• Le Triomphe de l’#injustice. #Richesse, #évasion_fiscale et #démocratie

    Pour la première fois depuis plus d’un siècle, les milliardaires américains paient moins d’impôts, en proportion de leurs #revenus, que chacun des autres groupes sociaux.

    Écrit par deux économistes qui ont révolutionné l’étude des inégalités, ce livre présente une analyse au scalpel de cette grande transformation.

    Mêlant récit historique et analyse économique, #Emmanuel_Saez et #Gabriel_Zucman analysent les choix (et non-choix) qui ont conduit au triomphe de cette #injustice_fiscale, de l’exonération progressive des revenus du #capital au développement d’une nouvelle #industrie_de_l’évasion_fiscale, en passant par l’engrenage de la #concurrence_fiscale internationale. Avec clarté et concision, ils expliquent comment l’Amérique, qui a été à la pointe du combat pour la #justice_fiscale pendant la moitié du xxe siècle, a tourné le dos à sa propre tradition.

    Si l’on veut éviter que l’#Europe ne s’enfonce dans la dérive inégalitaire et oligarchique qui a amené Donald Trump au pouvoir, il y a urgence à tirer les leçons de cette histoire. Car même si ce phénomène a été extrême de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique, le déclin de la #progressivité_fiscale dans un contexte de montée des inégalités n‘est en rien spécifique aux États-Unis, et appelle des solutions globales.

    Le Triomphe de l’injustice propose une refondation de l’#impôt à la fois visionnaire et pragmatique, à même d’apporter des solutions concrètes aux défis inégalitaires contemporains et de réconcilier la #mondialisation et la #justice_économique.

    https://www.seuil.com/ouvrage/le-triomphe-de-l-injustice-emmanuel-saez/9782021412123
    #livre #économie #fiscalité #Etats-Unis #USA

  • Aux sources mathématiques des inégalités de richesse
    https://sandbox.cybergrunge.fr/Aux_sources_mathematiques_des_inegalites_de_richesse.pdf

    Un modèle mathématique simple décrit la répartition de la richesse dans les économies modernes avec une précision sans précédent. De quoi remettre en question quelques idées reçues sur le libre marché.

    L’inégalité en matière de richesse s’accroît à un rythme alarmant non seulement aux États-Unis et en Europe, mais aussi dans des pays aussi divers que la Russie, l’Inde et le Brésil. Selon la banque d’investissement Crédit Suisse, la part du patrimoine global des ménages détenue par le 1 % le plus riche de la population mon-diale est passée de 42,5 à 47,2 % entre la crise financière de 2008 et 2018. Pour le dire autre-ment, en 2010, 388 individus détenaient autant de richesses que la moitié la plus pauvre de la population mondiale, soit environ 3,5 milliards de personnes ; aujourd’hui, l’organisation non gouvernementale Oxfam estime ce nombre à 26.

    https://www.pourlascience.fr/sd/economie/aux-sources-mathematiques-des-inegalites-de-richesse-18601.php

    #richesses #inégalités #ruissèlement #redistribution #oligarchie

    • Étant donné la complexité des économies réelles, nous trouvons gratifiant qu’une approche analytique simple développée par des physiciens et des mathématiciens décrive les distributions réelles de richesse de plusieurs pays avec une aussi grande précision. Il est également assez curieux de constater que ces distributions présentent des caractéristiques subtiles mais essentielles de systèmes physiques complexes. Et surtout, le fait qu’une esquisse aussi simple et plausible du libre marché fasse apparaître qu’il est tout sauf libre et équitable devrait être à la fois un motif d’inquiétude et un appel à l’action.

      L’article est passionnant. Et ses conclusions sont presque magiques. Avec les outils de la micro-économie, qui plus est, outils utilisés jusqu’à la nausée pour assoir la croyance dans le libre marché...

    • @fil : en fait si. Cela reflète bien que dès la première transaction, l’égalité est rompue et que de cette très légère inégalité de fait, découle la croissance exponentielle des inégalités.
      Et cela dans un modèle où toutes les autres règles de distribution sont neutres… ce qui n’est pas le cas en vrai, puisque la monnaie — à travers le système bancaire privé qui la crée — n’est pas du tout neutre mais favorise les agents proportionnellement à leur fortune.

      Quiconque a déjà lutté contre la pauvreté sait à quel point il est coûteux d’être pauvre.

      James Baldwin

      @biggrizzly : l’article est pourtant une condamnation sans appel du capitalisme en général et du néolibéralisme en particulier avec ses #mythes proprement démontés de la #méritocratie et du #ruissèlement

    • Dans « mon » modèle il y a une neutralité complète : le fait d’être plus riche à un instant t ne fait pas que tu le restes ; la simulation montre simplement qu’il n’y a pas d’"équilibre sur la moyenne" mais un « équilibre sur une distribution » — autrement dit il y a toujours des riches et des pauvres. Pas forcément toujours les mêmes.

      En revanche, si on sort de la neutralité pour donner le moindre % d’avantage aux riches (ce qui correspond un peu plus à la réalité, sinon à quoi sert l’argent), le modèle va diverger encore plus et les fortunes se constituent et perdurent. Il faut donc à l’inverse une certaine inégalité de traitement (un impôt fortement progressif) pour contrebalancer l’"étalement neutre" de la courbe.

      Après c’est juste un modèle à deux balles, le philanthrocapitalisme par exemple n’est pas pris en compte (ok je sors).

    • J’ai fait des études dans le domaine (économie, micro-économie, simulation multi-agent), et ça me parle vraiment. Et j’aurais adoré participer à ces simulations lors de mes études.

      En arriver à plaider pour une redistribution, alors que cela fait des dizaines d’années que l’on nous explique que toutes les interventions pour redistribuer sont vouées à l’échec... c’est génial. On renvoie les hallucinés à leur état d’idéologues dans le déni des réalités pourtant les plus évidentes (à savoir la présence d’inégalités structurelles patentes, ie, cette fameuse oligarchie extrême qui n’existerait pas...).

      Ceci dit, en parler autour de soit, expliquer qu’il est scientifiquement démontrable que « l’état de nature » vanté par les économistes hallucinés qui nous gouvernent, conduit à une situation profondément inégalitaire, ce n’est pas évident. J’ai essayé en réunion tout à l’heure. J’ai manqué de mots pour être clair.

