#and these are barriers in policy not finance

[thundergrace]

Implying that you don't think Ukraine needed the aid that they got is just.... so vile. These people are being bombed too. These people are being systematically slaughtered too. These people, these women and children and men, are being killed too. It's disgusting to imply that they don't need help too.

Read.

Well, no, let me actually explain for other people.

I did not question if Ukraine needed aid, the sentence literally says Ukraine appeared to genuinely need aid. The past tense is used because it's referring to something that happened in the past, not to imply that now I suddenly don't believe they need aid.

Second, I do question exactly how much was needed because our government is shady and I never believe we have the whole picture. Again, doesn't say anything suspicious about Ukraine

[greenthestral]

The Power of Progress: Achieving Goal 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy

Energy is the lifeblood of our modern society, driving economic growth, technological advancements, and improving the quality of life for people around the world. However, with the increasing demand for energy, it has become crucial to ensure its affordability and cleanliness. In recognition of this need, the United Nations set forth Goal 7 as part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) to ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. In this article, we will delve into the significance of Goal 7 and explore the transformative power of affordable and clean energy.

The Urgency for Affordable and Clean Energy

Access to affordable and clean energy is not only a matter of convenience but a fundamental requirement for achieving sustainable development. As the global population continues to grow and economies expand, the demand for energy is increasing at an unprecedented rate. However, relying heavily on traditional sources of energy, such as fossil fuels, poses significant challenges for our planet and its inhabitants.

Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and natural gas, have been the primary sources of energy for many years. While they have fueled industrialization, economic growth, and technological advancements, their negative impact on the environment cannot be ignored. The extraction, production, and consumption of fossil fuels contribute to air and water pollution, deforestation, and the emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2). These greenhouse gas emissions are the leading cause of climate change, with far-reaching consequences for ecosystems, weather patterns, and human health.

The urgency to transition towards renewable and sustainable sources of energy lies in the need to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that global warming must be limited to well below 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial levels to avoid catastrophic impacts. Achieving this goal requires a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which can be achieved by shifting away from fossil fuels and embracing cleaner alternatives.

Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass, offer a promising solution to the challenges of affordability, sustainability, and environmental impact. Unlike fossil fuels, these sources are naturally replenished and emit little to no greenhouse gases during operation. Investing in renewable energy infrastructure and technologies not only reduces our carbon footprint but also enhances energy security, as these sources are virtually inexhaustible.

One of the key advantages of renewable energy is its potential to provide affordable electricity and reduce energy costs in the long run. While the upfront costs of installing renewable energy systems can be higher than traditional fossil fuel-based systems, the operational costs are significantly lower. Solar and wind power, for example, have experienced significant cost reductions over the years, making them increasingly competitive with fossil fuels. As technology advances and economies of scale come into play, the cost of renewable energy is expected to continue declining, making it more accessible to a wider population.

Furthermore, the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies have the potential to create new industries, generate employment opportunities, and stimulate economic growth. The renewable energy sector has already witnessed substantial job creation, with the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimating that renewable energy employed around 11.5 million people globally in 2019. Investing in clean energy not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also fosters innovation, drives technological advancements, and positions countries at the forefront of the global clean energy transition.

Transitioning to affordable and clean energy is not without its challenges. The current energy infrastructure heavily relies on fossil fuels, and the transition to renewable energy requires substantial investments in renewable energy generation, transmission, and storage systems. Additionally, there are technical and logistical challenges associated with integrating intermittent renewable energy sources into the existing grid infrastructure. However, these challenges can be overcome through comprehensive planning, collaboration between public and private sectors, and supportive policies and regulations.

Governments play a crucial role in facilitating the transition to affordable and clean energy. They can provide financial incentives, subsidies, and tax breaks to encourage investment in renewable energy projects. Policy frameworks that prioritize renewable energy, set renewable energy targets, and establish favorable regulations can create an enabling environment for the growth of the clean energy sector. International cooperation and knowledge-sharing platforms also play a significant role in accelerating the adoption of renewable energy technologies, particularly in developing countries where access to energy is still a challenge.

Access to affordable and clean energy is a fundamental requirement for sustainable development. The urgency lies in transitioning away from fossil fuels and embracing renewable and sustainable sources of energy to mitigate climate change, ensure energy security, and make energy affordable for all. The benefits of this transition extend beyond environmental preservation and include job creation, economic growth, and enhanced resilience. By investing in renewable energy technologies, promoting energy efficiency, and fostering international collaboration, we can pave the way for a sustainable and prosperous future.

Enhancing Energy Efficiency

Improving energy efficiency is a critical aspect of achieving Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy. Energy efficiency refers to the ability to accomplish the same tasks or achieve the same outcomes while using less energy. By adopting energy-efficient technologies, industries, businesses, and households can significantly reduce their energy consumption, leading to multiple benefits such as cost savings and decreased environmental impact.

One of the primary advantages of energy efficiency is its potential to save money. When energy-efficient technologies and practices are implemented, the overall energy consumption decreases, resulting in lower energy bills. For households, this means reduced electricity and heating costs, which can have a positive impact on their monthly budgets. Similarly, businesses and industries can experience substantial cost savings by optimizing their energy use, which can be redirected towards other aspects of their operations or invested in further energy efficiency measures.

Furthermore, energy efficiency plays a crucial role in promoting a sustainable future. By reducing energy consumption, we can alleviate the strain on energy resources and decrease the demand for energy production. This, in turn, reduces the need for the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, thereby mitigating environmental degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy efficiency serves as a crucial tool in combating climate change, as it directly contributes to the reduction of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global warming.

Investing in energy-efficient appliances, infrastructure, and practices is a key strategy for promoting energy efficiency. Energy-efficient appliances, such as refrigerators, air conditioners, and lighting fixtures, are designed to use less energy while providing the same level of performance. These appliances often carry energy efficiency labels or certifications that help consumers make informed choices when purchasing new products. By opting for energy-efficient appliances, households can significantly reduce their energy consumption without compromising on functionality or comfort.

In addition to appliances, improving the energy efficiency of buildings and infrastructure is essential. This can be achieved through measures such as insulation, efficient windows, and the use of smart technologies that optimize heating, cooling, and lighting systems. Energy-efficient buildings not only save energy but also enhance occupants' comfort, improve indoor air quality, and contribute to a healthier living and working environment.

Energy efficiency practices extend beyond individual households and buildings to industries and businesses. Adopting energy management systems, conducting energy audits, and implementing energy-saving measures can lead to substantial energy savings for industries. These practices can include optimizing production processes, implementing energy-efficient equipment and technologies, and promoting employee awareness and engagement in energy-saving behaviors. Businesses can also benefit from energy efficiency by reducing operating costs and enhancing their reputation as environmentally responsible entities.

