this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
308 points (98.4% liked)

World News

38977 readers
3355 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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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.

[–] [email protected] 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.