How to Solve the World’s Biggest Problems | Natalie Cargill | TED

Sometimes the world's biggest issues can seem so intractable that meaningful change feels impossible. But what if the answer has been right in front of us all along? What if the answer is actually throwing money at the problems? In this thought-provoking talk, philanthropic advisor Natalie Cargill shares what might happen if we came together to spend 3.5 trillion dollars on fixing the world. And, yes, she also has a plan for where to get the money from. (Followed by a Q&A with Anna Verghese, executive director of The Audacious Project.)
If you love watching TED Talks like this one, become a TED Member to support our mission of spreading ideas: ted.com/membership
Follow TED!
Twitter: / tedtalks
Instagram: / ted
Facebook: / ted
LinkedIn: / ted-conferences
TikTok: / tedtoks
The TED Talks channel features talks, performances and original series from the world's leading thinkers and doers. Subscribe to our channel for videos on Technology, Entertainment and Design - plus science, business, global issues, the arts and more. Visit TED.com to get our entire library of TED Talks, transcripts, translations, personalized talk recommendations and more.
Watch more: go.ted.com/nataliecargill
• How to Solve the World...
TED's videos may be used for non-commercial purposes under a Creative Commons License, Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (or the CC BY - NC - ND 4.0 International) and in accordance with our TED Talks Usage Policy: www.ted.com/about/our-organiz.... For more information on using TED for commercial purposes (e.g. employee learning, in a film or online course), please submit a Media Request at media-requests.ted.com
#TED #TEDTalks #philanthropy

[@ronkirk5099]