Governments also play a vital role in promoting energy efficiency. They can establish energy efficiency standards and regulations for appliances, vehicles, and buildings, ensuring that energy-efficient options are available in the market. Incentives and subsidies can be provided to encourage businesses and households to invest in energy-efficient technologies. Governments can also promote public awareness campaigns and provide educational resources to inform individuals and organizations about the benefits of energy efficiency and how to implement energy-saving practices.

In conclusion, improving energy efficiency is a crucial component of achieving Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy. By adopting energy-efficient technologies, industries, businesses, and households can reduce their energy consumption, resulting in cost savings and decreased environmental impact. Investing in energy-efficient appliances, infrastructure, and practices not only saves money but also contributes to a sustainable future by reducing the demand for energy production and mitigating climate change. Governments, businesses, and individuals must collaborate to prioritize and implement energy efficiency measures, fostering a more sustainable and energy-efficient society.

Embracing Renewable Energy Sources

Renewable energy sources have emerged as a promising solution to address both energy affordability and environmental concerns. Unlike fossil fuels, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass offer clean and sustainable alternatives for powering our homes, businesses, and industries. These sources have the potential to provide affordable energy while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Solar energy is perhaps one of the most well-known and widely utilized renewable energy sources. Solar panels capture sunlight and convert it into electricity, making it a viable option for generating electricity in residential, commercial, and industrial settings. With advancements in solar technology and decreasing costs, solar power has become increasingly affordable and accessible. Governments and private sectors worldwide are investing in solar energy infrastructure, including large-scale solar farms and rooftop solar installations, to harness the power of the sun and meet energy demands sustainably.

Another renewable energy source gaining significant traction is wind energy. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of the wind into electricity. Wind farms, consisting of multiple turbines, are set up in areas with consistent and strong wind patterns. Wind power has seen remarkable growth in recent years, with larger and more efficient turbines being developed. Offshore wind farms, situated in coastal areas, are also being established to take advantage of strong offshore winds. Wind energy has proven to be a cost-effective and environmentally friendly solution, contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Hydropower harnesses the energy of flowing or falling water to generate electricity. Dams and hydropower plants are built to capture the energy of rivers and convert it into electrical power. Hydropower is a mature and well-established renewable energy source, providing a significant portion of the global electricity supply. It offers a reliable and predictable source of energy, with large-scale hydropower plants capable of generating substantial amounts of electricity. However, there are also smaller-scale hydropower installations, such as run-of-the-river systems and micro-hydropower systems, that can be utilized in remote areas or for local power generation.

Geothermal energy utilizes the heat generated from within the Earth's crust. Geothermal power plants tap into geothermal reservoirs and convert the heat into electricity. This renewable energy source is highly reliable and available 24/7, making it suitable for baseload power generation. Geothermal energy has been utilized in regions with geologically active features such as geysers, hot springs, and volcanic areas. However, advancements in geothermal technology are expanding its potential for wider adoption in various locations worldwide.

Biomass energy involves the use of organic matter, such as wood, agricultural waste, and dedicated energy crops, to generate heat or electricity. Biomass can be burned directly or converted into biofuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, for transportation and industrial purposes. Biomass energy is considered renewable because the organic matter used for energy production can be replenished through sustainable forestry practices and the cultivation of energy crops. Biomass has the advantage of being a readily available energy source and can provide a reliable energy supply, particularly in rural areas where agricultural and forestry activities are prevalent.

Governments and private sectors worldwide are increasingly recognizing the importance of renewable energy and are investing in the development and deployment of renewable energy infrastructure. Through supportive policies, incentives, and regulatory frameworks, governments are promoting the adoption of renewable energy technologies. They are setting renewable energy targets and implementing feed-in tariffs or power purchase agreements to encourage investment in renewable energy projects. Private sectors are also taking significant steps towards transitioning to renewable energy, with corporations investing in renewable energy projects and setting their own sustainability goals.

The investment in renewable energy infrastructure not only facilitates the transition towards a cleaner and more sustainable energy future but also fosters innovation and creates job opportunities. Renewable energy technologies continue to advance, with ongoing research and development efforts focused on improving efficiency, storage capabilities, and grid integration. The growth of the renewable energy sector has already led to the creation of numerous jobs in manufacturing, installation, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy systems. This sector has the potential to drive economic growth, particularly in regions with abundant renewable resources.

Renewable energy sources offer a promising solution to the dual challenges of energy affordability and environmental concerns. Solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, and biomass energy have demonstrated their potential to provide affordable and clean energy while significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The global shift towards renewable energy is being facilitated by government support, private sector investments, and advancements in technology. By embracing renewable energy sources and fostering the development of renewable energy infrastructure, we can pave the way towards a cleaner, more sustainable, and affordable energy future.

Energy Access for All

Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy also highlights the significance of ensuring energy access for all, including those in remote or underserved areas. It is estimated that approximately 770 million people worldwide still lack access to electricity, which severely hampers their social and economic development. Addressing this issue requires innovative solutions and initiatives that bring reliable and affordable energy to these communities.

Off-grid renewable energy solutions play a crucial role in extending energy access to remote areas. These solutions typically involve the use of decentralized renewable energy systems that are not connected to the centralized grid infrastructure. Off-grid systems, such as solar home systems and small-scale wind turbines, provide electricity for lighting, charging electronic devices, and powering small appliances. These technologies are particularly effective in areas where extending the centralized grid infrastructure is challenging or economically unviable.

Microgrids are another effective approach to bridging the energy access gap. Microgrids are localized energy distribution systems that can operate independently or in conjunction with the main grid. They typically consist of distributed renewable energy generation sources, energy storage, and intelligent control systems. Microgrids are well-suited for providing electricity to communities in remote areas that are not connected to the main grid. They offer a reliable and sustainable energy supply, allowing these communities to access basic services such as lighting, refrigeration, and communication.

Decentralized energy systems are also gaining momentum in addressing energy access challenges. These systems involve the deployment of renewable energy technologies at a local level, such as community-based solar or wind projects. Decentralized energy systems empower communities by giving them control over their energy production and consumption. They promote energy self-sufficiency and resilience, reducing their dependence on centralized power sources and fostering local economic development.

The impact of extending energy access to underserved communities goes beyond simply providing electricity. It has transformative effects on various aspects of their lives. Access to reliable and affordable energy enables communities to engage in productive activities, such as small-scale businesses and income-generating ventures. It opens up opportunities for education, as students can study in well-lit environments and access digital resources. Energy access also enhances healthcare services, allowing clinics and hospitals to operate efficiently with reliable power for medical equipment and refrigeration of vaccines and medicines. Moreover, it improves the overall quality of life, as households can have access to clean and efficient cooking technologies, reducing indoor air pollution and associated health risks.