    • merci Philippe pour ton lien ! j’ai essayé aussi de simuler ce problème https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/59330 (ou disons la version mieux formulée que le problème de base). Dans le cas où un montant fixe est donné, j’avoue ne pas savoir ce qui se passe asymptotiquement, mais je vais creuser... le problème plus intéressant est de donner un pourcentage fixe de sa richesse ! tout d’abord c’est plus classique en inégalité, mais surtout on converge vers une distribution assez peu inégalitaire !
      quand à l’article de base, je ne le commenterais pas.. les physiciens qui découvrent la science économique, ça me fatigue... juste le titre relève un incroyable mépris « Un modèle mathématique simple décrit la répartition de la richesse dans les économies modernes 𝙖𝙫𝙚𝙘 𝙪𝙣𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙙𝙚𝙣𝙩 » (ça me rappelle un vieux coup de gueule https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/5617 si un problème très proche)

    • Bé concrètement, est-ce qu’il y a tant de modèles avec si peu de paramètres qui arrivent à correspondre de manière aussi précise à la répartition de tant de pays sur de nombreuses années ? (le rapport entre la simplicité du modèle et la quantité et la précision de ce que ça arrive à décrire)
      Et si oui lesquels, tant qu’à faire. :p

  • Bloomberg Billionaires: World’s Richest Add $1.2 Trillion in 2019 - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-27/world-s-richest-gain-1-2-trillion-as-kylie-baby-sharks-prosper

    And the richer they were at the start of the year, the richer they got. The world’s 500 wealthiest people tracked by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index added $1.2 trillion, boosting their collective net worth 25% to $5.9 trillion.

    #riches

  • Billionaires’ wealth surged in 2019 - World Socialist Web Site
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/28/pers-d28.html

    On Friday, one day after all three major US stock indexes set new records, Bloomberg issued its end-of-year survey of the world’s 500 richest people. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index reported that the oligarchs’ fortunes increased by a combined total of $1.2 trillion, a 25 percent rise over 2018. Their collective net worth now comes to $5.9 trillion.

    To place this figure in some perspective, these 500 individuals control more wealth than the gross domestic product of the United States at the end of the third quarter of 2019, which was $5.4 trillion.

    #riches #pauvres #milliardaires #inégalités

  • How the rich plan to rule a burning planet | Red Flag
    https://redflag.org.au/node/6974

    In the face of the climate crisis, the main priority of the global ruling class and its political servants is to batten down the hatches. Publicly, they’re telling school kids not to worry about the future. Behind the scenes, however – in the cabinet offices, boardrooms, mansions and military high commands – they’re hard at work, planning for a future in which they can maintain their power and privilege amid the chaos and destruction of the burning world around them.

    [...]

    Perhaps nothing provides a better metaphor for the future our leaders are steering us towards than a picture, taken during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, of the New York city skyline shrouded in the darkness of a blackout – all except one building, which remained lit up like a Christmas tree. That building was the headquarters of global banking giant Goldman Sachs, where, protected by a mountain of sandbags and using a back-up generator, the company was able to keep the lights on and the profits flowing even while the city was inundated by a three-metre storm surge and hospitals, schools, the subway and most other services were forced to close.

    If you imagine this picture as the world, and the Goldman Sachs building as the gilded realm inhabited by the world’s super-rich and the political class that serve them, all you’d need to add is some heavily armed guards around the building and you’d get a pretty good sense of what’s ahead. Our rulers’ apparent lack of concern about climate change is a ruse. They hope that, if they can just head off dissent for long enough, they will succeed in building this future, brick by brutal brick, and there will be nothing the rest of us can do about it.

    We need to fight for something different: a system in which our economy isn’t just a destructive machine grinding up human and natural resources to create mega-profits for the rich. One in which the productive life of society is managed collectively by those who do all the work, and where decisions are made not in the interests of private #profit, but in the interests of human need. We need socialism – and the fight for it is the great challenge of our generation. At stake is nothing less than the world itself.

    #climat #capitalisme #capitalocène #riches

  • Notes anthropologiques (XLIV)

    Georges Lapierre

    https://lavoiedujaguar.net/Notes-anthropologiques-XLIV

    L’État, l’argent et le sacré (troisième partie)

    Les nobles guerriers, les mandarins dévoués et les prêtres vertueux se trouvaient partie prenante du procès de l’aliénation de l’idée. La pensée du sujet s’arrête à la représentation de l’idée, à sa forme objective, à sa matérialité. Elle ne va pas plus loin. Dans les sociétés sans État, la pensée dans sa dimension sociale ne s’arrête pas à la chose, elle la dépasse. Le don est ce dépassement, la pensée se détache, elle se libère de la chose, elle se libère de la prééminence de l’objet, du poids de l’or. L’humain retrouve sa vocation véritable : la vie sociale. Et cette vie sociale est du pur esprit, elle libère l’être de l’immédiateté du besoin et de sa satisfaction. Elle libère l’être de l’immédiateté. Le don permet d’aller au-delà des apparences, il est l’expérience spirituelle par laquelle on s’enrichit en se dépossédant.

    Cette séparation entre riches et pauvres trouve tout de suite sa forme objective, dite encore matérielle, c’est l’argent. L’argent est la forme que prend la séparation entre l’être et la pensée. (...)

    #anthropologie #État #don #argent #pensée #richesse #capital #esprit #Mexique #Polycrate #Thalès #éthique

    • le veau d’or est la matérialité détournée des flux de conscience ; la mystification prend place du don : information don symbolique rituel cérémoniel (vers le sacrement) et ceux qui procèdent des signes (du divin) contre don proletaire ( en peine) ; l’avénement de l’emboutissage à balancier permettant l’automatisme de la frappe des monnaies à Athène facilita l’usure domestique et le salariat

  • ‘The L Word: Generation Q’ Review: New Vision, Old Blind Spots - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/arts/television/l-word-generation-q-review.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

    Over all, the cast now better reflects Los Angeles’s ethnic and gender diversity, which may be why the word “relatable” came up a couple of times in a recent New York Times feature about the new show.

