#2 Sin duda los datos macro a nivel mundial no han parado de mejorar, especialmente desde que no hay grandes guerras.
¿Hay algo que garantice que esto seguirá siendo siempre así?.
No, nada.
La noticia va de lo mismo que la ciencia nos lleva avisando desde hace tiempo: Estamos sobrepasando los limites del planeta, consumiendo mucho mas de lo que reponemos, y eso no es sostenible en el tiempo, por lo que tarde o temprano llegará un reajuste.
De alguna manera habrá que equilibrar la población mundial, somos más de 7.300 millones de habitantes y creciendo. Llegará un tiempo en que los recursos no llegarán para todos y habrá hambruna, epidemias, masacres y un iPhone 69, y eso no será culpa exclusiva del capitalismo. Bueno, lo del iPhone sí.
El capitalismo del que suelen referirse no existe. Es un concepto del S.XIX, la revolución industria, y 100 años anterior al desarrollo de la economía del bienestar y el estado del bienestar.
Hoy lo que determina que una industria sea pública es si hay competencia o no la hay. En situaciones de monopolios naturales como las telecos o las eléctricas, las practicas monopolistas son una tentación demasiado grande como para que no haya un férreo control por parte del estado.
Luego están las externalidades negativas que llevan a que se coarte la libertad de las empresas, por ejemplo a contaminar.
Y también están las externalidades positivas, los bienes de naturaleza pública, por ejemplo la red de carreteras, que cuanto mas se use mejor y por ello lo eficiente es que sean gratuitas, que las paguemos entre todos.
Hay mucho nostálgico colectivista que son un cero a la izquierda en economía y no se les saca de capitalismo aquí y capitalismo allá, cuan peperros con "el 11M es ETA" "los titiriteros son ETA" y "Carmena es ETA"....
Un poquito de conocimiento familia, que ha llovido mucho desde lo de la propiedad de los bienes de producción, que hoy en día la economía del bienestar dirime lo publico y lo privado en función de si hay competencia o debería haberla.
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.
Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School).
Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN).
Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census).
The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections)
Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form (Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain?
Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.
Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways.
“Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote.
Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.”
Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health.
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing.
A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management.
The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance
Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives.
On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company.
According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership:
The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards.
This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees.
Curiosamente, mientras fuera ponen de ejemplo al grupo Mondragón, aquí parece que los poderosos se empeñan en impedir cualquier iniciativa surgida del asociacionismo cooperativista.
"Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees."
Comentarios
Y esto lo dice Forbes... ha de estar mal la cosa.
Y lo dice Forbes, vaya "shock" para algunos que creen que solo mata a los pobres.
¿¿¿?¿?¿?¿?¿???
el titular contradice lo que dicen todos los expertos: que la miseria está disminuyendo
vídeo de 5 min http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06drxls
presentación completa: http://www.gapminder.org/videos/dont-panic-end-poverty/
#2 Sin duda los datos macro a nivel mundial no han parado de mejorar, especialmente desde que no hay grandes guerras.
¿Hay algo que garantice que esto seguirá siendo siempre así?.
No, nada.
La noticia va de lo mismo que la ciencia nos lleva avisando desde hace tiempo: Estamos sobrepasando los limites del planeta, consumiendo mucho mas de lo que reponemos, y eso no es sostenible en el tiempo, por lo que tarde o temprano llegará un reajuste.
#9 milenarismo (ojala)
De alguna manera habrá que equilibrar la población mundial, somos más de 7.300 millones de habitantes y creciendo. Llegará un tiempo en que los recursos no llegarán para todos y habrá hambruna, epidemias, masacres y un iPhone 69, y eso no será culpa exclusiva del capitalismo. Bueno, lo del iPhone sí.
#7 Nueva York tiene un área de 786 kilómetros cuadrados, y toda la raza humana cabría en ella -con sitio para otras 5.000 personas más. http://verne.elpais.com/verne/2015/03/12/articulo/1426156710_257537.html
El capitalismo del que suelen referirse no existe. Es un concepto del S.XIX, la revolución industria, y 100 años anterior al desarrollo de la economía del bienestar y el estado del bienestar.
Hoy lo que determina que una industria sea pública es si hay competencia o no la hay. En situaciones de monopolios naturales como las telecos o las eléctricas, las practicas monopolistas son una tentación demasiado grande como para que no haya un férreo control por parte del estado.
Luego están las externalidades negativas que llevan a que se coarte la libertad de las empresas, por ejemplo a contaminar.
