kanduri

>Vast sums provide power to ‘buy every politician’ and delay action on climate crisis, says expert

That explains why this industry gets USD 6 trillion of publicly paid subsidies from governments.

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/06/fossil-f...

Quotes from the article:

> For all its utopian trappings, web3 tech like cryptocurrency only deepens the problem of elite control over the internet. We have an alternative.

> The promise of web3 is a promise to re-create the inequalities of modern capitalism, with 0.01 percent of Bitcoin holders controlling 27 percent of the cryptocurrency in circulation as of December 2021.

It is an electoral autocracy. Merely having elections doesn't make it "democratic". Certainly not if much of mainstream media is under the ownership of the biggest "donors" of the current ruling disposition.

Alternative crowd sourced media houses such as AltNews, The Wire among others are under real danger as are socio-political activists, union organizers, smaller opposition political parties, etc.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944

Money came from global trade. That trade could be possible there because the pre-Deng governments prepared a very skilled workforce. In order to have usable skills, one needs to be fed, clothed, educated, in relatively good health, housed and should be able to get to their workplace.

Governments investing on critical infrastructure, and basic services that give a foundation of opportunity is a precondition to growth led by industrialization/trade.

This thread is about how the governments can use their money and power to uplift the underprivileged, and not about mechanisms for the government to make money. It is a conversation on leaving the poor to "market forces" vs. governments ensuring basics to the impoverished.

The government guaranteed access to the basics to the masses. It made money via the market liberalization policies. I was talking about how governments using their budgets for inclusive policies can have a much more impactful role in poverty reduction.

In other nations where the governments don't take these proactive role, people are at the mercy of market forces for everything, including basics needed for survival.

Topic on how governments can make money via global trade is a different thread of discussion. This one pertains on how the public sector can/should use their power to empower the underprivileged.

75% of global poverty reduction has been due to China lifting over 800 million people. The real number is even higher if you account for Vietnam, Laos and Cuba. Then there are also many nations that don't classify themselves explicitly as government-planned economies where the public sector plays a huge role in providing a wide breadth of basic services to the people, rather than the private markets doing so.

So virtually all of the poverty alleviation has happened when governments have prioritized access to basics (housing, education, healthcare, public transport, pensions, wage regulations, utilities like power/water/sewerage, etc) to the common people rather than leave it up to "market forces".

Institutions that represent the interests of people using state budgets for inclusive policy have a much bigger role in poverty alleviation, by creating an environment of fair opportunity for the poor, than explicit deregulation/privatization.

Source: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/04/01/l...