I worked as an engineer on a U.S. flagged bulk ship that sailed under government charter to carry food aid, mostly wheat purchased by non-profits, to countries facing famine due to war or crop failure due to drought or social unrest. We could end hunger across the world if we just had the political will. It has been estimated that less than 1% of the GDP of the 20 riches countries could accomplish all the millennium development goals to eliminate extreme poverty globally.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Cargill: Our taxes, global destruction Minnetonka-Minnesota based Cargill is often noted as the world’s largest private corporation, with reported annual sales of over $50 billion and operations at any given time in an average of 70 countries. The “Lake Office” of Cargill is a 63-room replica of a French chateau; the chairman’s office is part of what was once the chateau’s master-bedroom suite. A family empire, the Cargills and the MacMillans control about 85 percent of the stock. Not only the largest grain trader in the world, with over 20 percent of the market, Cargill dominates another 12 sectors, including destructive speculative finance, according to “Invisible Giant: Cargill and its Transnational Strategies,” by Brewster Kneen. Taking advantage of the capitalist speculative collapse of 1873, Cargill quickly bought up grain elevators. After vast cooperation with the state-sponsored railroad robber barons, central grain terminals averaged extremely high annual returns on investments of 30 to 40 percent between 1883 and 1889. Cargill hired a Chase Bank vice president to secretly help the corporation through the Depression, writes Dan Morgan in “Merchants of Grain.” “There are only a few processing firms,” and “these firms receive a disproportionate share of the economic benefits from the food system,” states William D. Heffernan, professor of rural sociology at the University of Missouri. Details of Cargill’s price manipulations at the expense of farmers worldwide was documented in the classic study, “Food First: Beyond the Myth of Scarcity” by Frances Moore Lappe and Joseph Collins. They report that Cargill has had a history of receiving elite government price information that should be told to U.S. farmers. That secrecy, along with tax-subsidized market control, enables Cargill to buy from U.S. farmers at extremely low prices and then sell abroad to nations pressured under the same destructive elite corporate control. See the Institute for Food and Development Policy’s Web Site Between 1985 and 1992, the legal entity called Cargill received $800.4 million in tax subsidies via the Export Enhancement Program, a continuation of the infamous “Food for Peace” policy, writes Kneen. Promoted by Hubert H. Humphrey and instituted as PL 480, food became a Cold War tool, i.e. “for Peace.” If we can induce people to “become dependent on us for food,” then “what is a more powerful weapon than food and fiber?” Humphrey declared, according to “Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies” by Noam Chomsky. Actually, most of the nation recipients of tax-subsidized Cargill food dumping were, and are, net exporters of food already - policies imposed by colonial trading patterns. The food (for Peace) has been bought cheaply by neocolonial regimes, and then sold at a huge discount on the local market - in Somalia, for example, at one-sixth of the local prices. Many examples of these misguided policies can be found in “Betraying the National Interest: How US Foreign AID Threatens Global Security by Undermining the Political and Economic Stability of the Third World,” by Frances Moore Lappe, et al. Cargill’s undercutting wipes out the local farmers’ self-reliance, while the revenues (going to the elite) are tied to required purchases of U.S. weapons, writes Chomsky, citing “The Soft War” by Tom Barry, 1988. But the main beneficiary of “Food for Peace” has been Cargill. Keen writes, “From 1954 to 1963, just for storing and transporting P.L. 480 commodities, the heavily subsidized giant Cargill made $1 billion.” Indian lawyer N.J. Nanjundaswamy reports that a Cargill motto is, “One who controls the seed, controls the farmer, and one who controls the food trade, controls the nation.” Yudof’s recently stated support of federal foreign policy Title XII is another public promotion of the University of Minnesota-Cargill partnership’s raiding of sustainable agricultural cultures. Cargill is such a damaging threat that in Dec. 1992, 500,000 peasants marched against corporate-controlled trade, and the irate farmers ransacked Cargill’s operations. Fifty people were arrested at the partially completed - and subsequently destroyed - seed-processing plant in Bellary, India. In 1996, 1,000 Indian farmers gathered at Cargill’s office and destroyed Cargill’s records. Cargill has been doing bio-piracy, stealing traditional products. For instance, it used Basmati, a rice from India, as its trade name, and the company continues to be one of the main promoters of corporate-driven intellectual property rights. The U.S. Trade Act, Special 301 Clause, allows the United States to take unilateral action against any country that does not open its market to U.S. corporations. The United States, for example, has threatened to use trade sanctions against Thailand for its attempt to protect biodiversity. A bill that has been before parliament in India and promoted by Cargill, “takes away all the farmers’ rights, which they have enjoyed for generations - they will no longer be able to produce new varieties of seed or trade seed amongst themselves,” writes Nanjundaswamy. The research center, Rural Advancement Foundation International, found that “fifteen African states, among them some of the poorest countries in the world, are under pressure to sign away the right of more than 20 million small-holder farmers to save and exchange crop seed. The decision to abandon Africa’s 12,000-year tradition of seed-saving will be finalized at a meeting in the Central African Republic. The 15 governments have been told to adopt draconian intellectual property legislation for plant varieties in order to conform to a provision in the World Trade Organization.” Cargill, with extensive funding from the U.S. Agency for International Development, is also destroying the world’s largest wetland - the Pantanal, in South America - in order to dredge a channel that’s designed for convoys of up to 16 soybean- and soymeal-carrying barges, according to the Institute on Food and Development Policy. Cargill has been on the Council of Economic Priorities’ list of worst environmental offenders. Mother Jones magazine and Earth Island Journal report that Cargill is responsible for 2,000 OSHA violations, a 40,000-gallon spill of phosphoric solution into Florida’s Alafia River, poor air pollution compliance and record-high releases of toxic waste. With help from the Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy states have recently begun to respond to citizen pressure and revoke corporate charters. The assets of Cargill should be revoked, allowing the citizens of the United States to give farmers the benefits of fair trade instead of Cargill’s secretive policy of tax-subsidized global destruction.

[@nerd26373]

Solving the world's biggest problems requires a clear mindset and far clearer decision-making skills.

