Gulf between rich and poor increases risk of climate breakdown as well as entrenches poverty, says letter to UN and World Bank

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.”

  • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.comEnglish
    362·
    1 year ago

    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.worldEnglish
      251·
      1 year ago

      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
        191·
        1 year ago

        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?)

          • livus@kbin.social
            31·
            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
          38·
          1 year ago

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

          • livus@kbin.social
            10·
            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
        81·
        1 year ago

        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
          11·
          1 year ago

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

      • CorruptBuddhaEnglish
        210·
        1 year ago

        Pretty much any non-Marxist economists will favor “the market” over workers.

        Just going to point out that “the market” is people’s freedom of choice compounded across society.

        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.

        It’s almost like political parties are tied to the values of their voters.

    • livus@kbin.social
      6·
      1 year ago

      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
        81·
        1 year ago

        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·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee
          4·
          1 year ago

          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.

  • alvvayson@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    1 year ago

    Just bringing back inequality from current insane levels to the levels of the 80s/90s would give young people so much more food and housing security.

    It’s depressing to see what happened since 2008.

    • MercuryUprising@lemmy.worldEnglish
      81·
      1 year ago

      It wasn’t since 2008, it was more or less since Reaganomics and the neoliberal push in the west around the same time. It’s been the same shit ever since, and it’s 100% bipartisan. In fact, the worst offender since Reagan was definitely Slick Willy Clinton, who killed Glass-Steagall and introduced the telecommunications act of 1996, allowing for consolidation of every media empire and telecom network, which severely limited broadcast journalism’s investigative power. It’s been nothing but mega mergers and 1% fuckery ever since. The last chance was Occupy, anyone else remember the lack of coverage? I was in Europe at the time and had to watch fucking RT to see anyone talking about it. They will never let that happen again.

      What most of us need to remember, is that they never let it happen the first time around either.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
    173·
    1 year ago

    The majority of polled economists in the US do not support getting rid of student loan debt but continue to argue that the Wall Street Bailouts were a good idea. The Brookings Institute for example publishes near monthly articles on the subject.

    Economists are not objective. They work for banks. They tells us what banks want us to think.

    • Sambarkjand@lemm.eeEnglish
      53·
      1 year ago

      This is so far from being the truth. Please get an economics degree and see if you still think that.

      I don’t know if I like this place. Everything is so conspiratorial.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
        69·
        1 year ago

        This is so far from being the truth. Please get an economics degree and see if you still think that.

        First off I don’t need a degree in theology to be an atheist. Nor a degree in Chiropractic “medicine” to know that it is dangerous bullshit.

        Secondly, what did I say that factually was not true?

        I don’t know if I like this place. Everything is so conspiratorial.

        Sorry, you should ask for your money back. Go hang out on like reason.org or some economists blog and circle jerk each other on how great student loans are.

        • Sambarkjand@lemm.eeEnglish
          12·
          1 year ago

          Correct, you don’t, because those are garbage disciplines based on nothing whereas economics is decidedly not. Economics is the study of constrained choice, using rigorous math to model these scenarios and applied statistics to test the models. Any 1st or 2nd year course you take in economics isn’t revealing truisms about the world - they are introducing concepts and highly simplified, abstracted models so that when you get into upper year courses and you start using extremely heavy math to make more realistic models that are serious attempts to explain actual human behavior, you’re not completely lost.

          You take at face-value that certain subsets of economists argue in favor of bank bailouts but against student loan relief is proof that they’re evil, or garbage, or bought and paid for, without even understanding the arguments. The bank bailouts were loans which the banks paid back - would you be fine with the government giving out more loans to pay off existing student loans?

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.worldEnglish
            21·
            1 year ago

            based on nothing whereas economics is decidedly not.

            Incorrect. It is garbage based on whatever power structure says is true. Basically religion.

            You take at face-value that certain subsets of economists argue in favor of bank bailouts but against student loan relief is proof that they’re evil, or garbage, or bought and paid for, without even understanding the arguments

            How did you determine what I know and don’t know? Please show me your methodology of mindreading. Hey everyone watch as this one ignores this question

            The bank bailouts were loans which the banks paid back

            Gotcha. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The loan portion was a fraction of the entire bailout package. There was also the shutdown of their competition via stresstesting and the excessive reserve program which dwarfed the loan portion. Plus there is the get out of jail free card the government issued to them. I am going to assume you knew about all three and like your economists friends were hoping that I didn’t. A lie by omission. Garbage rhetorical tricks they teach in economic classes these days.

            If I paid off a cop to not arrest you, gave you a free apartment building to live in, murdered your rivals, and then you paid me back ten bucks you lent me before that would pretty much describe what happened.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_reserves

            would you be fine with the government giving out more loans to pay off existing student loans?

            I don’t know, go ask the bank that pays you to tell you what to think to do.