I will say that what is about Climate Change and the extension of retirement age, under discussion these days in several countries. Most will say not much. However, in both cases we have to face the same question, it is necessary to answer: which public policies must be implemented now to address an event that will take place in the distant future but with a high level of uncertainty, but with potentially catastrophic consequences.
Some will say that warnings about climate change have a lot of science behind (true), while economic models can not be so, or at least be subject to greater uncertainty and greater likelihood of failure in their predictions, as past often (also true). However, the particular case before us supports a powerful counter-argument: climate models also have a high level of uncertainty while the pension calculations are relatively easy to make, since the current demographic curve, which is the main factor (although not only) of future pensions, it is well known.
In the case of climate change, no scientist or economist and puts serious doubt on focusing the debate on what is the best way to confront him, that is, what public policies (in this case at the global level) are more effective and also economic development do not compromise the present or future generations. And about that debate, bitter, much remains unsaid. Denying climate change deniers are only the activists who through ignorance, ideology, or more commonly, economic interests, deny most like an invention a group of scientists from the United Nations.
For pensions, a problem far more simple as it affects only a group of countries (those who advocate a particular welfare state and a particular demographic curve) and also you can address each country individually, is also acting the deniers : not only discuss what policies are best suited to address the problem (which would be legitimate) but deny the very fact that pensions are in danger by diverting attention to ideological reasons or dark interests which they exist behind those who promote change.
is common among denialists , sometimes strongly ideological and sometimes strongly supported by other interests, accusing his rivals of the same. I attached an example I do not know if it is backed by other interests, but certainly ideological: this article one of the "deniers of pension most followed in the media.
But I'm not interested here fester further debate. Let us agree that there may be debate. Accept that, despite the demographic curve, several points that may affect the future of pensions (immigration, productivity ...) on it is difficult to predict its evolution, and therefore it allows for some level of discussion. You can go into details in this and this post.
What I think is important to note here, however, is how they take each other, and above all to be taken by governments to tackle these problems, ie what should be the sensible attitude when an event, despite their level of uncertainty, has a non-negligible risk of becoming catastrophic if nothing is done. You see, climate change again ...
course, I do not blindly bet on "the enormous technological advances" (In the words of Vicente Navarro), as if they give out of necessity, or bet blind GDP growth based on history in which no account is taken of what produced them and therefore could not happen again, etc. ., is the right attitude. As I do not think that betting on huge technological advances, yet glimpsed energy revolutions and radical change in attitude and wasteful consumerist society ... be sensible ways of tackling climate change, but all this could actually happen (hopefully) because prolonged periods of time, almost anything can happen. Notice that I said "almost." And "can happen."
But the attitude of denial goes beyond its commitment to "good things will happen for sure." It accuses those who warn of problems that are dangerous representatives of ideology "neoliberal" comeniños, defending the interests of the right and the capital as well (come back to the last part of the article by Navarro) that have a huge presence in the media that the ombudsmen suffered like him, are denied. This narrative is particularly harmful because it easily Creek citizenship increasingly crushed by the crisis, because he has an enemy, however fictional it may be, against which to fight.
This part Finally, I can not resist commenting on it, is the funniest of the entire article by Navarro, you will see: in the English media more serious (which I assume are those he is concerned) is offered to any platform ( Niño Becerra even ) to say almost any blunder in equal conditions to any serious scientist or Nobel prize, but the reading public has the faintest idea what the background of each other when to hold such stands. To focus the argument a bit: what more we would like to leave some more in the press, radio and TV people can do rigorous analysis and present debates further afield of political confrontation and ideology ... because if we return to the last part of the article by Navarro, which presented as an example to follow the "analysis" that defend this kind of reality subverters grouped ATTAC, breaded go ...
But we do not disperse, and return to the fundamental argument of the post: fiaríais you your future "Many good things can happen"? Would not it be wise to put the means to solve what we fear might happen if you finally do not pass those "good things"? As if finally passed, amend the policy would certainly be less expensive that if, through inaction, we allow the worst end happening.
This, at least IMHO. UPDATE
09/11/1910: A relevant contribution to the debate here. .. and considerations on the treatment of uncertainty, here.
0 comments:
Post a Comment