[@Bird.t]

Really Rockefeller(elite) royal monarch freemason/ry foundation and their signs symbols and numbers(gematria) and many names…..they have at least 500 trillion and pretty much control and monitor and dictate our food and materials and so on…..know who’s rich and poor control country’s around the world…I think most people know this by now don’t have to be a rocket scientist or Einstein doesn’t anyone read and research anymore opps my bad nope….all this staged and mess with peoples weak spirits and minds…..I wish they would stop messing mind control seeding these people ghezzz wizards…..the truth is stranger than fiction it’s obvious and just plain common sense and real street smart and true spirit with discernment

[@coolersmoke]

Which is why the world continues to decline, and the disparity of wealth grows ever wider. There is no-one, absolutely no-one, with those skills you mention, who is in a high enough position to use them effectively, and individually, to make real change.

[@Tigerous]

Put a cap on greed on everything and everyone or just wait until we make this planet inhabitable for humanity.

[@Honeydoyou]

@@coolersmokeit isn’t going to be changed by one or two individuals. The working class needs to rise up together

[@bujorico]

If money can save the world we’ve forgotten that we gave money their power and so the power is within us all along 💞

[@robking6367]

Yes, money does save the world for those few trillionaires/billionaires/millionaires alive, for all the rest it makes the world seem like not that "saved", I could be wrong, though. I mean, somebody has to keep the top on top.

[@eddiepalmer5740]

The biggest problem is the greed at the top. 😮

[@davidholaday2817]

So you need to understand those people and tackle and address those specific problems.

[@aaron4820]

This entire talk started with giving examples of philanthropy that had positive results, i.e from the mega rich, this childish mindset of the rich == evil solves nothing except perhaps gives you comfort by simplifying complex topics and giving it a cartoon villain to frown against.

[@bartosz7170]

@@aaron4820 Was looking for such comment

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@aaron4820 That's why Eisenhower had a 90% plus marginal tax rate on the rich. oops.

[@johndeluna692]

This proposal basically suggests that people from wealthier countries could fund potential solutions to the world's biggest problems.

[@fancyfree8228]

This all sounds very nice and I’m all for it, but I’d like to see the reference notes on how these numbers were calculated.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Start with how the marginal tax rate on the wealthy was over 90% during Eisenhower administration - was he a Commie? hahaha. Or was that justice and not "philanthropy"?

[@amandeepsaroa5125]

It's really good that somebody is focusing on the problems as well

[@timkiemdautu]

Your content is very interesting. Thank you!❤

[@malikwaqas2224]

Create a movement for this. I will join you in it.

[@randomboris]

I bet the top 1% of global income earners would be vehemently opposed to taking any of their income at all. Human nature will always put self interest above the interests of others.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Bolshevik revolution 2.0 would cure that issue.

[@Evermorecurious]

I’d just like them to be a mentor or accountability partner.

[@ivanandreevich8568]

LOL yes anyone making over $60K.. here in Canada you'd be lucky to be living in a fucking closet with $60K. Which is >$90K pre tax.

[@trader2137]

its simply not fair to transfer from rich to poor, poor are poor for a reason. If poor ate the poor the problem would disappear

[@Honeydoyou]

@@trader2137you’re poor

[@CitiesForTheFuture2030]

We know what the problems & solutions are, and how to implement them - the tech is available & can be deployed relatively easily. Of course there are complications & difficulties, and any type of social / tech transition is "painful". The main obstacle to a just & equitable transition is social - our democracy, economy, political & justice systems have been hijacked by a small elite - 30 % of society are sociopaths whose whole identity is based on the status quo (the fact that there are poor people suffering makes them feel superior & entitled), 30 % don't get it or don't care, 30% are just trying to survive or are too young or old to help). Only a small minority of people care, are running around trying to save what remains, clean up the mess, convince "Judas" politicians to do the right thing for everybody whilst fighting deliberate disinformation & propaganda. Isn't it amazing how society trusts "science" when it comes to money & tech, but not the enviro or climate change? Although I'm beginning to understand all the "denialism" is actually misdirection. What's ACTUALLY going to solve our various crises is social. We have to rediscover what's REALLY important and commit ourselves to learning to live in harmony with nature, share resources equitably (I don't mean socialism) and work towards a more sustainable, equitable & inclusive society. In a world based on individualism (narcissism in my opinion), a rediscovery of "community" is much needed. Humanity is at a crossroads and requires most of us to at least care about the future of the planet and the people & creatures that call it home.