Initiatives aimed at bridging the energy access gap require collaboration between governments, non-governmental organizations, and the private sector. Governments play a crucial role in developing supportive policies and regulatory frameworks that facilitate the deployment of off-grid and decentralized energy systems. They can provide financial incentives, subsidies, and technical assistance to promote the adoption of clean energy solutions in underserved areas. Non-governmental organizations play a vital role in implementing on-the-ground projects, raising awareness, and mobilizing resources to support energy access initiatives. The private sector, including renewable energy companies, can contribute by investing in and scaling up the deployment of off-grid and decentralized energy solutions.

Achieving Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy requires not only transitioning to renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency but also ensuring energy access for all. Initiatives such as off-grid renewable energy solutions, microgrids, and decentralized energy systems are instrumental in bringing reliable and affordable energy to underserved communities, particularly in remote areas. Bridging the energy access gap empowers these communities, enabling them to thrive by accessing basic services, engaging in productive activities, and improving their overall quality of life. It is through inclusive and sustainable energy access that we can work towards a more equitable and prosperous future for all.

Public-Private Partnerships for Sustainable Energy

Achieving Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy requires collaborative efforts from governments, businesses, and communities. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as effective mechanisms for mobilizing resources, expertise, and innovation towards sustainable energy projects. These partnerships bring together the strengths and capabilities of both sectors, facilitating the transition towards a more sustainable and inclusive energy system.

Governments have a crucial role to play in creating an enabling environment for PPPs to flourish. They can establish supportive policies, incentives, and regulatory frameworks that encourage private sector investment in renewable energy infrastructure. This includes mechanisms such as feed-in tariffs, tax incentives, and streamlined permitting processes for renewable energy projects. By providing a stable and predictable policy framework, governments can mitigate risks and attract private investment.

Furthermore, governments can leverage their procurement power to drive sustainable energy practices. By incorporating sustainability criteria into public procurement processes, governments can create demand for renewable energy technologies and products. This, in turn, stimulates market growth and encourages private sector participation in sustainable energy projects.

The private sector, on the other hand, brings innovation, technical expertise, and financial resources to the table. Businesses can contribute to PPPs through research and development efforts aimed at advancing renewable energy technologies. This includes improving the efficiency, reliability, and cost-effectiveness of renewable energy systems. By investing in research and development, businesses can drive innovation and contribute to the continuous improvement of clean energy technologies.

In addition, the private sector plays a crucial role in financing sustainable energy projects. Through investments in renewable energy infrastructure, businesses can help fund the development and deployment of clean energy technologies. This includes financing options such as project financing, venture capital, and impact investing. By providing financial resources, the private sector can help overcome the upfront costs associated with renewable energy projects, making them more accessible and affordable.

Implementation is another area where PPPs excel. Through collaborative efforts, governments and businesses can work together to implement sustainable energy projects. This includes the construction and operation of renewable energy power plants, the development of energy-efficient buildings and infrastructure, and the deployment of off-grid and decentralized energy systems. The private sector brings project management expertise, technical knowledge, and operational capabilities to ensure the successful execution of these projects.

PPPs also play a significant role in capacity building and knowledge transfer. By partnering with governments, businesses can share their expertise and technical know-how to support the development of local skills and capabilities. This includes training programs, knowledge sharing initiatives, and technology transfer. By building local capacity, PPPs contribute to the long-term sustainability and resilience of energy projects.

Furthermore, PPPs can foster social engagement and community participation. By involving local communities in the decision-making process and project implementation, PPPs can ensure that energy projects address the specific needs and priorities of the communities they serve. This participatory approach promotes social acceptance, enhances local ownership, and maximizes the positive social and economic impacts of sustainable energy projects.

Achieving Goal 7 of affordable and clean energy requires collaborative efforts between governments, businesses, and communities. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) play a crucial role in mobilizing resources, expertise, and innovation towards sustainable energy projects. Governments can create supportive policies and incentives to attract private sector investment, while businesses can contribute through research and development, financing, and project implementation. By joining forces, PPPs can accelerate the transition towards affordable and clean energy, paving the way for a more sustainable future. Together, governments, businesses, and communities can build a resilient and inclusive energy system that benefits society and the planet.

Overcoming Challenges and Barriers

While the transition to affordable and clean energy is promising, there are several challenges and barriers that must be addressed to achieve widespread adoption and implementation. These challenges include the upfront costs of renewable energy infrastructure, technological limitations, and the need for extensive grid integration.

One of the primary challenges is the upfront costs associated with renewable energy infrastructure. While the costs of renewable energy technologies have been steadily declining over the years, they still require significant initial investments. This can pose a barrier, particularly for developing countries and communities with limited financial resources. To overcome this challenge, governments, businesses, and financial institutions need to work together to develop innovative financing mechanisms. Subsidies, grants, and low-interest loans can help make renewable energy projects more financially viable, incentivizing investment and promoting widespread adoption.

Technological limitations are another hurdle in the transition to affordable and clean energy. While renewable energy technologies have made significant advancements, there are still areas that require further research and development. For example, energy storage technologies are crucial for overcoming the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Advancements in energy storage, such as batteries and other innovative storage solutions, are needed to ensure reliable and continuous power supply. Governments and research institutions must invest in research and development efforts to improve the efficiency, durability, and cost-effectiveness of these technologies.

Integration of renewable energy sources into existing energy systems is another significant challenge. The variability and intermittency of renewable energy sources require careful planning and coordination to ensure a stable and reliable energy supply. This involves extensive grid integration and the development of smart grid technologies. Smart grids can enable better management of energy supply and demand, facilitate the integration of renewable energy sources, and enable more efficient distribution of electricity. Governments and energy authorities need to invest in upgrading and modernizing existing grid infrastructure to accommodate renewable energy sources and ensure smooth integration into the energy system.

In addition to these challenges, policy and regulatory frameworks play a crucial role in driving the transition to affordable and clean energy. Governments need to establish clear and supportive policies that provide long-term stability and predictability for renewable energy investments. This includes setting renewable energy targets, implementing feed-in tariffs, and establishing renewable portfolio standards. Additionally, streamlining permitting processes and reducing bureaucratic barriers can help accelerate the deployment of renewable energy projects.

Education and awareness are also essential in overcoming barriers to the transition. Public perception, understanding, and acceptance of renewable energy technologies can significantly impact their adoption. Governments, businesses, and organizations should invest in public awareness campaigns and educational initiatives to promote the benefits of clean energy and address misconceptions or concerns.

