Climate change is one of the instances, Stiglitz and Stern told me in an email, in which “it is generally agreed there is extreme risk — we know there are some really extreme events that could occur — and we know we cannot pretend (i.e., act as if) we know the probabilities. Nordhaus’s work doesn’t appropriately take into account either extreme risk or deep uncertainty.”
In other words, the economist who has been embraced as a guiding light by the global institution tasked with shepherding humanity through the climate crisis, who has been awarded a Nobel for climate costing, who is widely feted as the doyen of his field, doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Veille - économie
Vous êtes ici
If you follow American politics, you may think of a “pro-business” platform as something that consists of the things that business interests often lobby for: lower taxes, less regulation period, less oversight, less protection for labor, less responsibility of all sorts to anyone other than their own shareholders. Yet all these things that they seek (for the purpose of increasing short term profits) are things that they assume will exist within the context of the basic principles outlined above. Businesses want lower taxes, but they still want well-maintained roads. They want weaker labor protections, but they still want a healthy and well educated workforce. They want less regulation, but they still want transparent laws and functional enforcement. Their short term greed, unwise and distasteful as it may be, is only something they fight for because they assume that the big, fundamental pillars of society and government that allow them to operate freely will always be in place.
We have arrived at an obscene inequality crisis, in which wealth is concentrated in the hands of a powerful few, at the cost of crippling hardship, precarity, and compromised well-being for the many. When a single billionaire can accumulate more money in 10 seconds than their employees make in one year, while workers struggle to meet the basic cost of rent and medicine, then yes, every billionaire really is a policy failure. Here’s why.
Des batteries collées aux logiciels bloqués, vous payez plus que jamais pour des gadgets qui ne durent pas. Voici pourquoi et ce que l'on peut faire pour y remédier.
In 2007, Jeff Bezos, then a multibillionaire and now the world’s richest man, did not pay a penny in federal income taxes. He achieved the feat again in 2011. In 2018, Tesla founder Elon Musk, the second-richest person in the world, also paid no federal income taxes.
Michael Bloomberg managed to do the same in recent years. Billionaire investor Carl Icahn did it twice. George Soros paid no federal income tax three years in a row.
Notre société "obsédée" par la croissance économique subit une crise de la santé mentale dans le monde, qui touche particulièrement les plus défavorisés, a déploré jeudi le rapporteur spécial de l'ONU sur les droits de l'Homme et l'extrême pauvreté.
Companies may unintentionally hurt their sales by including the words “artificial intelligence” when describing their offerings that use the technology, according to a study led by Washington State University researchers.
“One thing that occurs to me is the behavior of the tobacco companies denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer for the sake of profits, but this is an order of magnitude greater moral offence, in my opinion, because what is at stake is the fate of the planet, humanity, and the future of civilisation, not to be melodramatic.”
Au final, que retenir de cet éditorial ? L'image d'une Europe condamnée aux « ajustements », refusant toute solidarité interne et en même temps toute différence, montant les peuples les uns contre les autres, établissant une démocratie sur la base de critères économiques. L'Europe dont rêve Arnaud Leparmentier n'est en fait qu'un immense gâchis.
In a world where profit is consistently put before both people and the planet, climate economics has everything to do with ethics and morality. Because if we agree that endangering life on earth is a moral crisis, then it is incumbent on us to act like it.
La sous-enchère salariale fait l’unanimité contre elle. Personne ne défend les conditions de travail abusives en vigueur sur certains chantiers, qui ne respectent pas les règles et les usages locaux.
Mais serions-nous plus tolérants si nous pouvions commander, via une application smartphone, des ouvriers étrangers demandant des salaires de misère sans cotisations sociales?
La problématique économique et sociale liée à Uber brillamment expliquée.
Les secteurs de l’hôtellerie et des taxis étant universellement détestés, le débat public s’est rapidement résumé à l’image d’audacieux précurseurs bousculant des rentiers poussifs et dépourvus d’imagination. Une présentation aussi biaisée masque un fait essentiel : ces courageux champions de l’« économie du partage » évoluent dans un univers mental caractéristique du XIXe siècle. Dans leur système, le travailleur, radicalement individualisé, ne bénéficie que d’une protection sociale symbolique ; il assume les risques qui pesaient auparavant sur les employeurs ; ses possibilités de négociation collective se réduisent à néant.
Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”