[@agalva100]

Wow, I knew I was not even close to that 1%… didn’t realize I was this far

[@Honeydoyou]

Every person in the working class is baby steps away from homelessness and cannot fathom the wealth gap

[@polrobertcompte5325]

how can we all agree on which are the real problems and the top priorities?

[@CricketsBay]

The 17 Global Goals set forth by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) are a great place to start.

[@katelambros2454]

💜

[@danielchow1975]

"Oh, there's a choice we're making." -mj

[@ecoideazventures6417]

Please educate me - How do we spend $2 billion to reduce the nuclear risk? I watched her speech once again to understand but in vain. can anybody explain?

[@RanXie-dm2un]

Well, I think she probably means $2 trillion😂

[@vorpal120]

Solving the world's problems begins with citizenry. The govt can't make the people do what is needed to build constructive habits and stop wanting to commit crimes. It takes good parenting and a community of building good habits. Only then can correct decision making be made when the adults understand a common goal. That is why the US was successful in the past (though troubled) the general population (and immigrants) bought into the "American Dream" that is how we got nuclear families. 9-5 jobs (careers that paid for necessities), and leaders that could articulate themselves and say what they meant pretty plainly. It was a time when most people in the US had the same goal, though our leaders had different ideologies on how to get there. But now our leaders, citizens, and parents all have such a different idea about what is important that no one can agree on anything and we spend more time in conflict with each other instead of a common goal. People only see the differences instead of commonalities. We argue about what is and forget we trying to build a positive what will be... what a bummer.

[@GlxyEntertainment]

I can tell you this, if the whole population was able to survive. Eat, have the ability to have entertainment, and a place to live, crime would drop substantially.

[@ThisisTechie]

Short answer, Yes but it shouldn’t go to one business, organization, etc.

[@Honeydoyou]

To the people

[@user-ez2gw4nt3i]

8:51

[@dandiaz19934]

For this to work, the Top 1% needs to hace a moral conscience, which they dont. And they do the bare minimum mandated by law. I dont see them giving up that cash with nothing in return, sadly...

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Eisenhower had a 90% plus marginal tax rate on the wealthy. But I guess he must have been a Commie? hahahaha. too late now.

[@johndeluna692]

You talk like there are no greedy, immoral, poor people.

[@wearethefruitoftheuniverse]

Funding is an issue because there is an idea about types of inconsiderate people that exist 'mechanically' beyond help. Some speculate it's hereditary and therefore all resource is controlled forcefully, as to not feed and multiply them. Latest studies show that we're built to be sensitive to social dynamics,the good and the bad. This leads to experiences being the culprit to why some are activated in some and not in others. Some cultures are brutalized by nature and thus only type can exist, just as an example. In other words, many are within saving. We just have to relax on some of our view points that were incomplete to begin with, and in modern days, outdated. A little or a lot. To each his own... level of understanding. Anyway, here is another idea that might help: 1) 3d printed "plastic inject moulding plates 2) new "unnatural resource" in form of plastic trash. 3) fund plastic-fisherman

[@paperspeaksco]

I used to be a believer in philanthropy but over time i realised that expecting billionaires to "solve" things means giving them a reason to exist (when they currently have no reason to exist) We need to find ways to hold governments accountable to prevent billionaires from evading tax and then funnel that money into solving our problems. We should do that because governments are beholden to their voters. Relying on billionaires puts us at the whimsical mercies of their supposed benevolence.