Furthermore, international collaboration and knowledge sharing are vital in overcoming challenges and barriers to the transition. Countries and organizations can learn from each other's experiences, best practices, and technological advancements. Platforms for collaboration, such as international conferences, research partnerships, and knowledge-sharing networks, can facilitate the exchange of information and expertise.

In conclusion, while the transition to affordable and clean energy holds great promise, there are several challenges and barriers that need to be addressed. The upfront costs of renewable energy infrastructure, technological limitations, and the integration of renewable energy into existing energy systems are key hurdles. Governments, businesses, and research institutions must invest in research and development to drive down costs, improve efficiency, and enhance grid integration. Additionally, financial mechanisms such as subsidies, grants, and innovative financing models can help make renewable energy projects more financially viable. By overcoming these challenges, we can accelerate the adoption of affordable and clean energy, paving the way for a sustainable and resilient future.

Conclusion

Goal 7 - Affordable and Clean Energy is not just an aspiration; it is a necessity for the sustainable development of our planet. By embracing energy efficiency, transitioning to renewable energy sources, ensuring energy access for all, fostering public-private partnerships, and overcoming challenges, we can unlock the transformative power of affordable and clean energy. The benefits go beyond reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating climate change; they extend to improved public health, economic growth, job creation, and enhanced resilience against energy price fluctuations. Let us collectively work towards a future where energy is affordable, clean, and accessible to all, leaving a positive and lasting impact on generations to come.

[1americanconservative]

@RepMattGaetz

The federal government should not be financing the destruction of its own country!

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and non-profits serve as the foot soldiers for the Biden-Harris administration's mass-migration policies by helping illegal aliens cross the border and stay here for years after illegally.

This week, I led a coalition to introduce the Blocking Assistance and Resources to Restrict Illegal Entry and Residency Act, or the BARRIER Act, to cut off federal funding from the NGOs, non-profits, and other entities that help migrants illegally enter or reside in the U.S. READ MORE: https://foxnews.com/politics/gaetz-introduce-bill-cutting-off-federal-aid-groups-helping-illegal-immigrants-enter-u-s

[deadpresidents]

"I'm going to get [John F.] Kennedy's tax cut out of the Senate Finance Committee, and we're going to get this economy humming again. Then I'm going to pass Kennedy's civil rights bill, which has been hung up too long in Congress. And I'm going to pass it without changing a single comma or a word. After that we'll pass legislation that allows everyone in this country to vote, with all the barriers down. And that's not all. We're going to get a law that says every boy and girl in this country, no matter how poor, or the color of their skin, or the region they come from, is going to be able to get all the education they can take by loan, scholarship, or grant, right from the federal government. And I aim to pass Harry Truman's medical insurance bill (which ultimately became Medicare and Medicaid) that got nowhere before."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson, on his immediate domestic policy goals, to aides Jack Valenti, Bill Moyers, and Cliff Carter, as they sat with him in his bedroom before he went to sleep at 4:00 AM on November 23, 1963 -- just hours after being sworn in as President following John F. Kennedy's assassination. LBJ achieved each of those goals -- basically in the exact order he mentioned -- during his first two years as President.

[capitalism-is-a-psychopathy]

Billionaires destroy more than they create

In a land often championed for its economic opportunity and equality, the American Dream promises that anyone who works hard can rise to prosperity. But for many in today’s middle and lower economic classes, that dream is fading, shadowed by a reality that feels increasingly rigged. At the heart of this issue lies a stark and glaring imbalance: billionaires, a minuscule fraction of the population, wield a staggering concentration of wealth and influence. This is not just an issue of economics but one that touches the foundations of democracy and fairness.

Imagine the economy as a massive machine, built to churn wealth throughout society. In an ideal world, this wealth would cycle effectively, where each part contributes and benefits in turn. But as billionaires amass wealth at unprecedented levels, this machine has come to function more like a funnel, siphoning resources from the broader society and concentrating them at the very top. This dynamic, driven by complex financial structures and tax strategies, isn’t merely an accumulation of personal fortunes but a systematic extraction from the economic potential of others. The capital that could have flowed through wages, education, and public infrastructure is often diverted into private bank accounts and shell companies, rarely benefiting the people who drive and build the economy day by day.

As wealth accumulates at the top, so too does political influence. Billionaires, with vast financial resources, can fund political campaigns, lobbyists, and entire networks of think tanks dedicated to shaping policy. Through these channels, they push for tax policies, regulations, and trade agreements that benefit the ultra-wealthy at the expense of middle- and lower-income families. Politicians, indebted to these donors, increasingly look to billionaire interests rather than to constituents’ needs. This creates a disturbing feedback loop: billionaires influence politics to further policies that reinforce their own wealth and power, leaving the broader populace with dwindling opportunities to influence their own government.

This concentrated power extends far beyond campaign finance and lobbying. With ownership over significant segments of media networks, billionaires control the narratives that millions consume daily. Through these media outlets, they shape public opinion, diverting attention from policies that would challenge wealth accumulation and pushing narratives that frame the ultra-wealthy as essential “job creators” or “innovators” rather than acknowledging their role in widening economic divides. Issues that might threaten their economic stranglehold are often buried, while others, that create division and distract, are amplified.

For the middle and lower classes, this confluence of wealth, media, and political power has a real impact. Stagnant wages, diminishing job security, and rising costs of living aren’t natural outcomes of a complex economy—they’re symptoms of a system shaped to benefit those at the top. Policies that could lift working-class Americans, like raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, or better labor protections, are often stifled in legislative deadlock, thanks in part to the political influence of the ultra-wealthy who stand to lose from them.

So, as this cycle continues, the gap between billionaires and everyone else widens. The billions accumulated at the top no longer signify mere success but a barrier to mobility for everyone else. The middle and lower classes find themselves carrying the economic burdens, often working harder for less. Meanwhile, billionaires remain insulated, living in a different economic reality, one far removed from the struggles of the average American. This isn’t just an economic imbalance but a distortion of democracy itself, as the machinery of power and influence is pulled further from the reach of ordinary citizens and held more tightly by those whose interests rarely align with theirs.

Without addressing this imbalance, the promise of opportunity, the cornerstone of the American Dream, becomes less attainable with each passing year, not just for the lower and middle classes but for the nation’s future as a whole.

Addressing their manipulation

Billionaires and their advocates often employ a familiar set of narratives to justify their wealth and the structures that enable it. These arguments, framed in terms of the free market, capitalism, or fear of socialism, are not only misleading but often serve to distract from the deeper systemic issues at play. Below is a breakdown of these claims and the counterarguments that expose their flaws:

1. “It’s Just the Free Market at Work”

The myth of the “free market” implies that billionaires achieve their wealth purely through talent, innovation, and competition in a market where everyone has equal opportunity. But in reality, the U.S. economy is far from a genuinely “free” market.

