givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 05 Feb 2025 19:29
nextcollapse
These leaders do so by finding different targets to blame for the inequality. Left-wing, populist backsliders, for example, will blame corporations and economic leaders. Right-wing, ethno-nationalist backsliders might nurture grievances by blaming outsiders or immigrants.
The difference is one of those groups is using facts and logic to correctly identify the problemâŚ
Like, I couldnât get over the cognitive dissonance of the author that those two were equally bad.
Who the fuck else should we blame beside corporations and economic leaders for economic inequality?
You want me to go yell at the tooth fairy that poor kids get less under their pillow?
Ideally they would have gotten into campaign finance deregulation allowing the wealthy to buy both partiesâŚ
âIt probably comes as a result, to some degree, of a period of globalization and deregulation, of neoliberalism in the 1990s and even earlier developments that have changed party systemsâin a lot of countriesâin the post-war period,â she says.
But I guess thatâs close enough. Itâs like they knew the answer but were too scared to say it
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 20:39
nextcollapse
Buddy not everything is about the US. They studied multiple economies. Just because the US is devolving into a corporate hellscape doesnât mean other countries arenât devolving into an auth-right government hellscape.
Itâs not cognitive dissonance if theyâre discussing a situation other than your personal perspective and experience.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 05 Feb 2025 20:44
nextcollapse
Neoliberalism hasnât been a uniquely American epidemic, in large parts to their foreign policy shoving it down 3rd world countries throats.
But regardless of country:
will blame corporations and economic leaders
Who else do you think we should blame for economic inequality?
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 20:50
collapse
Depends on the economy. You, the American, should blame corporatocracy and private interests. Other economies may blame government corruption or government enforced inequality. Aparthied South Africa, for example, may want to blame the government for their inequality.
The paper is just âeconomic inequality begets democratic backslidingâ and is not prescriptive about where that inequality and backsliding comes from.
Again, the world is not the US, and going after these authors for discussing the general case and not staying US-focused is pretty dumb.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 05 Feb 2025 20:54
collapse
So I should listen to the authorsâŚ
âIt probably comes as a result, to some degree, of a period of globalization and deregulation, of neoliberalism in the 1990s and even earlier developments that have changed party systemsâin a lot of countriesâin the post-war period,â she says.
Just not the parts you disagree with?
Iâm just confused here, because me and the author is saying the same thingâŚ
Iâm just blunt, and theyâre seemingly hesitant to say what their study concluded with.
And youâre saying itâs not neoliberalism, and to listen to the authorsâŚ
Who blame neoliberalism?
Itâs not mathing
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 20:58
collapse
Where did I say âitâs not neoliberalismâ? I said âinequality can come in multiple forms, one of which is neoliberal corporatocracyâ. Not every country is getting ruined by the same thing youâre currently experiencing. Saying the authors âare afraid to say itâ is dumb when the authors also studied economies whoâs inequality is coming from non neoliberal sources.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 05 Feb 2025 21:05
collapse
Buddy to be honest Iâm having difficulty keeping track of what youâre trying to say anywhere.
I donât think youâve understood any of my comments or have attempted to even read the article yet.
But Iâm not a interested in an argument with someone who doesnât even know what theyâre trying to argue
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 21:14
collapse
Iâm sure you are having trouble keeping track, you keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I type.
Have a good day.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world
on 05 Feb 2025 21:19
collapse
Exactly my pointâŚ
Youâre accusing me of âputting words in your mouthâ when I clearly havenât done so.
Ironically enough, in this same thread, you acknowledge that you did exactly that because you didnât understand my initial comment.
Like, I genuinely would like to explain this to youâŚ
Itâs just not going to work. It looks like multiple other people are trying to help you now, so Iâm going to let them give it a shot
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 20:53
collapse
Thatâs true. Perhaps my comment should read ânot everything is about Western corporatocracies.â Inequality can come in many forms, and pretending inequality cannot come from anything other than corporate control is misguided at best.
Shawdow194@fedia.io
on 05 Feb 2025 21:04
nextcollapse
Absolutely. If it looks like, walks like, talks like duck. It's probably a duck.
Any cause of inequality should be nipped in the bud.
In this case they are highlighting corporate control since they found it is the duck of the inequality they are experiencing
assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works
on 05 Feb 2025 21:13
collapse
I think this is where this thread is getting stuck - they did NOT just study âthat duckâ. They studied multiple ducks. They found that no matter what kind of duck it is, it eats bread. The commentor above that Iâm replying to said âwhy are they afraid to name the duck?â. I said âitâs about more than just that one type of duck, actually - the paper studies a bunch of ducks, and has found that all forms of ducks eat breadâ.
