Evryone Posts

Typically I am envious of anyone who has dual citizenship. It provides more options in life, and perhaps allegiance to multiple countries.

Extrapolate that for effect – the more people who have allegiance to multiple countries would surely create a more peaceful, less divisive planet.

When I was in my twenties, I has a two year working holiday in the UK, and when I didn’t want it to end, but sadly I had to return to Australia/NZ. It crossed my mind that someone from the UK was in the same boat, not wanting to leave. On a one-to-one basis it would make sense to allow both parties to stay, as they would be more productive and happier being somewhere they want to be. And eventually awarding each a dual citizenship would strengthen the ties between the two countries.

Obviously Australia and the UK have pretty strong ties anyway, so how about countries that could do with stronger ties, could they have a similar scheme?

Take for example Fiji and Australia. Some Fijians come here to work in horticulture (because of pay differentials between the two countries). While few Aussies would want to work in Fiji, they might want to retire there. So formalise it, one-for-one swaps.

Maybe even three-ways? I’m thinking of how to introduce refugees into the mix… this is a stretch but indicative of direction of thinking required:

Venezuelan refugees come to Australia. Australians go to Germany to live, and work for a particular company. That company gets funding from the German government to invest in a factory in Venezuela that employs locals.

Two lots of people get to live in their new country of choice, Australia gets to fulfil their refugee obligations and Germany helps monetarily. And all three countries get to bond with each other more than they do now.

Consider it a more earthy and tangible version of the twin cities phenomenon, which exists for similar reasons but is mostly ceremonial.

As a side note, Australia was just as big, and just as empty of people (relative to capacity) as the US when each were invaded by the British. One grew to be a superpower because it had substantially more of productive land and could support more people. One day – bold prediction here – Australia will manage to make its deserts fertile, and be capable of taking in all of the world’s refugees, where they can live a subsistence life in peace, and not in tent cities.

Comments closed

This is from David Graeber’s book, The Utopia of Rules:

As profits from banks and credit card companies derive more and more from “fees and penalties” levied on their customers – so much so that those living check to check can regularly expect to be charged eighty dollars for a five-dollar overdraft – financial firms have come to play by an entirely different set of rules.

I once attended a conference on the crisis in the banking system where I was able to have a brief, informal chat with an economist for one of the Bretton Woods institutions (probably best I not say which). I asked him why everyone was still waiting for even one bank official to be brought to trial for any act of fraud leading up to the crash of 2008.

Official: Well, you have to understand the approach taken by U.S. prosecutors to financial fraud is always to negotiate a settlement. They don’t want to have to go to trial. The upshot is always that the financial institution has to pay a fine, sometimes in the hundreds of millions, but they don’t actually admit to any criminal liability. Their lawyers simply say they are not going to contest the charge, but if they pay, they haven’t technically been found guilty of anything.

Me: So you’re saying if the government discovers that Goldman Sachs, for instance, or Bank of America, has committed fraud, they effectively just charge them a penalty fee.

Official: That’s right.

Me: So in that case . . . okay, I guess the real question is this: has there ever been a case where the amount the firm had to pay was more than the amount of money they made from the fraud itself?

Official: Oh no, not to my knowledge. Usually it’s substantially less.

Me: So what are we talking here, 50 percent?

Official: I’d say more like 20 to 30 percent on average. But it varies considerably case by case.

Me: Which means . . . correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that effectively mean the government is saying, “you can commit all the fraud you like, but if we catch you, you’re going to have to give us our cut”?

Official: Well, obviously I can’t put it that way myself as long as I have this job . . .

Comments closed

Not a headline usually associated with inequality…

Most government departments are more likely to deal with people suffering from inequality. Obviously in the areas of social welfare, but also in taxation – the IRS in America avoids auditing rich people because the complexities make it too expensive.

It is rare that slow processing times are a factor of time itself, for example taking a year to study the impact of a new development on local wildlife. Mostly processing times can be highly improved with more funding to that department.

