[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some of us prefer to build multiplanetary or even multistellar civilization. Some others prefer to go extinct instead. History is written in favor of those who survive.

[alancalverd]

History is written by the survivors.

[alancalverd]

Bad weather may kill many people, but it's unlikely to drive human into extinction, because it tends to be local phenomena.

Climate change isn't about weather, but inevitable longterm change. In a hundred years you might regrow a forest damaged by wind, but if glaciation removes all the soil, whatever eventually replaces the forest will be very different.

Right now I'm sitting in a cold temperate zone that's good for growing wheat and vegetables but won't support megafauna. 100,000 years ago it was a hot tropical swamp, complete with hippopotami and crocodiles., and at some point in between, it was completely covered with ice. That's climate, not weather.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Climate change isn't about weather, but inevitable longterm change.

Then we have more time to plan and act accordingly.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

History is written by the survivors.

Someone who wrote history can die afterward. But the survivors can read what they wrote, some can even rewrite them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why economists get it wrong | Gary Stevenson takes on former chancellor Nadhim Zahawi

Gary Stevenson and Nadhim Zahawi go head-to-head on the problem of predicting economic change.

Why do economists consistently struggle to make accurate predictions?

Governments, bankers and economists spend a great deal of time predicting the economy. Their forecasts have a profound effect on policy. The forecasts though are often wrong, and critics argue we just don't have a credible theory of how the economy works. In 2023, 70% of economists polled predicted a US recession which never happened. In 2021, 16 of the 36 living American Nobel economists declared ?there was no threat of inflation?. In Britain, the government body tasked with forecasting, the OBR, has admitted 'genuine errors' in its forecasts of inflation. Not surprisingly one of the world's leading economic research institutes concludes 'pretty much everything we could have got wrong, we got wrong'.

Should we conclude that 70 years after Keynes, and 40 years after monetarism, we lack a robust overall economic theory and urgently need one? Can we eradicate the impact of political beliefs and assumptions in economic forecasting? Or are forecasts from economic models always going to fail to make precise predictions and we just have to recognise that reality?

#economics  #costofliving  #finance 

Nadhim Zahawi is a politician who served in various ministerial positions under Prime Ministers Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Rishi Sunak. Gary Stevenson is a former financial trader who became an activist against inequality and a prominent YouTuber. Abby Innes is an Associate Professor in Political Economy at LSE focusing on how the UK?s economy mirrors the Soviet Union. Hosted by Hilary Lawson.

00:00 Introduction
00:27 Why the best economists work for private companies
02:18 Predictions aren't based on scientific measurement
03:08 The financial lure of working for banks
05:35 How pollsters address mistakes in their data

How economic inequality controls your life | Gary Stevenson | Full Interview

Gary Stevenson ‪@garyseconomics‬ discusses why he left a lucrative trading career to campaign for taxing the rich.

Why should we care so much about economic inequality?

Gary Stevenson has had a storied career from financial trader to inequality activist to YouTuber to author. After he was Citibank's most profitable trader betting on the collapse of living standards for ordinary people, he had a moment of revelation and now devotes himself to tackling what he sees as our society's greatest problem. In this interview at the HowTheLightGetsIn festival, Gary argues that we urgently need to tackle inequality, or we will all face dire consequences.

#inequality  #economics #trading

Gary Stevenson (born 1986 in Ilford) is a British economist, former financial trader, and YouTuber known for his economic analysis and activism against economic inequality. Interviewed by Alyssa Erspamer.

00:00 Introduction
00:40 What made you want to pursue a career in finance?
01:29 Does finance have any value to society?
02:55 Were your colleagues as critical as you?
03:56 In an ideal society, would anyone make millions?
05:12 How do we change our money-hungry mentality?
06:54 Do you want to overturn capitalism?
07:48 What do you think of Keir Starmer?s government?
08:42 Are you collaborating with other millionaires to impact politics?
09:42 Is it helpful to attack the super rich?
10:54 What do you think of the Financial Times article claiming you?re a liar?
12:38 Did you work with any women during your time at Citibank?
13:18 Don?t you think your emphasis on being the best trader
reinforces the idea that people should strive to be rich?
14:55 How will you bring your campaign for economic equality forward?
16:15 Are there any positive predictions?
17:39 What do your friends back home think of your ideas
and your class jump?
18:38 Why did you leave the trading floor so young?
19:35 Why do so many in the City turn to spirituality?
20:34 Have you thought of entering politics?
21:36 Would taxing the rich solve our problems?
23:38 Do you think the UK is uniquely class-focused?
24:17 Do you think a meritocracy is a viable substitution?
25:30 Do you think the rich collaborate against the poor and middle class?
26:31 What would you say to people who accuse you
of delivering an oversimplified message?
27:22 Have you received a positive response from ordinary people?
29:15 Would you ever give up your wealth?
30:46 At this moment in time, does your money mainly come
from interest on your own wealth?
31:15 What do you say to a young person asking how to make money?
33:30 Do you think social media helps to educate?
34:37 Do you predict any positive change?

