Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday February 28 2019, @07:37PM   Printer-friendly
from the innovation++ dept.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called for increased use of data technologies such as blockchain in the EU to boost the agriculture industry and address concerns over food traceability.

Inaugurating the 56th International Agricultural Fair in Paris at the weekend, Agridigitale.net reports, Macron spoke of the need to authenticate and track agricultural products amid growing consumer concerns over issues such such as the recent Polish beef scandal, saying:

“Let’s do this in Europe, [be at the] the vanguard of agricultural data by developing tools that will track every product from raw material production to packaging and processing.”

[...] The call for innovation came as part of a multi-part strategy that the president outlined in his speech. Europe’s agricultural policy going forward, he said, would be based on the protection of farmers and consumers against climate change and market risks, farming more ecologically, and using technology and innovation to help to solve industry challenges.

https://www.coindesk.com/french-president-says-blockchain-could-put-europe-at-vanguard-of-innovation


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:15PM (7 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:15PM (#808440)

    Oversimplified to fit in a 3-line post during a compile, If you have a huge debt and a big crisis, Joe Brass Knuckles who owns a significant part of that debt will have a nice chat with you about your repayment priorities.
    While Americans hold a lot of that debt, bank and foreign entities have a significant amount too.
    Remember how the banks got a bailout to "save the economy". The people get shafted every time, the institutions rarely. You get the stagnant wages, or the lost job, or the two-jobs-and-a-bankrutpcy, because the 20T debt repayments cost over 400B per year, and taxes are low, so there's no money to smooth the crisis bump with some Keynes...
    Slave to your debt. (don't tell me you don't have any, great for you if so, but most little people do)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:43PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 28 2019, @11:43PM (#808462)

    What is the difference to people between paying more taxes (that goes to the debtees) or becoming poorer due to the wage-price inflation lag (the difference goes to the debtees too)?

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 01 2019, @12:37AM (5 children)

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 01 2019, @12:37AM (#808484)

      To strictly answer the question, taxes are progressive (higher rates hit higher incomes), while inflation's effect is inverse proportional to your disposable income.

      And, while borrowing money at low rates to get high returns is a great tactic, borrowing at higher rates when the returns flatten is a bad investment. Having to keep repaying that debt when your income takes a small dip because of the natural recession cycles can quickly become a headache, when you're not allowed to default.

      Having a party which ranted when the other guys were in control that debts were going to sink us, now pretend that their 50% boost to the deficits is no big deal, when it's a pro-cyclical anti-Keynesian move that just landed money in a few pockets, is something anyone with a few neurons should be worried about.

      /offtopic

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:00AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:00AM (#808514)

        inflation's effect is inverse proportional to your disposable income.

        How so?

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 01 2019, @02:09AM (2 children)

          by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 01 2019, @02:09AM (#808518)

          Econ 101 :
          if you spend 98% of the money you earn on mandatory expenses (house/food/clothes...), and prices go up 3%, you're screwed.
          If you spend 50% of the money you earn on mandatory, and 50% on discretionary, prices going up 3% are annoying because you either save less, or get less stuff you don't absolutely need. But you're not screwed.
          Same reason getting a specific amount of money with a flat income tax, or by raising sales tax, hurts the poor more than the rich.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:29AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:29AM (#808524)

            I see.

            I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like for you ideally everyone would pay a tax that is the same percent of their "disposable income"?

            How is disposable income determined? For the same "total income", if I choose not to have kids/dog/car/mortgage/etc, will I then have more disposable income and so be taxed more than someone who has the things on the "disposable list"?

            Basically it seems to me like this policy punishes frugal people who are using up fewer resources and rewards the opposite.

            • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 01 2019, @09:20AM

              by bob_super (1357) on Friday March 01 2019, @09:20AM (#808609)

              No silver bullet that we know of, since if one of the two hundred countries had figured it out over the last few centuries, everyone would be copying...

              To generate the amount required to keep a modern government going (plus waste), you could go flat income or consumption tax and oppress the poor, progressive income tax only and be unfair to the rich, causing them to flee, or some mix, which is the usual compromise.
              The tax compromise does traditionally help and reward those who take on the burden of growing the armed forces and future taxpayer base, as well as those who risk their savings to try to create companies which will hopefully end up paying taxes.
              While the less frugal pay a lot more in consumption taxes (at the shop and at the pump), the more frugal may be enjoying many of the benefits without paying specifically for them or enjoying the subsidies present in many countries (Europe) rewarding frugality. Indeed, there's still a lit road and a cop when you bike, and the bus running at a loss to fight congestion is enabling the frugality and therefore the higher disposable income. So maybe it's not fully unfair that the higher disposable income is taxed more than the lower, because it does balance a bit.
              The equilibrium point hasn't been found, because there are always winners and losers. Europe and CA nanny-state you, encouraging virtuous behaviors which save money and the environment and taxing harmful behaviors, as a way to get more income based on more than just arbitrary numbers. Tech will allow your taxes to soon reflect the exact amount of road damage you did, per miles and vehicle used...

              It's a complex topic which does easily fill a few walls with books. The fundamental point which you read in my short post is indeed that, for a given revenue to be collected, the goal to keep the peace (and the Guillotines in their closets, from which they spring if income inequality crosses a threshold) is to try to implement the magic curve which is progressive with people's disposable income. Not because it's fair to tax the frugal more than the wasters (those get taxed as they waste), but because that's essentially where you can.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:05AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 01 2019, @02:05AM (#808515)

        inflation's effect is inverse proportional to your disposable income.

        Losing 2% per year on $100/yr is $2 while on $1000/yr it is $20.