    This relatable is debatable, though, considering that the characters are conventionally attractive and range from comfortable to wealthy. As a poorly paid production assistant — yes, on Alice’s show — the 20-something Finley (Jacqueline Toboni) is the lowest on the income totem pole. But Finley’s financial predicament is relative in terms of actual hardship and access to power, and she wastes no time moving into Shane’s new mansion in the hills.

    Admittedly, “The L Word” is an aspirational soap. Still, based on its first three episodes (of eight total), the new series has not adapted to every way in which the world has changed: We just don’t watch rich and powerful people like we used to. Now as before, the series focuses on the characters’ sentimental and sexual experiences. But it always stood on shaky, uncritical ground when it came to money and class, and “Generation Q” offers little progress in that regard — unlike, say, the Starz show “Vida,” in which sexual, ethnic and cultural identities are pointedly explored within the context of Los Angeles’s divisive gentrification issues.

    Bette, thus far, remains the perfect distillation of that persisting disconnect.

    #classe_sociale #représentation #lesbiennes #richesse

  • Maja Hoffmann (Arles) World Resort - DOCUMENTATIONS
    https://documentations.art/Maja-Hoffmann-Arles-World-Resort


    Où l’on voit le #projet en cours se concrétiser

    Depuis près de 5 ans, le projet « Luma Arles » a profondément modifié les formes et les modes d’exercice du pouvoir sur le territoire arlésien. En venant notamment concéder les pleins pouvoirs à Maja Hoffmann, héritière milliardaire de l’entreprise pharmaceutique Roche, acteurs publics et privés terraforment peu à peu la ville avec pour objectif de faire d’Arles une ville habitable presque exclusivement au 1 %. Ci-dessous le récit de l’implantation de la suprématie Luma Arles par certaines personnes concernées.

    #richesse #oppression #dépossession #ville #exclusion #surnuméraires #démocratie

    • Just 10 per cent of workers receive nearly half of global pay

      An ILO assessment gives the first global estimates of the distribution of labour income, and shows that pay inequality remains pervasive in the world of work. The findings are drawn from a new database which includes national, regional and global data.

      Ten per cent of workers receive 48.9 per cent of total global pay, while the lowest-paid 50 per cent of workers receive just 6.4 per cent, a new ILO dataset reveals.

      What’s more, the lowest 20 per cent of income earners – around 650 million workers – earn less than 1 per cent of global labour income, a figure that has hardly changed in 13 years.

      The new dataset shows that overall global labour income inequality has fallen since 2004. However, this is not due to reductions in inequality within countries – at the national level, pay inequality is actually increasing. Rather, it is because of increasing prosperity in large emerging economies, namely China and India. Overall, the findings say, income inequality remains pervasive in the world of work.

      The Key Findings show that, globally, the share of national income going to workers is falling, from 53.7 per cent in 2004 to 51.4 per cent in 2017.

      Looking at the average pay distribution across countries, it finds that the share going to the middle class (the middle 60 per cent of workers) declined between 2004 and 2017, from 44.8 per cent to 43 per cent. At the same time, the share earned by the top 20 per cent of earners increased, from 51.3 per cent to 53.5 per cent. Countries where these top earners saw their share of national pay rise by at least one percentage point include Germany, Indonesia, Italy, Pakistan, the United Kingdom and the United States.

      “The data show that in relative terms, increases in the top labour incomes are associated with losses for everyone else, with both middle class and lower-income workers seeing their share of income decline,” said Steven Kapsos, Head of the ILO’s Data Production and Analysis Unit. “However, when the labour income shares of the middle or lower income workers increase, the gains tend to be widespread, favouring everyone except the top earners.”

      Poorer countries tend to have much higher levels of pay inequality, something that exacerbates the hardships of vulnerable populations. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the bottom 50 per cent of workers earn only 3.3 per cent of labour income, compared to the European Union, where the same group receives 22.9 per cent of the total income paid to workers.

      Roger Gomis, Economist in the ILO Department of Statistics, said: “The majority of the global workforce endures strikingly low pay and for many having a job does not mean having enough to live on. The average pay of the bottom half of the world’s workers is just 198 dollars per month and the poorest 10 per cent would need to work more than three centuries to earn the same as the richest 10 per cent do in one year.”

      https://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_712234/lang--en/index.htm

    • In un anno i ricchi guadagnano quanto i più poveri in tre secoli

      La maggior parte della forza lavoro globale sopporta salari bassi e le occupazioni dove è impiegata non bastano per sopravvivere. Il 10 per cento dei lavoratori più poveri dovrebbe lavorare per più di tre secoli per guadagnare lo stesso reddito del 10 per cento che guadagna di più. Lo sostiene la ricerca dell’Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro (Ilo) intitolata «The global labour income share and distribution» che analizza la più grande raccolta mondiale di dati armonizzati per l’indagine sulla forza lavoro in 189 paesi.