[@CreativeMindsAudio]

or even if we just taxed those 1% at 10% more every year. no wait make it 50% more like how we had it before Reagan. I am sure our government could do a lot more then. Especially if companies/money had no say in politics. What i'd like to know is how logistically they would solve these issues and how someone could donate their time to doing this good for the world

[@toddhensley880]

Your faith in government is terribly misplaced.

[@paperspeaksco]

@@toddhensley880 my faith in government has been displaced by billionaires taking control of my elected officials.

[@paperspeaksco]

@@CreativeMindsAudio That's my point, we don't need to tax the 1% "more" - this leads to the false narrative that they are currently paying their full share of tax (which they aren't). I want them to be held accountable for the tax they already owe, which they avoid through clever accounting.

[@CreativeMindsAudio]

@@paperspeakscotrue! honestly if they stopped dodging taxes and paid what they were supposed to all along that would be a huge contribution to helping the world. no more hoarding of money beyond a certain point (like a savings account, retirement, etc). it's what creates problems for everyone. there's no need for a billionaire (well maybe after a century of inflation 😂)

[@Kelty0656]

Waiting for the goodwill of a few billionaires to solve our problems seems risky to me

[@petersontrop6165]

I just Am in love with absolutely everything about Natalie and her pursuits… She Too bad she is married 😢😮

[@riccardo_aquilanti]

I mean Gandhi said it first, the greed of the rich is the real obstacle.

[@Honeydoyou]

The Earth isn’t dying, it’s being killed at the hands of a few, and those people have names and addresses

[@rikachiu]

UBI works. The rich just doesn't want you to know about it.

[@Honeydoyou]

Communism is a good thing, the rich just don’t want you to know about it

[@ghostmantagshome-er6pb]

@rikachiu==EMPTY BOT ACCOUNT

[@militiamc]

It's not that easy. (1) You can't just throw money at things. You're assuming the talent is there if the money is there. Suddenly there are more climate scientists and disease researchers just because there's more money? Doesn't work that way. Takes years to train people and a large segment of any population will want to be singers, artists, lawyers, bankers, etc. instead of scientists. (2) Feeding people for a year doesn't solve underlying societal (corrupt ruling class/bad government/poor infrastructure/remote locations/harsh desert environment) problems. Plus you can throw money at people and feed them for a while, but if you throw enough money the local government will step in to take their cut (their cut is ~90+%). Unfortunate but that's life.

[@RFI1919]

Beautiful ❤🙏🙏🙏

[@oneworldonehome]

"Do not think this will be easy. Do not think it will require only a few things to alter the course that humanity is currently on. Do not think there are easy and basic solutions. There are a thousand solutions that will be needed, and you only have a few. You will have to find the others, and it will take great human effort and collaboration to make this possible. You are living in a global emergency. Do not think this will not affect you and your life profoundly and completely. It can ruin your economies. It can lead to mass starvation and death. It can lead to warfare, perpetual warfare, on a scale that has never been seen here before." *The New World - Chapter 3: The Global Emergency, The New Message from God* - as revealed to MV Summers.

[@sjbang287]

Thank you~

[@johnchapman5125]

Thanks for sharing!

[@thecitizenfarmer7700]

Well said

[@agaragar21]

How you solve the worlds Problems is yo prevent Gestational Brain DAMAGE....Better Executive functions means people being able to follow goal directed behaviour over time ...less animalistic, less territorial , etc Thinking in a future directed manner ! No raping, no more war, no more murder, no homelessness, no callous actions, and better dental health

[@ghostmantagshome-er6pb]

EMPTY BOT ACCOUNT

[@JoaoC-yq1pz]

if i could have a realy help for education and been respect as human things could be easy. i have been leaving crime

[@miroslavhoudek7085]

