Economic inequality leads to democratic erosion, a new study finds.
A new study digs into one of the possible driving forces behind the erosion of democratic norms and institutions: economic inequality.
You're viewing a single thread.
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 problem...
Like, I couldn't 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 parties...
“It 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 systems—in a lot of countries—in the post-war period,” she says.
But I guess that's close enough. It's like they knew the answer but were too scared to say it
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 I'm not sure we have a better option at the moment), then it's fully expected that economic leaders and corporations will try to maximise inequality because, that's their entire purpose and yardstick of success. There's no point blaming them, they're not about to change. Rather, the leaders themselves should be to blame for not implementing proper guidelines and wealth-redistribution systems.
Buddy not everything is about the US. They studied multiple economies. Just because the US is devolving into a corporate hellscape doesn't mean other countries aren't devolving into an auth-right government hellscape.
It's not cognitive dissonance if they're discussing a situation other than your personal perspective and experience.
Neoliberalism hasn't 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?
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 "economic inequality begets democratic backsliding" 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 authors...
“It 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 systems—in a lot of countries—in the post-war period,” she says.
Just not the parts you disagree with?
I'm just confused here, because me and the author is saying the same thing...
I'm just blunt, and they're seemingly hesitant to say what their study concluded with.
And you're saying it's not neoliberalism, and to listen to the authors...
Who blame neoliberalism?
It's not mathing
Where did I say "it's not neoliberalism"? I said "inequality can come in multiple forms, one of which is neoliberal corporatocracy". Not every country is getting ruined by the same thing you're currently experiencing. Saying the authors "are afraid to say it" is dumb when the authors also studied economies who's inequality is coming from non neoliberal sources.
Buddy to be honest I'm having difficulty keeping track of what you're trying to say anywhere.
I don't think you've understood any of my comments or have attempted to even read the article yet.
But I'm not a interested in an argument with someone who doesn't even know what they're trying to argue
I'm 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 point...
You're accusing me of "putting words in your mouth" when I clearly haven't done so.
Ironically enough, in this same thread, you acknowledge that you did exactly that because you didn't understand my initial comment.
Like, I genuinely would like to explain this to you...
It's just not going to work. It looks like multiple other people are trying to help you now, so I'm going to let them give it a shot
They never even said US in their comment.....
That's true. Perhaps my comment should read "not everything is about Western corporatocracies." 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 "that duck". They studied multiple ducks. They found that no matter what kind of duck it is, it eats bread. The commentor above that I'm replying to said "why are they afraid to name the duck?". I said "it's 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 bread".
Somehow they've taken this to mean I think that duck doesn't 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?