      TRA IL 2004 E IL 2017 il reddito della cosiddetta «classe media» è diminuita, mentre è aumentato il salario della parte meglio retribuita dei lavoratori collocati nella parte alta della gerarchia sociale e produttiva. L’immagine scelta per rappresentare l’evoluzione della distribuzione del reddito da lavoro è un «bastone da hockey»: i redditi della classe media e medio-bassa – con queste nozioni di solito si allude a coloro che per vivere devono lavorare, indipendentemente dalle classi e dai ceti di riferimento – si assottigliano mentre si allargano i guadagni di chi è collocato in corrispondenza del termine del bastone chiamato «spatola» o «paletta». Questo significa che la quota destinata alla classe media (il 60 per cento medio dei lavoratori) è diminuita tra il 2004 e il 2017, passando dal 44,8 per cento al 43 per cento. Allo stesso tempo, la quota guadagnata dal 20 per cento dei lavoratori più pagati è aumentata, passando dal 51,3 per cento al 53,5 per cento. Su scala mondiale la disuguaglianza globale del reddito da lavoro è diminuita dal 2004. Ciò non è dovuto a una maggiore giustizia sociale. A livello nazionale, infatti, le disuguaglianze salariali sono aumentate. Questo calo è dovuto all’aumento della prosperità nelle grandi economie emergenti: Cina e India. Nel complesso, invece, la disuguaglianza di reddito rimane pervasiva nel mondo del lavoro. La ricerca conferma che l’Italia è uno dei paesi dove gli alti salari sono aumentati di almeno un punto percentuale insieme a Germania, Indonesia, Pakistan, Regno Unito e Stati Uniti, mentre tutti gli altri continuano a diminuire. I paesi più poveri tendono invece ad avere livelli molto più elevati di disuguaglianza retributiva, elemento che aggrava le difficoltà delle popolazioni vulnerabili. Nell’Africa subsahariana, ad esempio, il 50 per cento dei lavoratori guadagna solo il 3,3 per cento del reddito da lavoro, rispetto all’Unione Europea, dove lo stesso gruppo riceve il 22,9 per cento del reddito totale pagato ai lavoratori. «La maggior parte della forza lavoro globale sopporta salari sorprendentemente bassi e per molti avere un lavoro non significa avere abbastanza per vivere – sostiene Roger Gomis, economista del dipartimento di statistica dell’Ilo – La retribuzione media della metà inferiore dei lavoratori del mondo è di appena 198 dollari al mese e il 10 per cento più povero dovrebbe lavorare più di tre secoli per guadagnare la stessa cosa che il 10 per cento più ricco fa in un anno».

      «I DATI MOSTRANO che, in termini relativi, gli aumenti dei redditi da lavoro più alti sono accompagnati da perdite per tutti gli altri – ha detto Steven Kapsos, capo dell’unità di produzione e analisi dei dati dell’Ilo- Tuttavia, quando aumenta la quota di reddito da lavoro dei lavoratori a reddito medio o basso, i guadagni tendono ad essere ampiamente distribuiti, a vantaggio di tutti i lavoratori, eccetto per gli alti salari». Questo significa che un aumento generalizzato della parte bassa o mediana della forza lavoro comporterebbe una maggiore redistribuzione della ricchezza prodotta. Ciò non avviene perché la piramide è rovesciata: il progressivo calo del reddito da lavoro comporta un aumento per chi già guadagna di più. È una vecchia legge del capitalismo, sempre più attuale: avrà di più chi ha già di più. Chi ha di meno oggi, ne avrà ancora meno domani.

      https://ilmanifesto.it/ilo

  • Pas de passeport suisse honorifique pour le fondateur du WEF K.Schwab ats/lan - 12 Novembre 2019 - RTS
    https://www.rts.ch/info/suisse/10860168-pas-de-passeport-suisse-honorifique-pour-le-fondateur-du-wef-k-schwab.h

    Il n’est pas possible de décerner la citoyenneté helvétique à titre honorifique au fondateur et président du Forum économique mondial (WEF), l’Allemand Klaus Schwab, comme l’avait proposé le conseiller fédéral Ueli Maurer. La base légale fait défaut.

    Le président de la Confédération en exercice suggérait que le patron du WEF obtienne la nationalité suisse via le canton des Grisons, où se tient le Forum de Davos. Or la Confédération a informé le canton qu’elle ne donnerait pas son autorisation à une naturalisation honorifique « avec effet sur le passeport », a indiqué mardi le Département grison de la justice, confirmant une information de la Südostschweiz.

    Domicilié à Genève
    Klaus Schwab et sa femme sont certes citoyens d’honneur de la commune de Davos depuis 20 ans. Ils ont aussi reçu un bout de terrain symbolique d’un mètre carré, près de l’église où ils se sont mariés. Mais ils résident dans le canton de Genève. Par ailleurs, Klaus Schwab n’a pas entrepris de démarche pour devenir Suisse.

    Pour ce faire, il devrait déposer une demande auprès de sa commune ou de son canton de domicile. La procédure est régie par le droit cantonal, mais le Secrétariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM) doit donner son accord.

    Ueli Maurer avait fait part en août dernier de son intention au Conseil fédéral, avait rapporté la SonntagsZeitung. L’idée était de concrétiser ce projet lors du 50e Forum de Davos en janvier prochain. Cette proposition avait été mal accueillie, y compris dans les rangs du parti du conseiller fédéral.

    #davos #inégalités #économie #wef #multinationales #crise #riches #capitalisme #politique #finance #Klaus_Schwab

  • Open Borders Are a Trillion-Dollar Idea

    Tearing down all barriers to migration isn’t crazy—it’s an opportunity for a global boom.

    The world’s nations, especially the world’s richest nations, are missing an enormous chance to do well while doing good. The name of this massive missed opportunity—and the name of my book on the topic—is “open borders.”

    Critics of immigration often hyperbolically accuse their opponents of favoring open borders—a world where all nationalities are free to live and work in any nation they like. For most, that’s an unfair label: They want more visas for high-skilled workers, family reunification, or refugees—not the end of immigration restrictions. In my case, however, this accusation is no overstatement. I think that free trade in labor is a massive missed opportunity. Open borders are not only just but the most promising shortcut to global prosperity.

    To see the massive missed opportunity of which I speak, consider the migration of a low-skilled Haitian from Port-au-Prince to Miami. In Haiti, he would earn about $1,000 per year. In Miami, he could easily earn $25,000 per year. How is such upward mobility possible? Simply put: Human beings are much more productive in Florida than in Haiti—thanks to better government policies, better management, better technology, and much more. The main reason Haitians suffer in poverty is not because they are from Haiti but because they are in Haiti. If you were stuck in Haiti, you, too, would probably be destitute.

    But borders aren’t just a missed opportunity for those stuck on the wrong side on them. If the walls come down, almost everyone benefits because immigrants sell the new wealth they create—and the inhabitants of their new country are their top customers. As long as Haitians remain in Haiti, they produce next to nothing—and therefore do next to nothing to enrich the rest of the world. When they move, their productivity skyrockets—and so does their contribution to their new customers. When you see a Haitian restaurant in Miami, you shouldn’t picture the relocation of a restaurant from Port-au-Prince; you should picture the creation of a restaurant that otherwise would never have existed—not even in Haiti itself.

