Imagine two countries where 99% of the population has a comfortable level of income. In the first 1% is much poorer than the rest, while in the second 1% is much richer. Both will have the same Gini coefficient that measures inequality. However, these are two very different forms of inequality. In the first country, 1% feel bad, will certainly be ashamed or humiliated much poorer than everyone else; On the other hand, 99% are unlikely to feel ashamed or unlucky that they do not live as rich as they do, especially if they are artists or elite athletes who have no political power to control the lives of the rest of the population.
The American philosopher Thomas Michael Scanlon uses this apparently speculative and extreme example to analyze one of the issues that causes the greatest headaches for the rulers of the developed world: inequality. He believes that the fact that millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in recent decades is more relevant than the rise of social deficits in rich countries. In his view, inequality is not always debatable. He is – and he must fight – in a certain situation: for example, if he allows the richest to control political power, if it causes situations of exclusion or breaks the self-esteem of a section of the population, or if it feeds. With an unjustified policy on the part of the state that favors some groups of citizens over others (that affluent neighborhoods have better paved streets or higher quality public sports facilities, etc.).
Sclenlon’s reflection, along with the opinions of 28 other experts, is gathered in The Fight Against Inequality (ed. Deusto), a book co-ordinated by economists Olivier Blanchard and Danny Rodrick, who discusses the phenomenon that has plagued them in recent years. In recent years, as a result of globalization without political counterweight, the furious development of new technologies and the introduction of neoliberal discourse have severely limited the ability of governments to maneuver. The texts pay great attention to the United States, but they also contain references to European realities, and perhaps the value of the work does not lie in surprising the reader with new or daring views – at least as a debate that will inevitably take precedence over the nearest political agenda. in future.
There is some consensus among the authors, not without nuances, on some essential issues. Perhaps most important is the belief that inequality is a problem and quite serious, a diagnosis that will be obvious to many given the alarming dimensions that social cracks have acquired in the developed world (1% in the US owns 40% of wealth), but which until recently did not. If so popular among economists Mainstream. They also agree that inequality, when accompanied by reduced purchasing power of the middle and lower classes, slows economic growth and can harm democracy itself if the rich are allowed to exercise political power. They also agree that there are tools to solve the problem, all of them are well known: taxes, social programs, investments in training, institutional strengthening … It is astonishing and reassuring that none of the texts confirms the entry of forces. Market, or in a more flexible way of labor relations – one of the authors suggests strengthening the power of the labor trade and replicating the German model that unites workers’ representatives in the management of large companies – or by reducing social programs: what was before. The 2008 crash has been predicted by many economists as the recipe for fighting inequality is now considered the cause.
Where some disagreement is seen in the production process phase, in which more emphasis should be placed on combating inequality: be it ‘pre-production’ (access to education policy, health or economics), ‘production’. (Regulatory framework of labor relations, minimum wage, employment subsidies, industrial policy) or “post-production” (redistribution of income and wealth).
At the risk of simplifications and beyond other inconsistencies, such as whether it is expedient to tax wealth or not, we can say that the fight against inequality that the book offers is influenced by classical social-democratic thinking. Therefore, the case will be very simple: since the tools are there to carry out this struggle, it is enough for the progressive parties to come to power to use them. However, political scientist Sherry Berman, entitled “Necessary Political Conditions to Overcome Inequality”, gives us a glimpse of this reality. He reminds us that in the post-war era, political rivalry between leftists and rightists revolved mainly around economic issues, but by the end of the twentieth century, “economic differences between leftists and rightists had narrowed down to the first. He moved to the center, taking over a large part of the neoliberal program. ” This change, Berman continues, has weakened the progressives’ ability to mobilize discontent over inequality. Unable to offer substantial economic change that clearly distinguishes it from the right, the left has sought refuge in cultural and social debate as a “survival strategy.” The political scientist recalls that Margaret Thatcher, when asked what her greatest achievement was, replied: “Tony Blair” meant the Labor Prime Minister who did so much harm to the left by inventing the third way.
So, the initiative proposed by the enthusiastic authors of “Fighting Inequality” is not at all easy. Especially considering that Old Reagan Diatria is against it Establishment Politics and government “interference” in the lives of citizens, which has been repeated many times over the years by powerful think tanks, has invaded much of society to this day.
The harsh reality is that the discourse of wealth redistribution and social cohesion has lost its tempting power, to the point that economist Stephanie Stanchev argues that “one of the main mysteries is why so many voters are voting for a redistributive policy that benefits.” Them. ” He himself solves, at least in part, the mystery: they do it because they do not trust governments, because they are convinced from the right that their taxes will fall into the pockets of immigrants, because “tough” economists can not achieve much. Explain the benefits of a more egalitarian system to the audience with concrete examples … I would add that in a world that is becoming increasingly unstructured and individualistic due to decades of neoliberal destruction, many citizens, including a few advocates of redistributive policies, are happy when the government announces tax cuts. Will allow you to have more money in the bank at the end of the month.
I have omitted some reflection of inequality in the book from a moral perspective or a conceptually more daring proposition about an economic system that has deviated, for example, from the almost totemic bounties of GDP as a benchmark for development. Nevertheless, the paper fulfills its purpose of intensifying the debate on one of the aberrations of our time: the alarming extremes reached by inequality and the consequences that these ever-expanding cracks have on project survival.
Source: El Diario
I am an experienced and passionate journalist with a strong track record in news website reporting. I specialize in technology coverage, breaking stories on the latest developments and trends from around the world. Working for Today Times Live has given me the opportunity to write thought-provoking pieces that have caught the attention of many readers.