Y también están las externalidades positivas, los bienes de naturaleza pública, por ejemplo la red de carreteras, que cuanto mas se use mejor y por ello lo eficiente es que sean gratuitas, que las paguemos entre todos.
Hay mucho nostálgico colectivista que son un cero a la izquierda en economía y no se les saca de capitalismo aquí y capitalismo allá, cuan peperros con "el 11M es ETA" "los titiriteros son ETA" y "Carmena es ETA"....
Un poquito de conocimiento familia, que ha llovido mucho desde lo de la propiedad de los bienes de producción, que hoy en día la economía del bienestar dirime lo publico y lo privado en función de si hay competencia o debería haberla.
Pocos comunistas quieren nacionalizar las peluquerias... ¿Por qué? Cuanta ignorancia ....
copio y pego por si no queréis apagar el Ublock
Unless It Changes, Capitalism Will Starve Humanity By 2050
Capitalism has generated massive wealth for some, but it’s devastated the planet and has failed to improve human well-being at scale.
Species are going extinct at a rate 1,000 times faster than that of the natural rate over the previous 65 million years (see Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School).
Since 2000, 6 million hectares of primary forest have been lost each year. That’s 14,826,322 acres, or just less than the entire state of West Virginia (see the 2010 assessment by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN).
Even in the U.S., 15% of the population lives below the poverty line. For children under the age of 18, that number increases to 20% (see U.S. Census).
The world’s population is expected to reach 10 billion by 2050 (see United Nations’ projections)
Capitalism is unsustainable in its current form (Credit: ZINIYANGE AUNTONY/AFP/Getty Images)
How do we expect to feed that many people while we exhaust the resources that remain?
Human activities are behind the extinction crisis. Commercial agriculture, timber extraction, and infrastructure development are causing habitat loss and our reliance on fossil fuels is a major contributor to climate change.
Public corporations are responding to consumer demand and pressure from Wall Street. Professors Christopher Wright and Daniel Nyberg published Climate Change, Capitalism and Corporations last fall, arguing that businesses are locked in a cycle of exploiting the world’s resources in ever more creative ways.
“Our book shows how large corporations are able to continue engaging in increasingly environmentally exploitative behaviour by obscuring the link between endless economic growth and worsening environmental destruction,” they wrote.
Yale sociologist Justin Farrell studied 20 years of corporate funding and found that “corporations have used their wealth to amplify contrarian views [of climate change] and create an impression of greater scientific uncertainty than actually exists.”
Corporate capitalism is committed to the relentless pursuit of growth, even if it ravages the planet and threatens human health.
We need to build a new system: one that will balance economic growth with sustainability and human flourishing.
A new generation of companies are showing the way forward. They’re infusing capitalism with fresh ideas, specifically in regards to employee ownership and agile management.
The Increasing Importance Of Distributed Ownership And Governance
Fund managers at global financial institutions own the majority (70%) of the public stock exchange. These absent owners have no stake in the communities in which the companies operate. Furthermore, management-controlled equity is concentrated in the hands of a select few: the CEO and other senior executives.
On the other hand, startups have been willing to distribute equity to employees. Sometimes such equity distribution is done to make up for less than competitive salaries, but more often it’s offered as a financial incentive to motivate employees toward building a successful company.
According to The Economist, today’s startups are keen to incentivize via shared ownership:
The central difference lies in ownership: whereas nobody is sure who owns public companies, startups go to great lengths to define who owns what. Early in a company’s life, the founders and first recruits own a majority stake—and they incentivise people with ownership stakes or performance-related rewards. That has always been true for startups, but today the rights and responsibilities are meticulously defined in contracts drawn up by lawyers. This aligns interests and creates a culture of hard work and camaraderie. Because they are private rather than public, they measure how they are doing using performance indicators (such as how many products they have produced) rather than elaborate accounting standards.
This trend hearkens back to cooperatives where employees collectively owned the enterprise and participated in management decisions through their voting rights. Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees.
Curiosamente, mientras fuera ponen de ejemplo al grupo Mondragón, aquí parece que los poderosos se empeñan en impedir cualquier iniciativa surgida del asociacionismo cooperativista.
"Mondragon is the oft-cited example of a successful, modern worker cooperative. Mondragon’s broad-based employee ownership is not the same as an Employee Stock Ownership Plan. With ownership comes a say – control – over the business. Their workers elect management, and management is responsible to the employees."
O antes!!
Relacionado: https://actualidad.rt.com/economia/198731-goldman-sachs-cuestionar-eficacia-capitalismo
Goldman Sachs también cuestiona la eficacia del capitalismo.