    The central function of existing immigration laws is to prevent this wealth creation from happening—to trap human talent in low-productivity countries. Out of all the destructive economic policies known to man, nothing on Earth is worse. I’m not joking. Standard estimates say open borders would ultimately double humanity’s wealth production. How is this possible? Because immigration sharply increases workers’ productivity—and the world contains many hundreds of millions of would-be immigrants. Multiply a massive gain per person by a massive number of people and you end up with what the economist Michael Clemens calls “trillion-dollar bills on the sidewalk.”

    Or do we? An old saying warns, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” Far lower levels of immigration already inspire vocal complaints. After presenting my basic case in Open Borders, I strive to evaluate all the common (and many not-so-common) objections to immigration. My bottom line: While open borders are undeniably unpopular, they deserve to be popular. Like every social change, immigration has downsides. Yet when we patiently quantify the downsides, the trillions of dollars of gains of open borders dwarf any credible estimate of the harms.

    The simplest objection to open borders is logistical: Even the largest countries cannot absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants overnight. True enough, but no reasonable person expects hundreds of millions to come overnight, either. Instead, immigration usually begins slowly and then snowballs. Puerto Ricans have been legally allowed to move to the United States since 1904, but it took almost a century before Puerto Ricans in the United States came to outnumber the population left on the island. Wasn’t the European migration crisis an unmanageable flood of humanity? Hardly. Despite media outcry, total arrivals from 2014 to 2018 came to less than 1 percent of the population of the European Union. Many European countries—most notably West Germany during the Cold War—have swiftly absorbed much larger inflows in the past.

    The standard explanation for these asymmetric public reactions is that resistance to immigration is primarily cultural and political, not economic or logistical. While West Germans welcomed millions of East German migrants, a much lower dose of Middle Eastern and African migration has made the whole EU shiver. Aren’t economists who dwell on economic gains just missing the point?

    Yes and no. As a matter of political psychology, cultural and political arguments against immigration are indeed persuasive and influential. That does not show, however, that these arguments are correct or decisive. Does immigration really have the negative cultural and political effects critics decry? Even if it did, are there cheaper and more humane remedies than immigration restriction? In any case, what is a prudent price tag to put on these cultural and political effects?

    Let’s start with readily measurable cultural and political effects. In the United States, the most common cultural complaint is probably that—in contrast to the days of Ellis Island—today’s immigrants fail to learn English. The real story, though, is that few first-generation immigrants have ever become fluent in adulthood; it’s just too hard. German and Dutch immigrants in the 19th century maintained their stubborn accents and linguistic isolation all their lives; New York’s Yiddish newspapers were a fixture for decades. For their sons and daughters, however, acquiring fluency is child’s play—even for groups like Asians and Hispanics that are often accused of not learning English.

    Native-born citizens also frequently worry that immigrants, supposedly lacking Western culture’s deep respect for law and order, will be criminally inclined. At least in the United States, however, this is the reverse of the truth. The incarceration rate of the foreign-born is about a third less than that of the native-born.

    What about the greatest crime of all—terrorism? In the United States, non-citizens have indeed committed 88 percent of all terrorist murders. When you think statistically, however, this is 88 percent of a tiny sum. In an average year from 1975 to 2017, terrorists murdered fewer than a hundred people on U.S. soil per year. Less than 1 percent of all deaths are murders, and less than 1 percent of all murders are terrorism-related. Worrying about terrorism really is comparable to worrying about lightning strikes. After you take a few common-sense precautions—do not draw a sword during a thunderstorm—you should just focus on living your life.

    The most cogent objection to immigration, though, is that productivity depends on politics—and politics depend on immigration. Native-born citizens of developed countries have a long track record of voting for the policies that made their industries thrive and their countries rich. Who knows how vast numbers of new immigrants would vote? Indeed, shouldn’t we expect people from dysfunctional polities to bring dysfunctional politics with them?

    These are fine questions, but the answers are not alarming. At least in the United States, the main political division between the native- and foreign-born is engagement. Even immigrants legally able to vote are markedly less likely than native-born citizens to exercise this right. In the 2012 U.S. presidential election, for example, 72 percent of eligible native-born citizens voted versus just 48 percent of eligible immigrants. Wherever they politically stand, then, immigrants’ opinions are relatively inert.

    In any case, immigrants’ political opinions don’t actually stand out. On average, they’re a little more economically liberal and a little more socially conservative, and that’s about it. Yes, low-skilled immigrants’ economic liberalism and social conservatism are more pronounced, but their turnout is low; in 2012, only 27 percent of those eligible to vote opted to do so. So while it would not be alarmist to think that immigration will slightly tilt policy in an economically liberal, socially conservative direction, warning that “immigrants will vote to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs” is paranoid.

    Note, moreover, that free immigration hardly implies automatic citizenship. Welcoming would-be migrants is a clear-cut blessing for them and the world. Granting citizenship is more of a mixed bag. While I am personally happy to have new citizens, I often dwell on the strange fact that the Persian Gulf monarchies are more open to immigration than almost anywhere else on Earth. According to the Pew Research Center, 76 percent of people in Kuwait—and 88 percent in the United Arab Emirates—are foreign-born. Why do the native-born tolerate this? Probably because the Gulf monarchies generously share their oil wealth with citizens—and jealously protect the value of citizenship by making naturalization almost impossible. You do not have to ignore the Gulf monarchies’ occasional mistreatment of immigrants to realize that it is much better to welcome immigrants with conditions than to refuse to admit them at all. Migrants—mostly from much poorer parts of the Islamic world—accept this deal, however unfair, exactly because they can still do far better in the Gulf than at home.

    In Open Borders, I have the space to address many more concerns about immigration in more detail. What I can’t do, I confess, is address the unmeasured and the unmeasurable. In real life, however, everyone routinely copes with ambiguous dangers—“unknown unknowns.” How do we cope?

    For starters, we remember Chicken Little. When people’s warnings about measured dangers turn out to be wrong or overstated, we rightly discount their warnings about unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers. This is how I see mainstream critics of immigration. Their grasp of the basic facts, especially their neglect of the tremendous gains of moving labor from low-productivity countries to high-productivity countries, is too weak to take their so-called vision seriously.