Somehow theyâve taken this to mean I think that duck doesnât eat bread.
We overcome this obstacle by building on recent developments in the measurement of democratic erosion. Doing so allows us to conduct a large, cross-national quantitative study of democratic erosion and economic distribution. Our key conclusion is that income inequality is a strong and highly robust predictor of democratic erosion. This basic result is stunningly robust. In all, we find a consistent, positive association between income or wealth gaps and democratic erosion across more than 100 distinct statistical models.
They studied multiple ducks. My point is that they studied multiple ducks, and getting mad at the paper for not focusing just on one duck is dumb.
Can you tell me if any nation's policies where wealth inequality doesn't benefit corporate interests?
AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
on 06 Feb 2025 04:17
nextcollapse
Who the fuck else should we blame beside corporations and economic leaders for economic inequality?
If you accept the existence of a capitalist system (and Iâm not sure we have a better option at the moment), then itâs fully expected that economic leaders and corporations will try to maximise inequality because, thatâs their entire purpose and yardstick of success. Thereâs no point blaming them, theyâre not about to change. Rather, the leaders themselves should be to blame for not implementing proper guidelines and wealth-redistribution systems.
archomrade@midwest.social
on 06 Feb 2025 20:01
collapse
Who the fuck else should we blame beside corporations and economic leaders for economic inequality?
It isnât who, itâs what.
Democratic socialists make nearly the same (but opposite) mistake as reactionary conservatives do - rather than identifying the problem at the core of capitalist structures, they both attempt pinning blame on a select group of people who are corrupting a system that ought to work if only it were free from corrupt influences.
The problem with capitalism isnât a lack of sufficient regulation to keep things in check, itâs that we allow capital to operate as if it isnât itself an expression of power. A democratic socialist economy can (some might argue will inevitably) lead to deregulation and austerity, because it still allows capital to exercise its influence over the democratic process. This isnât just a matter of campaign finance, either, since capital is still the main way in which important societal and economic organization happens even in democratic socialist economies. The recent re-alignment of social media with reactionary movements is a really good example (as well as legacy media since the cold war), because the mechanism of influence isnât necessarily monetary in nature, though is often accompanied by wealth due to the value of that influence. If Musk or Zuckerberg were personally very poor, they would still own and control a very large and influential platform that they could use to their personal benefit. Even if they were altruistic (hard to imagine, really), the power present in the thing that they own would still exist.
It is the private ownership of capital that is the source of worsening economic conditions, not a lack of regulation over it - as evidenced by the pattern of capital subsuming the democratic process once the level of inequality and popular discontent reaches a threshold that threatens it.
Chuymatt@beehaw.org
on 05 Feb 2025 21:08
nextcollapse
Yah. We noticed.
ShareMySims@lemmy.dbzer0.com
on 05 Feb 2025 21:55
nextcollapse
âA new study findsâ what communists have been saying for over a centuryâŚ
Letstakealook@lemm.ee
on 06 Feb 2025 03:37
nextcollapse
This was discussed in 16th century England by the Diggers. Iâm not sure the researchers did much âstudyingâ in school.
threaded - newest
If you feed the rich, they will shit on your plate
Win win đ¤Ą
Congrats, youâve invented âplop-down economicsâ.
The difference is one of those groups is using facts and logic to correctly identify the problemâŚ
Like, I couldnât get over the cognitive dissonance of the author that those two were equally bad.
Who the fuck else should we blame beside corporations and economic leaders for economic inequality?
You want me to go yell at the tooth fairy that poor kids get less under their pillow?
Ideally they would have gotten into campaign finance deregulation allowing the wealthy to buy both partiesâŚ
But I guess thatâs close enough. Itâs like they knew the answer but were too scared to say it
Buddy not everything is about the US. They studied multiple economies. Just because the US is devolving into a corporate hellscape doesnât mean other countries arenât devolving into an auth-right government hellscape.
Itâs not cognitive dissonance if theyâre discussing a situation other than your personal perspective and experience.
Neoliberalism hasnât been a uniquely American epidemic, in large parts to their foreign policy shoving it down 3rd world countries throats.
But regardless of country:
Who else do you think we should blame for economic inequality?
Depends on the economy. You, the American, should blame corporatocracy and private interests. Other economies may blame government corruption or government enforced inequality. Aparthied South Africa, for example, may want to blame the government for their inequality.
The paper is just âeconomic inequality begets democratic backslidingâ and is not prescriptive about where that inequality and backsliding comes from.
Again, the world is not the US, and going after these authors for discussing the general case and not staying US-focused is pretty dumb.
So I should listen to the authorsâŚ
Just not the parts you disagree with?
