#rich

drnoam@diasp.org

#banks have been locking ordinary people out of accounts for years

Despite all the recent front-page attention given to Nigel #Farage and today’s development – the resignation of NatWest chief executive Alison Rose – there is something else you should know: banks have been quietly closing accounts without giving their customers any reasonable explanation for decades. Setting aside Farage’s politics and personality, and Coutts’s fragile disposition when it comes to people #rich enough but arguably not wholesome enough to utilise their elite banking facilities, it should concern us when banks close our accounts with little or no warning. Ordinary people don’t get the prime minister hollering for justice, and we certainly don’t get apologies from CEOs.

We’re talking about basic bank accounts here: no overdraft facilities, no credit options, just money in and money out and, if you’re lucky, a debit card you can use online. Without even a basic account, life becomes very difficult. Take a recent case of mine: my client’s universal credit had been paid into an account that was then closed without warning. She couldn’t access her own money, and despite a call to the bank to try to resolve matters, she was told nothing could be done. This was money that she needed for food, gas and electricity – the basics of survival. We rang the bank together, threatened to complain, and eventually, she was advised that if she could get to a branch (also not easy) with her photo ID, then she would be given her cash. This was successful.

#capitalism

anonymiss@despora.de

What is it worth to us to preserve the #world as we know it for the next #generation?

I think every halfway intelligent person knows that our prosperity is based on exploiting large regions of this world. If everyone wanted to live like the average North American, the resources of this planet would not be sufficient.

Now it doesn't matter how you feel about #climate change, but this way of life promotes wars and #exploitation. There is even the thesis that #capitalism works best through #war. But these wars consume additional #resources apart from being immoral and against human rights. Wars like the one in #Ukraine reduce #food exports to countries that are threatened by #hunger. This destabilizes the #government there and promotes civil wars.

This ultimately leads to the compelling #question of whether we are not prepared to do without in order to preserve the basis of #life for all of us and, in particular, for the next generation?

  • The billionaires would rather take a vacation in space.
  • The millionaires do not want to give up their private jet.
  • The upper class does not want to do without their own yacht.
  • The middle class does not want to give up vacationing in the Bahamas.

So those who should save are the poor, who already barely have enough to get by until the end of the month.

Now let's try to imagine what would happen in the U.S. if, in a year, hurricanes destroyed the East and South coasts, forest fires destroyed California, and the Midwest couldn't harvest anything because of drought. Where would the relief supplies go then? Would our politicians get their act together or would there be civil war over the remaining resources?

The Amazon rainforest is limited in extent and growing in diversity. With this methaphor I want to allude to the infinite economic growth in a finite system. What is it that grows with economic expansion? It is ultimately a number that only means that the future should be better than the present. So as long as it is just a number and not destroyed #environment for ecological #profit, there is nothing wrong with economic growth.

I don't think it helps to save the world with bans and you shouldn't tell people how to live. I can't tell someone to ride a bike instead of a car if that person doesn't want to. What I can do is prescribe that there are no emissions because the atmosphere belongs to all of us and must be preserved at all costs. This is not a limitation of our freedoms but serves to preserve our #freedom.

In a #democracy, the #people should be the sovereign. But what if companies become too big to fail or even more powerful than the government? Now, if you were to introduce a limit that made it unattractive for a company to grow beyond a certain point, then those companies would split into many smaller companies. This would give us a lot of small companies growing in diversity. It wouldn't be #socialism if we tied the highest #salaries to the minimum wage by some factor. You could still get rich but not so super #rich that you could buy the government. This is primarily about the #solidarity of society and not about the fact that everything belongs to one person.

What we are practicing at the moment is contrary to democratic #society and will destroy it in the long run.


#humanrights #future #earth #nature #emission #humanity #justice

wist@diasp.org

A quotation from Dyson, Freeman

The great question for our time is, how to make sure that the continuing scientific revolution brings benefits to everybody rather than widening the gap between rich and poor. To lift up poor countries, and poor people in rich countries, from poverty, to give them a chance of a decent life, technology is not enough. Technology must be guided and driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich.

Freeman Dyson (1923-2020) English-American theoretical physicist, mathematician, futurist
“Progress in Religion,” Templeton Prize acceptance speech, Washington National Cathedral (9 May 2000)

#quote #quotation #quotes #advancement #economicjustice #equity #ethics #oligarchy #poor #poverty #progress #rich #science #technology #wealth
Sourcing / notes: https://wist.info/dyson-freeman/58837/

berternste2@diasp.nl

Look at how the 1% are doing right now, and tell me the system isn’t rigged

The Guardian

The world’s super-rich have amassed so much wealth since the pandemic that even a Tory minister can see something is amiss. (...)

The breakdown of these figures exposes how on a global basis, extreme wealth is accumulated not by innovating or increasing production, but by taking advantage of rising prices and exploiting labour. In this effort, wealthy people are enabled by lack of regulation and taxation. The result is a bonanza of plunder with no sheriff in town.

(Text continues underneath the illustration.)

Illustration

This has been happening for a while, but the pandemic accelerated the trend. Rich people benefited from everything – every positive intervention from the state and negative impact of the crisis somehow still ended up increasing their wealth. (...)

The obscenity of the system is made possible by the dramatically diminished bargaining power of labour. Weak labour is cheap labour. More lucratively, the world’s workers can increasingly be mobilised according to employers’ precise needs, so not a penny is wasted. (...)

But it is successful tax avoidance that is the strongest pillar propping up global inequality, and its dismantling would be the quickest solution. There is little chance of that happening soon. Tax regimes, like much of the conventional economic wisdom about the benefits of wealth creation to all, are increasingly out of step with not only the needs of poor people, but with what is required for the health of our economies. (...)

None of this has happened by accident, according to Peter Goodman, the author of Davos Man: How the Billionaires Devoured the World. “It’s not an accident,” he tells me, “that our economies have concentrated greater wealth in fewer hands. Quite simply, wealthy people have used their wealth to purchase democracy, to warp democracy in their own interests. They’ve done that through a global template that involves lowering taxes, privatising formerly public attempts to deal with common problems, liquidating the spending that went into things like social services, and then putting that money into their own pockets.” (...)

Complete article

Tags: #rich #super-rich #inequality #poverty #tax_avoidance #democracy #lobby #privatisation #tax_regime #labour