[alancalverd]

Someone who wrote history can die afterward.

But he must have survived this far to write it.

[alancalverd]

Then we have more time to plan and act accordingly.

We know that the entire planet is going to continue to heat up for a few hundred years, reducing the available fertile area and moving it towards the poles,  with a consequent increase in CO2 concentration as plant cover reduces, then gradually freeze for about 100,000 years before the heating cycle repeats.

I have set out my plan of action many times: limit the human population to whatever can be sustained at any point at any time. Zero cost, zero risk, immediate benefit.

What's yours?

[alancalverd]

Why economists get it wrong

A good friend and finance director explained why he graduated in economics; "Because there are no wrong answers. Whatever model you use, you can always point out that the question was wrong."

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I have set out my plan of action many times: limit the human population to whatever can be sustained at any point at any time. Zero cost, zero risk, immediate benefit.

How would you do that?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Everyone is Giving Up On Climate Goals

With the Trump administration fully in control of the U.S., it appears that the tides are changing in the climate change discussion. The White House has already withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement, Trump wants to end what he?s calling ?the green new scam,? and corporations around the world are abandoning their carbon neutrality pledges. How will this affect the climate change situation? Let?s take a look.

[alancalverd]

How would you do that?

By paying women not to have children. In the UK, a payment of around 500 GBP every 6 months if she is not pregnant, from age 14 to 50, would  be overall cost-neutral to the taxpayer.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How would you do that?

By paying women not to have children. In the UK, a payment of around 500 GBP every 6 months if she is not pregnant, from age 14 to 50, would  be overall cost-neutral to the taxpayer.

You seem to have concluded that average human individuals have negative contribution to the overall well-being of human civilization. Thus reducing their number would improve it.

[alancalverd]

Humans eat. As the cultivable area of the globe shrinks, so the number of humans that can eat will decrease.

Humans drink, and human activity pollutes fresh water. As the number of humans increases, so the per capita  availability of potable water decreases.

No food, no water, no civilisation.

Fact is that all living things excrete material that is toxic to themselves.  Life on the planet requires a balance between those species A that excrete toxin X and those species B that consume X and convert it to Y, which is necessary for species A to survive. The obvious case:  plants convert CO2 + H2O to oxygen and sugars, and animals convert oxygen and sugars to CO2  and H2O. If you screw up the balance, everything dies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you screw up the balance, everything dies.

How much population reduction do you think is required to get the balance with currently existing technology?

[alancalverd]

Nothing to do with technology, more to do with whatever will be sustainable at a reasonable standard of living with solar/wind power only.

In a fertile temperate zone such as the British Isles, about one tenth of the current population density, say 20 - 30 per square kilometer, should be sustainable at a very comfortable standard over the remainder of the warming period. Slightly warmer areas such as the Mediterranean can probably support 30 - 50 per sq km. Thenceforward, as the ice starts to reform and reach towards the equator, we can expect these populations to move ahead of the ice at roughly the same density for the next 100,000 years.

We can expect the tropics to become almost uninhabitable for the next 500 - 1000 years, apart from tiny, scattered groups living much as native Australians and South Americans did before Europeans arrived. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Nothing to do with technology, more to do with whatever will be sustainable at a reasonable standard of living with solar/wind power only.

Before farming was invented, human population was much lower than now.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How would you do that?

By paying women not to have children. In the UK, a payment of around 500 GBP every 6 months if she is not pregnant, from age 14 to 50, would  be overall cost-neutral to the taxpayer.

If every woman refuses to reproduce, humans will go extinct in a century. You might argue that it's a good thing. But surely many people will disagree.
So, some women should still reproduce. How would you determine which one?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AI Will Resist Human Control ? And That Could Be Exactly What We Need
A comment pinned by the author.

It blows my mind that guys like Connor Leahy and Waku want corporate and government to be in exclusive control of ASI, that?s literally quite the worst outcome we could possibly get. ASI must be open source and free.

I tend to agree. Playing right into authoritarian narratives is... suboptimal.
If the evidence showed me something different, I would have different opinions. But it seems like benevolent AGI gods are naturally what want to emerge.

[alancalverd]

So, some women should still reproduce. How would you determine which one?

There are no "shoulds" in my model. Those who wish to have children and can afford to feed, clothe and educate them, can have as many as they wish, but the taxpayer will only help to feed, clothe and educate the firstborn - there are no more subsidies. Failing to feed, clothe and educate your child is a criminal offence.