I would love if someone idealistic (such as this nice lady) would explain to me how they imagine the 1 percenters to pay up. Imagine I have a 1 trillion dollar company. I own 51 percent of it, so that makes me pretty rich - about 510 billions net worth. Not someone asks me to give away 2 percent of my net worth for good things. And I'm personally willing. Now that means, that I have to sell a lot of stock (because my 100 million USD villa or my 5 million USD ferrari won't even make a dent in this). So I'm no longer in control of the company. That's a big ask, tbh. And also, if every 1 percenter is selling off their stock - who is buying the stock? Who has those trillions of cash that can be readily spent on this operation? This would be such a clusterfuck, I imagine. But I'm open to explanations, honestly.

[@bartosz7170]

This

[@0Tigrincs0]

I think that this number is a pretty high number. It was a demonstration of an idea. Think in smaller numbers and slower pace of solving problems. Smaller numbers mean that we can afford to pay them year over year from our earnings. So many people mentioned taxes. Yes! Great idea. Now we just need to tackle corruption and guarantee that funds are used for the right purposes. Look at the countries where corruption is the smallest. They thrive. Their quality of life is way higher than others (no, not the us of a). They do indeed give directly to the poorest. Their social systems work much better than other countries’.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

Corporations are chartered by state governments. Business is controlled by people. Corporations are not legal persons - despite corrupt judges claiming otherwise. hahahaha.

[@LBenn302]

Money won’t save it. We need a miracle. It’s the people within it that are the problem. Especially the leadership

[@Honeydoyou]

The answer you’re looking for is communism, but the United States has made sure we fear it too much to do our own research

[@invox9490]

If you want the top 1% to give out 10%, there's already a mechanism for that... It's called taxes.

[@cristianfamigliuolo]

It is not philanthropy that will save the world, it is the correctly managed voluntary distribution of alms that restarts the velocity of money. 😂

[@fsmoura]

POWER! I'll need lots of power! It's for the good of the world! Step 1) Crush those who oppose me. *_*closes raised fist*_*

[@operachild]

The top 1% is part of the problem and reason why poverty even exists. These ideas are nice, but feel like a fever dream.

[@MrRaiderporvida]

No thanks, give me a steak any day of the week

[@digitalplayland]

Solve poverty and the rest will fix by itself.

[@trader2137]

to solve poverty you need to trim human population in poor regions by 90%

[@Honeydoyou]

@@trader2137you are a working class person you would literally be apart of the trimming

[@trader2137]

@@Honeydoyou nah i make in a day what africans make in a lifetime

[@sunraiii]

Yes, it can. Next

[@sledgehammer-productions]

When the philanthropist would really pay their taxes, the governments should be able to pay for the stuff society needs.

[@nathaneades6639]

Chu Chu

[@_SIRENITY_]

Awful take

[@nathaneades6639]

che che

[@Zajcooo]

ah yes, a literal who solves the world's problems, thanks ted lmao

[@RDL7Pro]

Ngl I instanly clicked on this video cuz I saw a beautiful woman in a beautiful red dress

[@Honeydoyou]

You should have kept that information to yourself and commented something useful instead, like adding to the conversation instead of objecting her.

[@ThePawcios]

Wealth redistribution... I have seen it somwhere and how it works... Soviet Union? Money do not solve such problems... look at Africa and how many bilions is pumped there :P

[@janprovaznik9919]

Most programs in Africa are corrupt and the benefit is seized by the rulers. But Give Directly has evidence that the money they send actually gets to these poorest people in the world.

[@invox9490]

If money could fix the world, with the amount of it being thrown around right NOW... It would already been fixed.

