronistic and misleading. It is an idea that no longer means what we think it does — that is, a significant decline in activity. Even worse, the way we use it causes harm, not just in Japan but also in an increasing number of advanced economies. The R-word needs a rethink.
Japan keeps entering “recessions” because its population is falling and so the economy has little potential to grow. The Bank of Japan puts trend growth at 0.5 per cent or less, compared with the US Federal Reserve’s estimate of 2 per cent for America.Actually those are both too high; trend growth is zero in Japan, and 1.2% in the US. But at least the press is starting to figure it out. That’s progress.
“What single activity would keep you fascinated and motivated for the rest of your life?”
Do you know what that would be?
It’s not simply sitting on beach, doing nothing. Not for the rest of your life, every day. And it’s not just something that pays well, because we’re assuming you could do anything. And it doesn’t have to be something you already do. There are no rules here at all.
Think about it.See more by clicking the link above.
"Apple has more than $205 billion in cash. What should they do with the money? Apple should buy a university and rebuild it from the ground up.
Apple is a for-profit corporation not a charity but there are plenty of ways to make money from a non-profit university. Aside from the tax breaks and other deductions, Apple University would be a proving ground for educational technologies that would be sold to every other university in the world. New textbooks built for the iPad and its successors would greatly increase the demand for iPads. Apple-designed courses built using online technologies, a.i. tutors, and virtual reality experimental worlds could become the leading form of education worldwide. Big data analytics from Apple University textbooks and courses would lead to new and better ways of teaching. As a new university, Apple could experiment with new ways of organizing degrees and departments and certifying knowledge. Campuses in Delhi, Seoul, Shanghai, Berlin, and Sao Paulo could provide opportunities for studying abroad. Apple’s reputation would attract top students, especially, for example, if it started with a design and business school. Top students would lead Apple University to be highly ranked. The more prestigious Apple University became the greater would be the demand for Apple University educational products.
Apple already has the beginning of this model with iTunes U and its own internal Apple University for training in business and design. By buying a university, Apple would commit to a learning process to develop these technologies in entirely new ways.
More than a century ago Stanford, Carnegie, and Rockefeller used their industrial-age fortunes to build some of our best universities. Isn’t it time for another great university built for the information age?"
So, with college application season almost upon us, where should aspiring college students and their parents look for advice?
In my view, not U.S. News and World Report’s annual college guide (out last week).
US New claims its rankings are neutral. Baloney.
We need another guide for ranking colleges – one that doesn’t look at the fatness of alumni wallets or the amount spent on each student, but does take account of economic diversity and dedication to public service.
Fortunately, there is one. It’s a relatively new one, provided by the Washington Monthly.
“The true test of a man's character is what he does when no one is watching.” -- John Wooden
I read an interesting article this week about a key factor in success, and successful people, is that their will to succeed surpassed that of their need for approval or affirmation by others.
I have no idea why, but the very first thing that popped in my head, was how often I have read from people that they need training partners, or even a training group. That this was or is a big factor in their success.
This always baffled me.
I've trained alone for the most part of 26 years. That means I was training a long time before the internet and social media, and all that shit. I never "needed" training partners. I've had a few, and did enjoy it at various times. But I never found that it made a difference in how hard I worked in the slightest. If anything, my 13 year old pushes me harder than anyone else ever has because she always wants to do more work, and doesn't need much rest time between sets. So dad has to work harder to impress his training partner, lest she think he's a lazy bum who is getting outworked by her.
I'm not saying lots of people haven't been successful because of training partners or even groups, I just find it baffling when someone sees that as a "need" to improve.
Can you imagine a guy trying to make a college or pro team as a walk on or free agent with the attitude of "I was going to run 100's today, but John can't come so, eh, I don't know."
That is not the attitude of someone who has a desire to achieve their own personal degree of excellence.
If there is one thing I've learned over the past few years, it's that your passion and desire to be great at something had better surpass what other people think about you, your efforts, your abilities, and your worth.
I hear guys talking about want to look a certain way, or lift a certain way, then watch them eat shit most of the time, and forget what hard work really looks like in the gym.
Truthfully, I forgot too. Months and months ago I realized my training had become a very comfortable place. Too much complacency. This has happened before. If you're aware enough, you'll know it when it happens to you too. Because you will do all the shit you like to do, the way you like to do it, and have a million excuses as to why you aren't doing the shit that is hard, that you hate.
When the sun sets each day remember, it's about self worth. Which is derived from how you feel about who you are.
And regardless of what someone else says or thinks about you, or your efforts, if you want to be "great" at something, you better do great work when no one else can see it, judge it, or pat you on the back for it.