    Our other response to unmeasured and unmeasurable dangers, however, is to fall back on existing moral presumptions. Until same-sex marriage was legalized in certain countries, for example, how were we supposed to know its long-term social effects? The honest answer is, “We couldn’t.” But in the absence of strong evidence that these overall social effects would be very bad, a lot of us have now decided to respect individuals’ right to marry whom they like.

    This is ultimately how I see the case for open borders. Denying human beings the right to rent an apartment from a willing landlord or accept a job offer from a willing employer is a serious harm. How much would someone have to pay the average American to spend the rest of his or her life in Haiti or Syria? To morally justify such harm, we need a clear and present danger, not gloomy speculation. Yet when we patiently and calmly study immigration, the main thing we observe is: people moving from places where their talent goes to waste to places where they can realize their potential. What we see, in short, is immigrants enriching themselves by enriching the world.

    Do I seriously think I am going to convert people to open borders with a short article—or even a full book? No. My immediate goal is more modest: I’d like to convince you that open borders aren’t crazy. While we take draconian regulation of migration for granted, the central goal of this regulation is to trap valuable labor in unproductive regions of the world. This sounds cruel and misguided. Shouldn’t we at least double-check our work to make sure we’re not missing a massive opportunity for ourselves and humanity?

    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/11/01/immigration-wall-open-borders-trillion-dollar-idea

    #ouverture_des_frontières #frontières_ouvertes #économie #migrations #richesse #monde #frontières

  • No Go World. How Fear Is Redrawing Our Maps and Infecting Our Politics

    War-torn deserts, jihadist killings, trucks weighted down with contraband and migrants—from the Afghan-Pakistan borderlands to the Sahara, images of danger depict a new world disorder on the global margins. With vivid detail, #Ruben_Andersson traverses this terrain to provide a startling new understanding of what is happening in remote “danger zones.” Instead of buying into apocalyptic visions, Andersson takes aim at how Western states and international organizations conduct military, aid, and border interventions in a dangerously myopic fashion, further disconnecting the world’s rich and poor. Using drones, proxy forces, border reinforcement, and outsourced aid, risk-obsessed powers are helping to remap the world into zones of insecurity and danger. The result is a vision of chaos crashing into fortified borders, with national and global politics riven by fear. Andersson contends that we must reconnect and snap out of this dangerous spiral, which affects us whether we live in Texas or Timbuktu. Only by developing a new cartography of hope can we move beyond the political geography of fear that haunts us.

    https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520294608/no-go-world
    #livre #peur #géographie_politique #marges #désordre #inégalités #pauvres #riches #pauvreté #richesse #drones #fermeture_des_frontières #insécurité #danger #chaos #militarisation_des_frontières #espoir
    ping @cede @karine4 @isskein

  • Francisque (arme) — Wikipédia
    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisque_(arme)

    Les preuves archéologiques indiquent que les élites guerrières franques utilisaient communément la #francisque (elle était peu répandue chez les soldats de base). Les soldats l’auraient lancée d’une distance d’environ dix à douze mètres. La lame de la hache était lourde afin de produire un impact important sur la cible, mais puisque l’arme n’était pas équilibrée comme peut l’être un javelot, la francisque n’avait pas une trajectoire très régulière, réduisant la portée et la précision.

    Où l’on apprend que l’arme qui symbolise l’#extrême_droite est une #arme de #riches qui fait très mal mais qui manque de précision... Tout un symbole.

  • LES NOUVELLES DE NORVÈGE : « UNE VERSION MODÉRÉE DU CRÉATIONNISME AMÉRICAIN »

    La Norvège c’est aussi ça.

    La Norvège est censée être un des pays les plus progressistes du point de vue des idées, des pratiques sociales, de la pensée... Mais c’est sans compter avec les super-riches qui ne savent pas trop quoi faire de leur fric. L’armateur Einar John Rasmussen (81 ans) qui habite à Kristiansand [dans une région réputée être la plus religieuse et conservatrice du pays] a décidé de contribuer à hauteur de 15 millions de couronnes norvégiennes (150 000 euros) au fonctionnment de la toute nouvelle fondation "BioCosmos". Le travail de cette fondation consiste essentiellement à rejeter, discréditer la théorie de l’évolution de Darwin. Selon le journal "Vårt Land" [Notre patrie], BioCosmos fait la promotion d’une théorie très ésotérique et fumeuse - que la fondation appelle "design intelligent". En gros, cette théorie soutient que la nature est si bien organisée, que l’évolution ne s’est pas produite de manière aléatoire, mais résulte d’un système d’ingénierie. Le milliardaire norvégien a estimé que cette théorie est tellement pertinente qu’il faut qu’elle soit enseignée dans toutes les écoles norvégienne, et de fait, à proposé à la fondation 150 000 euros pour produire des livres à distribuer gratuitement dans les écoles. les élu·es accompagnés d’ailleurs de quelques représentants de l’église, se sont scandalisé sur les principes soutenus par BioCosmos et le soutien financier d’Einar Rasmussen. Ils considèrent que c’est une "version modérée du créationnisme américain". Le scientifique religieux Martin Jakobsen du Collège Théologique Ansgar de Kristiansand, interrogé par la NRK, estime que la méthode de la fondation BioCosmos soutenue par Rasmussen est complètement débile : « il veut montrer qu’il n’y a pas de conflit entre la foi et la science, mais ce qu’il fini par faire en discréditant la théorie de l’évolution, c’est de confirmer un préjugé selon lequel les religieux sont sceptiques à l’égard de la science et des nouvelles connaissances. Quand vous vous voulez savoir comment fonctionne la nature, vous devriez le demander à un naturaliste. Et si vous vous demandez comment fonctionne Dieu, vous pouvez parler à un théologien. »

    Que les riches essayent de s’insérer dans le système pédagogique n’est pas nouveau en Norvège. Les climatosceptiques, les extrémistes religieux et certaines sectes "attaquent" régulièrement le système scolaire, heureusement avec assez peu de succès.

    Skipsreder Einar Rasmussen blar opp for å motbevise Darwins teori – NRK Sørlandet – Lokale nyheter, TV og radio

    https://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/skipsreder-einar-rasmussen-blar-opp-for-a-motbevise-darwins-teori-1.14754033

    Det er skipsreder Einar John Rasmussen (81) fra Kristiansand som bidrar med 15 millioner kroner til den nyopprettede stiftelsen BioCosmos.

