this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
306 points (98.1% liked)

World News

39000 readers
2376 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The letter says: “We know that high inequality undermines all our social and environmental goals. It corrodes our politics, destroys trust, hamstrings our collective economic prosperity and weakens multilateralism. We also know that without a sharp reduction in inequality, the twin goals of ending poverty and preventing climate breakdown will be in clear conflict.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] housepanther@lemmy.goblackcat.com 34 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Caveat Emptor: I have not read the article. I am immediately suspicious of most economists because, at least in the US, they have a decidedly conservative bias. Generally US-based economists side with the concerns of the wealthy and promote policies friendly to them which are often at the expense of the poor and working classes.

[–] sovietcreditcard@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Bingo. Pretty much any non-Marxist economists will favor “the market” over workers. Neoliberalism, the predominant ideology in most western countries, is seen as an alternative to conservatism (very much so in the US), but they’re centrists at best, and conservative-lite at worst.

[–] livus@kbin.social 18 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

This is a case of "perfect is the enemy of good".

This thing was signed by a bunch of non-US economists like Thomas Picketty and people like Helen Clark, a left politician who used to run the UN Development Programme.

Economic neoliberal bias, sure, but what they are proposing is still an order of magnitude better than what we have now.

Edit: I can't see anything below this in this comment chain, not even my own comments!

Not sure if it's a kbin bug or if @hglman blocked me. (Is this the effect blocking has in the fediverse? Can you guys still see the rest of the chain?)

[–] sovietcreditcard@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] livus@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah I know, not by some standards, really depends on your Overton window.

She led a majority government on centre-left policies in New Zealand so that still meant she was in charge of a Monetarist economy with all the neoliberal economics that implies, but she also presided over a massive tax revenue transfer to working class families that is still going on today.

[–] hglman@lemmy.ml -5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Pointing out how it can be better is not the enemy of the good; your concern trolling is.

[–] livus@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

Huh? This isn't reddit. I'm not a "concern troll". I'm just an ordinary person who happens to disagree with you about something.

I'm not a fan of economic neoliberalism either, but I would rather an international group of economists demanded anti- inequality measures than nothing.

[–] Veraxus@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Exactly. Neo/liberalism is just right-wing feudalism with extra steps. If you allow (let alone encourage) the unmitigated consolidation of wealth (and therefore authority) you will ALWAYS move society rightward. Hence the term “Late-stage Capitalism”.

Economies require trade and incentive to thrive, but there must be limits to how much a person or entity can accrue.

[–] CorruptBuddha@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Does that mean you believe society is now more right leaning then it was 40 years ago?

[–] livus@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't quite see how a reduction in global poverty would hurt poor people though.

In economic terms inequality actually hurts everyone. Recessions last longer, there is more stagnation, more unrest, and interestingly there are effects like worse health outcomes even for the rich in a highly unequal society.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Because in the long term, their interest is to give up as little as possible to maintain the status quo. They're not actually interested in the harm that economic inequality causes to poor people, only in walking back from the harm a mass unrest event would potentially cause them.

[–] livus@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Well, Thomas Piketty is one of the signatories, so...

The thing is though that there has been a massive shift in the last decade from the old "Establishment" having power, to the phenomenon of Disaster Capitalism.

Disaster capitalists thrive on things like mass unrest. They will do everything in their power to continue down this track. And right now they have the upper hand.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yeah, I'm not an accelerationist, but it seems to me like there's no way out. We've squeezed our way into a very tight spot where we can't back up but going forward would have a huge cost in human life.

[–] livus@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I guess instead of going backwards we need to swerve to the side somehow.

[–] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

If we're needlessly overthinking, I must point out that by rejecting a call to reduce global inequality because you suspect it doesn't go far enough...you're siding with / helping the people who DON'T want to reduce global inequality.

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

That's a fair criticism. I don't really have a better answer to the situation at hand. I think it's just important to keep in mind that this is why were in this situation to begin with.