Counterpoints:

• Government Subsidies and Tax Breaks: Many billionaires’ businesses rely heavily on taxpayer-funded subsidies, special tax breaks, and other forms of government assistance. Large corporations frequently lobby for policies that grant them tax advantages, including offshore loopholes and capital gains tax breaks. This creates an environment where they aren’t competing on equal ground but rather with significant state support, distorting the market in their favor.

• Anti-Competitive Practices: Many large corporations, especially in tech and finance, engage in monopolistic behavior, buying out competitors or using aggressive tactics to drive them out of the market. This concentration of power stifles competition, contradicting the notion of a “free” market where anyone can succeed if they work hard.

• Inherited Wealth and Privilege: A significant portion of billionaire wealth is inherited rather than self-made. Generational wealth compounds, giving the ultra-wealthy an enormous head start over those without similar family resources. This challenges the idea that wealth accumulation is simply the product of individual merit or a fair market.

2. “This Is What Capitalism Is Supposed to Look Like”

The argument here suggests that capitalism is an inherently competitive system, where the most successful rise to the top, benefiting everyone through innovation and job creation. This narrative hinges on the idea of “trickle-down economics,” where the wealth of the richest eventually spreads throughout society.

Counterpoints:

• Trickle-Down Economics Doesn’t Work: Decades of evidence show that wealth rarely “trickles down” to the rest of society in any meaningful way. Income inequality has only widened, with wages stagnating for most workers while billionaire wealth has soared. Billionaires tend to reinvest wealth in ways that concentrate their holdings, like in stocks, rather than in ways that benefit the broader economy.

• Wealth Extraction, Not Wealth Creation: Many billionaires achieve and maintain their fortunes through rent-seeking behavior—extracting wealth from existing resources rather than creating new value. Hedge funds, private equity, and real estate empires often profit by cutting costs (like labor) rather than by innovating or producing new goods and services. This dynamic benefits investors but hurts workers and consumers.

• Capitalism Can Take Other Forms: The capitalism practiced in the U.S. today, sometimes called “neoliberal capitalism,” focuses on minimal regulation, tax cuts for the wealthy, and privatization. However, other countries demonstrate that capitalism can function with stronger social safety nets, wealth redistribution policies, and tighter regulations on corporate power. Nordic countries, for example, balance capitalism with robust welfare systems, ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and services.

3. “Without Billionaires, There Would Be No Innovation or Job Creation”

A popular myth is that billionaires are essential “job creators” and “innovators” whose wealth ultimately benefits society by funding new businesses and creating employment. This claim positions billionaires as indispensable to economic growth.

Counterpoints:

• Public Funding Fuels Innovation: Many of the biggest technological advances, including the internet, GPS, and medical breakthroughs, were developed with public funding rather than billionaire investments. Government research grants and subsidies often lay the groundwork for major innovations that billionaires later profit from. In other words, society bears much of the financial risk, while billionaires reap the rewards.

• Small Businesses Create Most Jobs: Small businesses, not billionaires or large corporations, are responsible for most job creation in the United States. Big corporations often eliminate jobs through automation, outsourcing, or consolidation. They may employ a large workforce, but they also tend to exploit workers through low wages, precarious employment, and cost-cutting measures.

• Billionaires Accumulate Wealth Through Wealth, Not Innovation: Many billionaires maintain their wealth not by creating jobs or innovating but by using their existing capital to generate more wealth, often through financial instruments that have little to do with actual economic productivity. Stock buybacks, dividends, and passive investments grow their fortunes without necessarily contributing to broader economic prosperity.

4. “Any Alternative Is Socialism or Communism”

When calls arise for higher taxes on the wealthy, stricter regulations, or broader social programs, the response is often to invoke the fear of “socialism” or “communism.” This argument seeks to paint any attempt at wealth redistribution or regulation as a slippery slope toward total government control.

Counterpoints:

• Social Safety Nets and Regulations Are Not Socialism: Social safety nets, progressive taxation, and regulations do not equate to socialism or communism; they’re features of a balanced capitalist system that seeks to prevent extreme inequality and protect public welfare. Countries like Germany, Canada, and Denmark combine regulated capitalism with strong social programs, resulting in healthier economies and greater well-being for citizens without abandoning capitalism.

• Inequality Threatens Capitalism: Growing inequality and economic instability can undermine the foundations of capitalism. A healthy capitalist economy requires a strong middle class with buying power, which excessive wealth concentration undermines. Reforms like progressive taxation, labor protections, and universal healthcare aren’t a rejection of capitalism but rather a means of stabilizing it.

• Historical Success of Mixed Economies: Many of the most successful and prosperous countries practice a mixed economy, where capitalism coexists with social policies that promote equality. The U.S. itself has employed a mixed economy model in the past, particularly after the New Deal, which implemented social safety nets, labor protections, and financial regulations that led to a period of unprecedented growth and prosperity for the middle class.

5. “They Earned It Fair and Square”

Finally, the idea persists that billionaires deserve their wealth because they “earned” it. This argument suggests that any policy aiming to redistribute wealth is fundamentally unfair, penalizing those who worked hard to succeed.

Counterpoints:

• Systemic Advantages and Wealth Hoarding: As previously mentioned, many billionaires begin with advantages—like family wealth or elite educational opportunities—that aren’t available to most people. Additionally, billionaires often employ complex strategies to avoid taxes, lobby for favorable regulations, and capitalize on government subsidies. These factors mean they haven’t earned wealth solely through hard work or merit.

• Billionaires Didn’t Build Alone: No billionaire operates in isolation; they rely on infrastructure, public education, and the work of thousands or millions of employees. A CEO’s wealth is made possible by a web of collective contributions, yet that wealth is rarely shared equitably. While billionaires might be rewarded for their role, their fortune is far from the result of individual effort alone.

In short, these narratives around billionaires often mask a more uncomfortable truth: today’s system is structured in ways that favor the ultra-wealthy at the expense of the broader population. Economic reform, rather than a threat to capitalism, is a necessary step to ensure a more just, equitable society where wealth accumulation doesn’t depend on privilege, influence, or systemic manipulation.

Making a change

Addressing the economic imbalance and the unchecked power of the ultra-wealthy presents a unique challenge, especially given the intense political polarization in the United States. For the middle and lower classes to push back effectively, they will need to build a coalition that transcends party lines and focuses on shared economic interests rather than divisive rhetoric.