    Målet med stiftelsen er å avvise Darwins evolusjonsteori. Ifølge Vårt Land, som først omtalte saken, skal BioCosmos spre teorien om « intelligent design ».

    #norvège

  • A Taste of the Climate Apocalypse to Come — ProPublica
    https://www.propublica.org/article/taste-of-the-climate-apocalypse-to-come

    The safest way to proceed under such circumstances — on an annual basis, every time the thermometer kicks up and the winds begin to blow — is probably not simply to forgo the use of one of civilization’s most elementary and essential innovations. Significantly lowering emissions, reducing waste, managing our landscape and fortifying our communities would all do much more to save lives. But it’s hard to imagine that even deep-blue California will make sufficient progress on the climate-adapting steps we’ve long been implored to take.

    At least mandatory blackouts force a glimpse into this new reality. They’re like a thin wedge opening our minds to the fact that even here, in the heart of one of the wealthiest regions of a state that is (we are often reminded) by itself the world’s fifth-largest economy — one that is shepherding into existence some of the nation’s most enlightened and aggressive climate-adaptation policies — deep and unpredictable consequences are unavoidable. Perhaps if blackouts were mandated in your community, your neighbors might awaken to this eerie truth as well.

    #climat #nature #richesse #délestage_électrique #incendies #Californie #etats-unis

  • * « Avec 20 000 euros par mois, j’y arrive à peine » : la vie compliquée de Katy, multimillionnaire
    https://www.franceculture.fr/emissions/les-pieds-sur-terre/meme-avec-20-000-euros-par-mois-je-ne-ny-arrive-pas-la-vie-compliquee-

    Issue d’une grande famille d’industriels flamands, Katy passe son temps entre la Suisse, la Belgique et la France. A 60 ans, elle vient de prendre sa retraite et consacre son temps à la gestion de son patrimoine, objet de toutes les convoitises.

    https://media.radiofrance-podcast.net/podcast09/18722-18.10.2019-ITEMA_22179506-2.mp3

    Aujourd’hui, nous suivons Katy dans son emploi du temps de jeune retraitée multimillionnaire ! 
    Avant j’étais riche, maintenant je ne suis plus qu’aisée ! milliardaire, c’était mon rêve ! J’étais une capitaliste communiste ; j’avais des plans sur 5 ans !

    Elle débute comme avocate à New-York en 1977, puis à 24 ans est propulsée à la tête d’une entreprise familiale de 600 personnes. A l’occasion de la crise de 2009, elle perd une partie de ses revenus, qu’elle estimait à un million d’euros par an. 
    . . . . . . .

     #femmes #argent  #riches #richesse #Art #Famille #économie #capitalisme #finance #inégalités #crise #inégalités #millionaires #millionaire @Les_Pieds_sur_Terre

  • Le montant des dividendes versés aux actionnaires atteint un record de 513,8 milliards de dollars
    https://www.lefigaro.fr/societes/le-montant-des-dividendes-verses-aux-actionnaires-atteint-un-nouveau-record

    Malgré le ralentissement de l’économie mondiale, les dividendes versés au deuxième trimestre enregistrent une nouvelle hausse, notamment en France.

    #richesse #finance #dividendes

  • Why Don’t Rich People Just Stop Working ? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/style/rich-people-things.html

    Pour gagner plus d’#argent.

    “No one on this stage wants to protect billionaires — not even the billionaire wants to protect billionaires,” noted Senator Amy Klobuchar.

    It’s an idea that’s going around. Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook founder who is worth close to $70 billion, is apparently open to it. “I don’t know that I have an exact threshold on what amount of money someone should have,” he said in live-streamed question-and-answer session with company employees in early October. “But on some level, no one deserves to have that much money.”

    Yet here we are, chugging into the 10th year of an extremely top-heavy economic boom in which the 1 percenters, by all statistical measures, have won, creating the greatest wealth disparity since the Jazz Age.

    Studies over the years have indicated that the rich, unlike the leisured gentry of old, tend to work longer hours and spend less time socializing.

    Yesterday’s big score is just seed capital for tomorrow’s bigger one.

    “People say, ‘Why don’t you develop a hobby, or do philanthropy?’” Mr. García Martínez said. “But for many, they simply can’t stop doing it. They derive transcendent meaning from capitalism. Without their money, what else would they have?”

    At a time of low taxes, friendly interest rates and torrents of venture capital available to would-be moguls, it’s a historic moment in the quest for more among the entrepreneurial class.

    With the number of Americans making $1 million or more spiking by 40 percent between 2010 and 2016, according to the Internal Revenue Service, you may think that the rich are finally feeling flush enough to ease up, kick back, chill out.

    They are not.

    One recent Harvard survey of 4,000 millionaires found that people worth $8 million or more were scarcely happier than those worth $1 million.

    In a widely cited 2006 study, rich people reported that they spend more time doing things they were required to do.

    Why do they want to do this to themselves?

    The fact that there are more rich people who are, in fact, richer than ever may be part of the reason.

    Sociologists have long talked about “relative income hypothesis.” We tend to measure material satisfaction by those around us — not in absolute terms.

    “For most people, enough is enough,” said Robert Frank, the wealth editor for CNBC and the author of the 2007 book “Richistan: A Journey Through the American Wealth Boom and the Lives of the New Rich,” who has interviewed many plutocrats. “But there is another group of people, no matter what they have, they have to keep going. I call them ‘scorekeepers.’ They’re truly driven by competitive zeal.”

    “If you’re an alcoholic,” he said, “you’re going to take one drink, two drinks, five drinks, six drinks to feel the buzz. Well, when you get a million dollars, you need 10 million dollars to feel like a king. Money is an addictive substance.”

    Feeding the addiction becomes even more challenging in a top-heavy economy where the price tags of the status symbols keep adding zeros.

    As a hedge fund veteran, precious metals adviser and financial author, James Rickards is a rich guy who talks to a lot of other rich guys. They don’t always like what he has to say.