In India (if my understanding is correct) being accused of a crime becomes punishment itself, because the accused is stuck in prison for sometimes years while they await trial. In western countries this is also unfair on anyone who is not found to be guilty, although flight risk and potential reoffending have to be considered.

I have twice married women from another country. Both genuine, both processes harder than expected. Currently in Australia the average wait for partner visas is 30 months.

This places strains on relationships and finances unnecessarily, and is easily remedied by increased government funding.

So I am adding processing times to the list of things that count as inequality – that need to be fixed.

Comments closed

While the advantages of coming from wealth – including inheritance – remain, true equality will be centuries away.

When you are born to wealthy parents, in general you will receive:

• better education
• safer neighbourhood
• less exposure to antisocial or criminal behaviour
• less need for antisocial or criminal behaviour
• more financial help from family
• more inheritance

So even if two children are treated totally equally by society, the wealth of their parents can still have a massive effect on their life outcomes.

Yes, the children of wealth can have poor life outcomes, and poor people can achieve greatness. But in general this is not the case.

If we look at the percentage of millionaire families (in the US) by race, we see the following (source: Axios):

• In 2016, 15% of white families were millionaires, up from 7% in 1992
• In the same period, black millionaire families rose from 1% to 2%

Both doubled, but because of the enormous exiting gap, that gap widened.

Out choices are to wait for centuries to pass, or to change the ability for wealth to provide advantage:

• end the ability to store wealth in non-productive (for society) ways
• end inheritances beyond agreed levels
• end better education for those who can afford it
• create communities that mix levels of wealth

And maybe, possibly, end the ability to loan money or gift substantial amounts to family members. We wouldn’t have Donald Trump as US President without the funding he received from his father. We could have someone who was truly “self-made” instead.

Comments closed

Many good travellers consider any harm they may cause and attempt to counter that with something good. They buy carbon offsets for their flights, and pay to do volunteer work. Ideally they eat and shop in places not frequented by other travellers, and tip well.

Most travellers are sheeple who mostly care about selfies and ticking boxes.

Some destinations are becoming too dependent on tourists, which is not good for their culture, tends to provide mostly minimum wage jobs, and doesn’t work well during a pandemic. As examples, Venetians can no longer afford to live in Venice, and the Maldives gets 32% of its GDP from tourism.

In an ideal, equal, future world, the average person will have much more leisure time and travel will become even more commonplace. We will see, as with Venice, that increased tourism could lead to major downsides.

Here are some ideas:

More places with quotas. This is not new – 30 years ago I turned up at the Grand Canyon wanting to hike to the bottom, and learned I needed to book at least one year in advance – by mail. This is not unusual for nature tourism, but can easily be applied elsewhere. Even countries could have limits on tourist visas.

State levies. Bhutan keeps their visitor numbers low by making it a relatively expensive place to visit for that part of the world – a minimum of $250/day (peak season) for 3-star accommodation, which includes a “$65 per day Sustainable Development Fee that goes towards free education, free healthcare and poverty alleviation.” This can also be achieved via visa fees or airport costs.

State levy x UBI. Imagine if every tourist visa had a UBI cost component – the charge is divided up amongst every person in the country. This allows us to feel good about tourists, or we could decide that it isn’t worth it, and vote for less tourists or a higher levy.

Special Tourist Zones. For decades there have been towns on the Portuguese and Spanish coasts that solely cater to British tourists, who read the Sun, eat fish and chips, drink British beer and watch their regular soap operas in their rooms. And they have a nice holiday, without any need for it to be authentic. By making a few locations compelling to package holiday types, we can keep the rest of the country sane and separated. Maybe Las Vegas already does this to an extent, on desert land that mostly nobody would want otherwise.

Cruise Ships. Personally, I cannot think of anything worse, than these massively polluting cauldrons of disease that orchestrate fun on a journey where not much proper travelling takes place, and the boat might as well be parked somewhere. Maybe we can just park cruise ships, and fill them with people.

What I cannot see happen is people choosing to travel less, or most people treating travel as something that should have ethics. Smart countries will choose to have fewer tourists, for their own dignity, or at least hide them in a corner.

Comments closed