[@stuartbogle1722]

Yet another talk from someone who doesn't understand the actual problem of climate change. Because climate change is a not a science problem. We understand how CO2 affects heat buildup in our atmosphere. It's not an engineering problem. There are MANY engineering solutions for stopping or removing CO2 from our atmosphere with our industrial processes. It's not a policy problem. We know how to get industry to implement the engineering solutions to stop adding or remove CO2 from the atmosphere. You create favorable regulation and tax breaks. It's not even a finance problem, as in who pays how much at what times. We know how to do that. You start a company and go to a bank and get a loan or sell stocks and bonds. It's called capitalism. You may not like it but we know how to do it. Climate change is a currency problem. As in what currency do we use to pay for it, like Euros, Yen, Rubles, Rupees, Dollars etc. In order for the world to decarbonize, the world must first dedollarize. The US dollar the the "Global Reserve Currency". That means it's the currency that is used the most in international trade. When countries buy and sell things to each other they pay in US dollars and not their own currency. So the worlds wealthy be it individuals, corporations, or governments have most of their assets in US dollars. The US dollar is backed by oil. It's referred to as the "petrodollar". Saudi Arabia will only accept US dollars for their oil. So if any country wants to buy Saudi oil they first have to go to a US bank and exchange their own currency for US dollars, inflating demand for the dollar and thus it's value. This is how the US dollar is "backed" by oil. This started in 1971 when the US left the gold standard and the the value of the dollar started to tank. Kissinger had the idea that we offer Saudi king Faisal a deal. We would protect them from all enemies foreign and domestic and they in exchange would not accept any currency other then US dollars for their oil. The king eventually agreed. The rest of OPEC over time agreed as well. So now the value of the dollar is determined by the worlds demand for oil. This was a good thing at the time because it made the dollar a stable currency. Using it meant planning a long term budget was much easier, think the Weimar Republic. This was before climate change was well understood. Climate change was not well understood in the 1970's. Once climate change was better understood in the 1990's the worlds wealthy were not eager to do anything about it because if the world stopped needing oil, then the world would stop needing dollars and it's value would drop and they would find themselves with a ton of currency that nobody wanted, i.e. they would be poor. So asking them to invest in something that would reduce the worlds demand for oil is basically telling them I want to make all that money you have valueless. What makes things even worse is to keep the value of the dollar stable the US had to print more dollars as the global demand for oil grew. If the US didn't do this the dollars value would have become unstable. A large increase in value can be just as bad and a large decrease. So there are more dollars around then there were back in 1971. It's gotten to the point now that if the world stops needing oil the value of the US dollar drops not only from lack of demand but also from a glut of supply. Global warming will not truly be solved until the world, or rather the worlds elite, can agree on a common currency thats value is not determined by the worlds demand for oil, i.e. the petrodollar. You might say what is required is a "global financial reset". Just so happens that the worlds wealthy are talking about just such a thing. You might have heard it's about debt forgiveness. It is, but it is also about establishing a new global reserve currency. Is it because they care about funding technology for fighting climate change? Possibly, but I think it has more to do with the fact that the US has sanctions on over 30 countries. Countries they would like to do business with but they can't. The way the global banking system is set up currently (SWIFT) is if you want to buy something internationally in US dollars, those dollars have to go through a US bank. Thus the US can stop any purchase once those dollars hit a US bank. Thus all this talk about a financial reset means that it appears that the global elite (or non-US and Saudi elite that is) are ready to move on from the petrodollar. Once the worlds wealthy can decide on a new global reserve currency (and what it will be backed by like gold or block chain) they can start exchanging their dollars for it and that will allow them to invest in technology to fight climate change without destroying their wealth. This is is referred to as dedollarization. Everything changed after Russia invaded Ukraine. The US put such harsh sanctions on Russia that other countries questioned if it was safe to have so much of their wealth in US dollars. Thus the BRICS nations started taking about using their own currency in trade with each other. They even started talking about creating a BRICS currency. Saudi Arabia has even started accepting Chinese currency for their oil. If you care about climate change then this should give you hope that the world will start investing in climate fighting technologies at the scale necessary to make a difference

[@drPapperNet]

Rather interesting analysis, yet the logistics and geopolitical processes of establishing a parallel currency backed on something else are definitely tricky

[@rob6850]

Good illustration of how sanctions hurt us instead of helping anything.