1. Build Awareness Through Shared Issues, Not Ideology

The rhetoric around “free markets” and “socialism” often obscures real issues of economic struggle that affect both conservative and progressive working- and middle-class citizens alike. Instead of framing the issue in ideological terms, framing it in terms of tangible, shared grievances can help bridge the divide:

• Focus on Economic Inequality: Income stagnation, unaffordable healthcare, and housing insecurity are felt across the political spectrum. By shifting the narrative from “class warfare” to “economic fairness,” advocates can sidestep partisan language and emphasize the shared experience of economic struggle.

• Highlight the Impact of Corporate Power on Local Communities: Framing issues around how large corporations hurt small, local businesses can resonate strongly with both sides of the political spectrum. This approach often taps into conservative values around community and self-reliance, while also aligning with progressive critiques of corporate overreach.

2. Organize Around Labor Rights and Worker Protections

Historically, unions have been instrumental in improving working conditions and advocating for fair wages, and labor movements transcend political divisions. Many Americans—left, right, and center—share concerns about the erosion of workers’ rights, stagnant wages, and the declining influence of the average worker.

• Expand Union Participation and Labor Movements: Reinvigorating unions and expanding labor protections could give workers a stronger collective voice. New labor movements that focus on economic rights without overtly partisan language could attract support across the political spectrum, particularly when they champion issues like fair wages, workplace safety, and job security.

• Support Worker Cooperatives and Employee-Owned Businesses: Promoting models like worker cooperatives or employee-owned businesses can offer a compelling alternative to the current structure of corporate ownership without resorting to divisive rhetoric. These models prioritize local control and shared economic benefits, appealing to values of self-sufficiency and fairness.

3. Pressure Politicians on Key Economic Policies

A key to bridging the partisan gap is to focus on policies that benefit the broader populace rather than framing them as part of any ideological agenda. The majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation, support policies like fair taxation, healthcare reform, and increased access to education when framed in terms of fairness and opportunity.

• Promote Tax Reform as “Fairness,” Not Redistribution: Instead of advocating for “redistribution,” proponents can push for tax policies that ensure everyone pays their fair share. Policies like a wealth tax or higher taxes on capital gains can be framed as holding the ultra-wealthy accountable rather than demonizing them, a stance that resonates with people who value fairness and personal responsibility.

• Advocate for Antitrust Legislation: Pushing for stronger antitrust laws to break up monopolies and prevent anti-competitive practices can appeal to both sides. For conservatives, this aligns with the values of market competition; for progressives, it aligns with corporate accountability and consumer protection.

4. Engage in Alternative Media and Independent Journalism

The ultra-wealthy often own or influence major media outlets, which can shape public opinion in ways that protect their interests. For the middle and lower classes to gain a clearer view of economic issues, alternative media sources and independent journalism that aren’t beholden to billionaire interests are crucial.

• Support Independent News Outlets: A growing number of independent news organizations are dedicated to in-depth economic reporting without catering to corporate interests. Supporting these outlets allows individuals to access a range of perspectives that help reveal the true impact of policies on ordinary people.

• Utilize Social Media Responsibly to Build Cross-Party Awareness: Social media, while often a divisive force, can also be used to spread information about economic injustice. When used responsibly to share facts, case studies, and stories of economic hardship, it can cut through the rhetoric and provide people across the political spectrum with a shared understanding of the issues.

5. Prioritize Voting Reform and Campaign Finance Reform

Money in politics is one of the core reasons why economic policies favor the wealthy. Bipartisan support for reducing corporate influence in politics is possible, especially when the focus is on fairness, transparency, and accountability in government.

• Promote Campaign Finance Reform as an Anti-Corruption Effort: Campaign finance reform, which seeks to limit the influence of wealthy donors and corporations on elections, can appeal to conservatives and liberals alike who are frustrated with the influence of money in politics. Instead of framing it as an anti-capitalist measure, framing it as an anti-corruption measure can attract broader support.

• Support Voting Reforms for a More Representative Democracy: Reforms like ranked-choice voting, ending gerrymandering, and preventing voter suppression can help create a political environment that more accurately represents the will of the people rather than special interests. By creating a more representative democracy, policies that reflect the economic needs of the middle and lower classes have a better chance of being enacted.

6. Create Cross-Partisan Grassroots Coalitions Focused on Economic Issues

Many grassroots organizations are focused on economic justice, but they tend to align themselves with one side of the political spectrum, often losing potential support in the process. Building cross-partisan coalitions that emphasize shared economic challenges rather than ideological differences could foster stronger, more united advocacy for middle- and working-class issues.

• Organize Around Issues, Not Parties: Groups like the Poor People’s Campaign, which focuses on poverty and economic justice, have successfully united people across political lines around issues that transcend party loyalty. This approach allows people to focus on their shared struggles, making the movement harder for politicians to ignore.

• Build Community-Level Alliances: Many economic issues are felt acutely at the local level. By focusing on community-level initiatives that address healthcare, affordable housing, and education, people can create practical, on-the-ground solutions that don’t require alignment with national politics. These local successes can serve as models for broader change.

7. Emphasize Civic Education on Economic Policies

Finally, bridging the gap will require education and awareness. Many people accept billionaire-fueled rhetoric because they lack exposure to alternative perspectives. Civic education efforts that focus on teaching economic principles, tax policy, and the influence of corporate power can empower people to understand the real impacts of current policies on their lives.

• Create Accessible Educational Resources: Podcasts, documentaries, workshops, and community discussions can all serve as tools for demystifying economic issues. When people have a clearer understanding of how things like tax policies and wage laws work, they are better equipped to make informed decisions.

• Promote Financial Literacy and Empower Individuals: Financial literacy programs that help individuals understand budgeting, credit, and investments empower people to navigate the economy more effectively. While this doesn’t directly address systemic issues, it gives individuals a greater understanding of the forces shaping their lives and can be a first step toward broader engagement.

By approaching these issues with a focus on shared struggles, fairness, and practical solutions, the middle and lower classes can work together to build a movement that transcends political divides. This movement can challenge the status quo without becoming mired in divisive ideological battles. The real strength of such an effort lies in its ability to unite ordinary people around a common vision for a fairer, more just economic system—one that serves all citizens, not just the wealthiest few.

[feministdragon]

‘Financing represents the ultimate chokepoint,’ Christophers writes, ‘the point at which renewables development most often becomes permanently blocked.’ Investors aren’t choosing between ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ electricity generation, but judging opportunities across a wide range of asset classes. Capitalists’ sole concern, as Marx observed, is how to turn money into more money, and it’s not clear that renewables are a very good vehicle for doing this, regardless of how cheap they are to run.

The problem, from the perspective of investors, is ‘bankability’. Investors want as much certainty as possible regarding future returns on their investments, or else they require a hefty premium for accepting additional uncertainty. The challenge for the renewables sector is how to persuade investors that they can make reliably high returns in a market with highly volatile prices, low barriers to entry and nothing to stabilise revenues. The very policies that were introduced to bring electricity costs down – marketisation and competition – have made the financial sector wary. Whenever renewables appear to be doing well, new providers rush in, driving down prices, and therefore profits, until investors get cold feet all over again.