Iâm just confused here, because me and the author is saying the same thingâŚ
Iâm just blunt, and theyâre seemingly hesitant to say what their study concluded with.
And youâre saying itâs not neoliberalism, and to listen to the authorsâŚ
Who blame neoliberalism?
Itâs not mathing
Where did I say âitâs not neoliberalismâ? I said âinequality can come in multiple forms, one of which is neoliberal corporatocracyâ. Not every country is getting ruined by the same thing youâre currently experiencing. Saying the authors âare afraid to say itâ is dumb when the authors also studied economies whoâs inequality is coming from non neoliberal sources.
Buddy to be honest Iâm having difficulty keeping track of what youâre trying to say anywhere.
I donât think youâve understood any of my comments or have attempted to even read the article yet.
But Iâm not a interested in an argument with someone who doesnât even know what theyâre trying to argue
Iâm sure you are having trouble keeping track, you keep putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I type.
Have a good day.
Exactly my pointâŚ
Youâre accusing me of âputting words in your mouthâ when I clearly havenât done so.
Ironically enough, in this same thread, you acknowledge that you did exactly that because you didnât understand my initial comment.
Like, I genuinely would like to explain this to youâŚ
Itâs just not going to work. It looks like multiple other people are trying to help you now, so Iâm going to let them give it a shot
They never even said US in their comment.....
Thatâs true. Perhaps my comment should read ânot everything is about Western corporatocracies.â Inequality can come in many forms, and pretending inequality cannot come from anything other than corporate control is misguided at best.
Absolutely. If it looks like, walks like, talks like duck. It's probably a duck.
Any cause of inequality should be nipped in the bud.
In this case they are highlighting corporate control since they found it is the duck of the inequality they are experiencing
I think this is where this thread is getting stuck - they did NOT just study âthat duckâ. They studied multiple ducks. They found that no matter what kind of duck it is, it eats bread. The commentor above that Iâm replying to said âwhy are they afraid to name the duck?â. I said âitâs about more than just that one type of duck, actually - the paper studies a bunch of ducks, and has found that all forms of ducks eat breadâ.
Somehow theyâve taken this to mean I think that duck doesnât eat bread.
They studied multiple ducks. My point is that they studied multiple ducks, and getting mad at the paper for not focusing just on one duck is dumb.
Can you tell me if any nation's policies where wealth inequality doesn't benefit corporate interests?
If you accept the existence of a capitalist system (and Iâm not sure we have a better option at the moment), then itâs fully expected that economic leaders and corporations will try to maximise inequality because, thatâs their entire purpose and yardstick of success. Thereâs no point blaming them, theyâre not about to change. Rather, the leaders themselves should be to blame for not implementing proper guidelines and wealth-redistribution systems.
It isnât who, itâs what.
Democratic socialists make nearly the same (but opposite) mistake as reactionary conservatives do - rather than identifying the problem at the core of capitalist structures, they both attempt pinning blame on a select group of people who are corrupting a system that ought to work if only it were free from corrupt influences.
The problem with capitalism isnât a lack of sufficient regulation to keep things in check, itâs that we allow capital to operate as if it isnât itself an expression of power. A democratic socialist economy can (some might argue will inevitably) lead to deregulation and austerity, because it still allows capital to exercise its influence over the democratic process. This isnât just a matter of campaign finance, either, since capital is still the main way in which important societal and economic organization happens even in democratic socialist economies. The recent re-alignment of social media with reactionary movements is a really good example (as well as legacy media since the cold war), because the mechanism of influence isnât necessarily monetary in nature, though is often accompanied by wealth due to the value of that influence. If Musk or Zuckerberg were personally very poor, they would still own and control a very large and influential platform that they could use to their personal benefit. Even if they were altruistic (hard to imagine, really), the power present in the thing that they own would still exist.
It is the private ownership of capital that is the source of worsening economic conditions, not a lack of regulation over it - as evidenced by the pattern of capital subsuming the democratic process once the level of inequality and popular discontent reaches a threshold that threatens it.
Yah. We noticed.
âA new study findsâ what communists have been saying for over a centuryâŚ
This was discussed in 16th century England by the Diggers. Iâm not sure the researchers did much âstudyingâ in school.
New palace construction drains royal treasuries, a new study finds
And vice versa.
This seems⌠apparent.
Does this study have any groundbreaking insights into the wetness of water?
Were you expecting a new quantum physics theory? This is how science works.
I just thought this was widely accepted as fact.
If nothing else, reproducibility is the key aspect of science that we are currently most lacking in.
No but this does.
journals.physiology.org/doi/full/âŚ/jn.00120.2014
I love a study that will go 2000 miles out of the way to avoid making a class analysis, very scientific