[@stuartbogle1722]

Yes, and that is the heart of the problem. Getting everyone to agree on what has value.@@drPapperNet

[@efazshikder182]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Insightful

[@shrunkenskull]

This might be the most attractive woman I've ever seen and at least 60% of that attraction is from her words 😍😍😍

[@ghostmantagshome-er6pb]

@shrunkenskull= THANK YOU EMPTY BOT ACCOUNT

[@patrickgoldsmith4407]

The human population of our planet has doubled in the past 50 years. THAT is the root of the problem. Collectively we act like a cancer on our host. We are the problem itself. All these ideas are good. Can it be done?

[@TheMrmoc7]

10% is a lot, I can't afford it with my student loans and what not, sorry. Maybe try limiting this to the top 1% in U.S.A, China, India, Japan, and Korea.

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Just move decimal point to the left several places and raise minimum wage to match cost of living. Tax all billionaires until they only have 2 billion a world limit on greed . Have a Bolshevik revolution 2.0

[@janprovaznik9919]

How would that help the poorest people in Africa?

[@MitzvosGolem1]

@@janprovaznik9919 their 💵 currency would buy more food medicine housing energy etc

[@cutback443]

There's NO amount of MONEY that can "solve" the problems created by MONEY.

[@stuartbogle1722]

Over all that is correct. But the real problem isn't about money, but rather what gives money value. Currently that is the fact that the value of the global reserve currency (the US dollar) is determined by the worlds demand for OPEC oil. So as long as the world needs oil then the world need US dollars.

[@dirtydrew69]

No, but you can pay pretty women to convince people it can.

[@aaron4820]

Yes, humans' need for clean water, shelter, free from diseases and food are all created by money.

[@ivanandreevich8568]

So I guess you missed the whole part where PPE didn't work, eh? Seriously? Cochrane.

[@kingnaga619]

AI should be allowed to develop without limit. We’ve screwed up, give Skynet a chance.

[@threelionsonourshirt8259]

Bioengineered crops arnt good

[@BrianSweda]

Why?

[@HunnidTheTrapper02]

Bananas? Watermelons? Maize?

[@rob6850]

@@HunnidTheTrapper02diseases? Tasteless monoculture? Bacterial gut rot?

[@HunnidTheTrapper02]

@@rob6850 where?

[@darinherrick9224]

@@BrianSwedabecause they cause food allergies and intolerances and inflammatory diseases. GMO make people so sick they eventually kill them from diseases that basically dony exist in countries where GMOs are banned.

[@invox9490]

Throw money at the (or any) problem... Very american.

[@johnnyblade6088]

No, but getting rid of tyrants can and the useless rich.

[@pqpq594]

I'd rather they pay their taxes.

[@janprovaznik9919]

Taxes for rich people in the West don't bring any benefit to the poorest people in the world.

[@horaceh]

Wasn't tax created with such a dream in mind? How does that turn out.

[@mrgelvis]

God bless Donald Trump for his tremendous donations to these organizations!! Oh wait, that money is for his lawyers.

[@Rakki_Haitatsu]

I need to know more Natalie, could give me a private lesson on this?? 😉😋

[@markbarsingerhorn3338]

Summarised: what if we give 10% off all wealth to me and let me play as a philanthropist!

[@temporalshade6980]

if you ask me, she did a bloody good job with that hypothetical money. here's to hoping this happens!

[@kennethmyers2737]

Do you remember the faces earth has been here longer than mankind, and it will go when it goes the earth will do you think mankind is going to say this earth yeah got to. We don’t have the ability to save it. It’ll do what it’s going to do and that’s a fact God help all your souls if you think you can save this earth.

[@prsingh0565]

I am. Not agree with you 🫠