3 ms·

It's remarkable how many people in the NYT comments dismiss this as a distraction from the more important issue of within-country inequality. I guess it's more

by enoch_r 12y ago

It's remarkable how many people in the NYT comments dismiss this as a distraction from the more important issue of within-country inequality. I guess it's more important to help out someone earning $15,000 a year who looks like us, than someone who earns $400 a year who doesn't. Global poverty is truly horrific, on a level that most people in the first world can't even comprehend, and its continued reduction is one of the really great (incomplete) triumphs of human history. I suppose I'm being uncharitable here. I'd guess the more likely explanation is mood affiliation--people want a political revolution in response to real problems (inequality, global warming, poverty, war, surveillance) and are resistant to any news that does not fit into this narrative of decline.

neltnerb 12y ago
You think it is remarkable that people prefer to help those who are within their local communities? That's practically in our biological makeup. As much as utilitarianism looks good on paper, ignoring emotions in understanding human behavior strikes me as equally remarkable.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rbehrends 12y ago
> It's remarkable how many people in the NYT comments dismiss this as a distraction from the more important issue of within-country inequality. I guess it's more important to help out someone earning $15,000 a year who looks like us, than someone who earns $400 a year who doesn't. Global poverty is truly horrific, on a level that most people in the first world can't even comprehend, and its continued reduction is one of the really great (incomplete) triumphs of human history. I'm pretty familiar with the issue of global poverty, but the critics are right: the policies that reduce poverty and inequality at the national level are not mutually exclusive with those that reduce poverty at the global level. More importantly, nation states CAN reduce poverty/inequality within their own borders (and many policies that do so are simply good economic common sense [1]), while there's a limit to what any particular country can do on a global scale. In short, decreasing inequality at the global level is no excuse not to combat rising inequality at the national level. [1] Such as universal healthcare and accessible education.

by enoch_r 12y ago

neltnerb 12y ago

You think it is remarkable that people prefer to help those who are within their local communities? That's practically in our biological makeup. As much as utilitarianism looks good on paper, ignoring emotions in understanding human behavior strikes me as equally remarkable.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

rbehrends 12y ago

> It's remarkable how many people in the NYT comments dismiss this as a distraction from the more important issue of within-country inequality. I guess it's more important to help out someone earning $15,000 a year who looks like us, than someone who earns $400 a year who doesn't. Global poverty is truly horrific, on a level that most people in the first world can't even comprehend, and its continued reduction is one of the really great (incomplete) triumphs of human history. I'm pretty familiar with the issue of global poverty, but the critics are right: the policies that reduce poverty and inequality at the national level are not mutually exclusive with those that reduce poverty at the global level. More importantly, nation states CAN reduce poverty/inequality within their own borders (and many policies that do so are simply good economic common sense [1]), while there's a limit to what any particular country can do on a global scale. In short, decreasing inequality at the global level is no excuse not to combat rising inequality at the national level. [1] Such as universal healthcare and accessible education.