What investors crave is price stability, or predictability at least. Risk is one thing, but fundamental uncertainty is another. Industries characterised by a high degree of concentration, longstanding monopoly power and government support are far easier to incorporate into financial models, because there are fewer unknowns. Judged in terms of decarbonisation, the most successful policies reviewed in The Price Is Wrong are not those which reduce the price of electricity, which would be in the interest of consumers, but those which stabilise it for the benefit of investors. Meanwhile, the extraction and burning of fossil fuels remains a more dependable way of making the kind of returns that Wall Street and the City have come to expect as their due. This is an industry with more dominant players, much higher barriers to entry, and which was largely established (and financed) long before the vogue for marketisation took hold.

Despite the exuberance over the falling costs of solar and wind power, Christophers doubts ‘whether a single example of a substantive and truly zero-support’ renewables facility ‘actually exists, anywhere in the world’. What’s especially galling is that, to the extent renewable electricity remains hooked on subsidies, this isn’t money that is ending up in savings for consumers, but in the profits of developers and the portfolios of asset managers. Paradoxically, the ideology that promoted free markets and a culture of enterprise (against conglomeration and monopoly) has enforced this sector’s reliance on the state. The lesson Christophers draws is that electricity ‘was and is not a suitable object for marketisation and profit generation in the first place’. Ecologically speaking, neoliberalism could scarcely have come at a worse time.

What can be done? It is clearly no good hoping that electricity markets will drive the energy transition, when it’s financial markets that are calling the shots. The option that has come to the fore in recent years, led by the Biden administration, is the one euphemistically called ‘de-risking’, which in practice means topping up and guaranteeing the returns that investors have come to expect using tax credits and other subsidies. The Inflation Reduction Act, signed by Biden in the summer of 2022, promises a giant $369 billion of these incentives over a ten-year period. This at least faces up to the fact that much of the power to shape the future is in the hands of asset managers and banks, and it is their calculations (and not those of consumers) that will decide whether or not the planet burns. There is no economic reason why a 15 per cent return on investment should be considered ‘normal’, and there is nothing objectively bad about a project that pays 6 per cent instead. The problem, as Christophers makes plain, is that investors get to choose which of these two numbers they prefer, and no government is likely to force BlackRock to make less money anytime soon. "

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Political Barriers to Decarbonization in Brazil: The Persistence of Neoliberalism

After four years of a neoliberal government that dismantled environmental regulations in Brazil, the country is once again transitioning toward a state-led model of development. But entrenched domestic interests may thwart a more sustainable path.

Since Brazil’s redemocratization in 1989, the country has oscillated between neoliberal and more interventionist development models, the latter championed by the governments of the Workers’ Party. Now, during Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s third presidency, the government has initiated a state-led program of “neoindustrialization” aimed at advancing decarbonization efforts. Even though Brazil has several advantages in the transition to a green economy, such as its clean energy matrix and abundance of natural resources, the success of this transition depends on overcoming barriers imposed by two important domestic constituencies: agribusiness producers and impoverished citizens that rely on extractive activities, particularly in the Amazon region. Those groups perceive environmental policies as a threat to their economic interest and livelihoods, respectively, posing significant challenges to the government’s sustainable development efforts. The political barriers to decarbonization in Brazil provide a compelling case study of the challenges that progressive governments in Latin America face when attempting to pursue policy directions that run counter to the entrenched interests of powerful economic groups. Brazil’s circumstances also underscore the importance of implementing policies that provide alternatives and compensation to the poorest citizens to keep the forest standing.

For the past three and a half decades, Brazil has alternated between neoliberal and state-led developmental models. A significant contrast between these frameworks lies in the role played by the Brazilian Development Bank, commonly referred to as the BNDES. Neoliberal administrations typically have constrained the BNDES’s scope, restricted the amount of subsidized credit it extends, and at times redirected its resources toward downsizing the public sector and facilitating the privatization of state-owned enterprises. By contrast, when the Workers’ Party has been in power, the BNDES has occupied a central position in the Brazilian economy. Under these administrations, the bank has financed development initiatives to address regional inequalities, enhanced access to credit for small and medium-sized enterprises, and funded industrial policies and the global expansion of Brazilian multinational corporations. Consequently, the breadth of BNDES’s operations often serves as a barometer of the policy priorities set by Brazilian administrations.

Now, under Lula’s third administration, the BNDES once again exemplifies the government’s commitment to advancing industrial policies, this time with a specific focus on promoting the country’s green transition. Consistent with this strategic orientation, the bank has announced a program of neoindustrialization intended to reinforce decarbonization initiatives within the Brazilian economy. The BNDES also oversees the management of the Climate Fund (Fundo Clima), which is expected to serve as a critical instrument within Brazil’s national climate change policy framework. This emphasis on environmental considerations is consistent with Lula’s two previous administrations. It reflects the government’s sense that Brazil’s abundant natural resources, clean energy infrastructure, rich mineral deposits, and ecologically significant biomes (such as the Amazon and Cerrado) leave the country uniquely positioned to capitalize on the global transition toward a green economy. It also reflects the political leadership’s decision to place the climate issue at the center of Brazil’s strategy for international engagement.

However, the success of Brazil’s transition to a decarbonized economy and its leadership on climate policies under Lula depend on overcoming at least two significant domestic barriers. The first is posed by an affluent, politically organized, and influential agribusiness sector, which reacts adversely to environmental regulation. The second stems from impoverished populations engaged in extractive activities, especially in the Amazon region, who perceive environmental concerns as a threat to their livelihoods.

Continue reading.

[thedoubteriswise]

human beings tend make the choice that is most rational (for a given value of reason) and appealing to them under the current circumstances. that doesn't mean the choice is morally good or without serious consequences, and it doesn't mean that people won't do self-defeating shit because they fundamentally misunderstand why things are happening. but the decisions they make will be based on a risk/reward assessment that's usually pretty predictable. as a result, solutions that punish people for doing things that are damaging but which don't change motivation to do those things in the first place aren't very effective. if the natural negative consequences of a choice weren't a deterrent to making it, nonspecific punishment probably won't be either!

and the thing is that leftists are really good at understanding this concept when it comes to things like "if you want homeless people to stop sleeping in the park and leaving needles around, you have to provide low-barrier shelters and safe injection sites" or "people are less likely to drive drunk if you offer convenient, affordable public transit" or "if you don't want teenagers getting pregnant, you have to teach them how to use condoms." where the wheels come off the wagon is when we respond to wealthy people and elected officials doing damaging but incentivized things with "eat the rich" and "burn it all down."