    He believes that the current debt-fueled recovery may be a prelude for an economic collapse to dwarf the Great Recession. Until recently, he said, such theories were met with polite lack of interest by many wealthy people. Lately, something has changed.

    “Literally, in a matter of weeks, certainly a couple of months, the phone calls have had a different tone to them,” Mr. Rickards said. “What I’m hearing is, ‘I’ve got the money. How do I hang on to it?’

    Limitless opportunity, extreme isolation. They already own the present. What else is left to buy but tomorrow, and the tomorrow after that? Suddenly, the fetish of the superrich for space tourism starts to make sense.

    #richesse #super-riches #avidité

  • Science décalée : l’eau des WC révèle le niveau de vie
    https://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/actualites/sante-science-decalee-eau-wc-revele-niveau-vie-78006


    Les riches, ces gros pochtrons !

    Alors que les biomarqueurs du tabac sont répartis de façon équitable dans la population, ceux de l’alcool sont fortement corrélés à trois indicateurs : les personnes ayant un haut niveau de revenu, celles occupant un poste de manager et celles habitant un logement à loyer élevé. Autrement dit, les personnes aisées boivent plus, « la consommation d’alcool étant un marqueur de statut social », affirment les auteurs. De même, « la consommation de café semble fortement associée à un niveau d’éducation élevé et à une bonne aisance financière ». Une conclusion en contradiction avec le stéréotype qui veut que les personnes défavorisées se saoulent davantage.

    • Pour une étude publiée dans la revue PNAS, des chercheurs de l’université du Queensland et de l’Institut de recherche norvégien de l’eau ont prélevé quotidiennement durant une semaine des échantillons d’eau usée provenant de 22 stations d’épuration australiennes représentant 21 % de la population, puis ils ont croisé les données avec celles d’un recensement concomitant. Les chercheurs ont ainsi pu comparer la composition de l’eau avec les données socio-économiques issues du recensement, comme l’âge, le niveau d’éducation et de revenu, le taux d’emploi ou la qualité du logement. Quelque 43 biomarqueurs ont ainsi été passés au crible et les chercheurs ont découvert des corrélations parfois étonnantes, mais aussi des constatations assez logiques.
      Alimentation

      Davantage de biomarqueurs de vitamine B se trouvent dans les urines des personnes aisées, ce qui atteste d’une alimentation plus diversifiée, notent les chercheurs. Les auteurs ont également constaté une forte corrélation entre la consommation de fibres et le niveau d’éducation

      Médicaments

      La consommation d’opioïdes est à peu près équitablement répartie selon le niveau de vie et l’âge. Avec deux exceptions : la morphine, dont la consommation augmente significativement quand on vieillit (révélant une plus forte fréquence de maladies chroniques), et le tramadol, très courant chez les ouvriers (sans doute plus exposés aux douleurs au travail). L’analyse des biomarqueurs d’antidépresseurs est elle aussi très révélatrice. De manière générale, ces derniers sont davantage présents chez les populations défavorisées, mais chaque antidépresseur semble avoir sa cible privilégiée

      #pauvreté #richesse #inégalités #addictions

    • Ca me rappelle cet article :

      Estimation of illicit drugs consumption by wastewater analysis in Paris area (France).
      Karolak S, Nefau T, Bailly E, Solgadi A, Levi Y. Forensic. Sci. Int. 200:153-160 (2010)
      https://seenthis.net/messages/773781

      Cocaine and its major metabolite benzoylecgonine (BZE), amphetamine, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) and buprenorphine were measured in raw water and WWTP effluent using HPLC-MS/MS after SPE extraction. Amphetamine was rarely detected. Cocaine and BZE were quantified at levels from 5 to 282 ng L(-1) and 15 to 849 ng L(-1), respectively. MDMA and buprenorphine concentrations remained under 20 ng L(-1). Cocaine consumption was estimated from cocaine or BZE concentrations measured in raw water and the results showed significant difference in drug taking during week or weekend. The estimated doses observed in this study are lower than those reported for others countries, especially Spain and Italy. MDMA consumption was estimated at lower levels than cocaine.

      #cocaine #MDMA #drogues #France #Mass_spectrometry #Science

  • Surprise : la suppression de l’ISF a profité aux ultra-riches – La Chronique Éco
    https://lemediapresse.fr/economie/surprise-la-suppression-de-lisf-a-profite-aux-ultra-riches-la-chroniqu

    « Il n’existe cependant aucune preuve que l’argent redonné aux plus #riches est allé financer l’investissement direct dans des entreprises ». L’économiste atterré Henri Sterdyniak revient sur les conséquences de la suppression de l’ISF.

    #Économie #Impôt #ISF #libéralisme #PFU

  • Opinion | The Rich Really Do Pay Lower Taxes Than You - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html

    Almost a decade ago, Warren Buffett made a claim that would become famous. He said that he paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, thanks to the many loopholes and deductions that benefit the wealthy.

    His claim sparked a debate about the fairness of the tax system. In the end, the expert consensus was that, whatever Buffett’s specific situation, most wealthy Americans did not actually pay a lower tax rate than the middle class. “Is it the norm?” the fact-checking outfit Politifact asked. “No.”

    Time for an update: It’s the norm now.

    For the first time on record, the 400 wealthiest Americans last year paid a lower total tax rate — spanning federal, state and local taxes — than any other income group, according to newly released data.

    #riches #impôts

  • Les milliardaires français s’enrichissent plus vite que les autres
    http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/les-milliardaires-francais-s-enrichissent-plus-vite-que-les-autres-20190701

    Un record : la richesse cumulée des 14 milliardaires français figurant dans le Top 500 mondial de Bloomberg s’est accrue de 34,8 % depuis le 31 décembre 2018, a révélé lundi l’agence financière. Ces « premiers de cordée » ont cumulé une croissance de leur patrimoine de 78 milliards de dollars (68,8 milliards d’euros).

    Une hausse bien plus forte que celle enregistrée dans tous les autres pays. Elle est même légèrement supérieure à celle des grandes fortunes thaïlandaises (+ 32,7 %) et singapourienne (+ 30,8 %). Avec 23 %, le Danemark clôt le Top 5 mondial de la croissance derrière le Japon (+ 24,2 %).

    #richesse #inégalités