I understand the anger behind those sentiments. I feel it too. bigoted politicians and greedy corporate board members aren't just littering in a park or knocking up their girlfriend, the damage they do is massive and devastating and frequently motivated by nothing but their own desires and prejudices. they could choose not to do what they do and be perfectly safe and happy. but the reality is that they are doing things that, by their calculation, appear to have a benefit that outweighs the cost. you can hate them for how they value costs and benefits, god knows I do, but even if you removed every single one of the wealthy and powerful individuals that do these things from the positions that allow them to cause harm, you'll just get new fuckheads doing the same shit as long as that shit is an available and appealing option.

unfortunately, the most sustainable and effective solutions tend to be unsexy policy changes related to like, fixing campaign finance law, reforming the way district lines are drawn, simply giving the IRS enough money to do their job, financial incentives to stop using fossil fuels, minute changes to the way corporations are allowed to function, just the absolute dullest most bean counter shit imaginable. stuff that alters the circumstances to make good behavior the only choice, or at least the most attractive one. but all of that is inevitably hard to fit into a tweet or whatever so we fall back on "eat the rich," a concept that is as materially useless as it would be ethically unsustainable if put into practice. Woo.

[dailyanarchistposts]

People

Malthus

Are there too many people for the earth to support? Thomas Malthus (a 19th Century clergyman), was the originator and populist of “overpopulation” theories. He maintained that food supplies could only increase arithmetically while human population increases exponentially. War, disease and starvation for the poor are the inevitable result: “Man cannot live in the midst of plenty. All cannot share alike the bounties of nature”. These disasters were also the ‘natural’ solution to the problem. He opposed contraception or feeding people who would otherwise starve, as this would only lead them to procreate more, worsening the general misery.

Overpopulation ideology emerged with the beginning of industrialisation. People were driven from their lands and dispossessed of the commons (a traditional source of food in hard times) by wealthy landowners and crowded into factories and slum housing. Disease, brutality and immorality were caused by overcrowding which was itself the product of there being too many people – or so it was thought. Malthus’ theories began to be used selectively by political and business leaders as the Industrial Revolution progressed. A surplus of workers kept wages down, which was good for business, and good business made good politics. But society was also a “war of all against all” (Hobbes). In order to survive and conquer, states required a lot of people (soldiers, workers) but only the ‘right’ ones. Social Darwinism, combined with eugenics (the genetic control and ‘improvement’ of breeds), was used to justify colonial conquest and legitimised reactionary immigration policies at the turn of the 20th Century. Ultimately it provided the necessary ideology for the extermination of ‘inferior’ people by the Nazis in their death camps: the disabled, mentally or physically ‘deficient’, psychiatric inmates, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals etc.

Overpopulation theories are currently used by the Development Bank to justify the industrial development of sensitive wilderness areas such as Western Brazil. Media images of crowded refugee camps suggest an Africa teeming with people that the land cannot support and conveniently ignore the wars and economic oppression that have driven them there. Since the Cold War, US strategy to control political developments and resources has involved population control to prevent nationalist revolt in Africa and Asia. The American corporate and military state collaborates with local elites through the establishment of state-dominated institutions for population control. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is the biggest single funder of population control activities in the majority world. The anti-abortion stance of the Reagan and Bush administrations was a sop to the Right and only for domestic consumption. The focus of the present population control establishment is authoritarian and technocratic. Sterilisation, interuterine devices, the Pill, and other risky forms of fertility control are preferred to traditional methods and barrier techniques.

This ideology is based on three tenets:

Rapid population growth is the main cause of the South’s development problems, particularly hunger, environmental destruction and political instability.

People must be persuaded/forced to have fewer children (in Indonesia the Army has forced IUDs on villagers at gunpoint), without fundamentally improving their impoverished conditions.

With the right combination of finance, personnel, technology and Western management techniques, birth control can be delivered from the top down, without basic health care systems.

[jaycrr]

Blog Post Due 9/12

How has digital technology evolved over time to where we give it decision-making power in everyday life?

According to Eubanks, since the start of the digital technology world, decision making such as politics, health, employment, finance has gone through extreme change over the last 40 years. Before, the ones in charge of deciding who gets offered a mortgage, employment, who gets a credit card or even who qualifies for a government service were actual human beings. Present day, "we have ceded much of that decision-making power to sophisticated machines" (pg. 13). Also, the families in need of resources, which neighborhoods are getting policed, gets determined by automated eligibility, ranking algorithms, and predictive risk models.  

2. What role did technology help play a part in helping and harming lower-income communities?

According to Eubanks, technology played a double role in enabling and oppressing lower-income communities. In her research with the poor and working class women, they used information technology to embrace their stories with others and to be able to connect with one another. It was able to better and strengthen their communities. She found that the women from her hometown were not "technology poor" as would be assumed by policy makers in her city. It showed technology was not absent from their lives.

On the other hand, technology was also harming these lower-income communities. Eubanks found many trends that were troubling such as high-tech economic development and this led to an increase of inequality in the economy. Technology was also being used for surveillance in public housing and programs. Leading to systemic inequality and policy makers were not addressing the problems and needs of the people in the low income communities.

3. How would automated-decision making damage the values of society?

Automated decision-making affects societies values in a bad way by turning social choices into problems. The way these systems think is instead of focusing on fairness, they focus on efficiency and being controlling. Eubanks also states that this approach affects marginalized groups of people that face less accountability in a low rights environment. The systems once they are tested on vulnerable populations, they eventually affect everyone and this method shows a less humane way of decision-making, almost compromising core values of a society. 

4. What could be some negative impacts of digital poverty management tools on lower-income individuals? 

EuBanks describes multiple negative impacts of these property management tools, and how they create barriers to access essential public resources by sort of blocking people from claiming benefits. Complex databases are involved and they collect personal formation. Predictive models and algorithms identify these individuals as problematic and surveillance systems start to notify their actions to the government and what not. ultimately breaching privacy and could even have consequences for those affected.

Eubanks, Automating Inequality: how high-tech tools profile, police, and punish the poor.

[makethatelevenrings]

You and this person brought up a lot of thoughts about what's going on with the Palestinians for me and many others.

I try to keep my Tumblr a safe no stressful place but this is important. It's necessary for others to know and see what's happening. Thank you for teaching me.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPR7t812v/

It is so, so important to me that you willingly are taking the steps to get educated and I appreciate it so much.

The way she mentioned the Iran-Contra affair made me instantly nod along because I spent a whole semester researching American foreign policy in Nicaragua. Believe me, it’s a mess.

American government officials want to keep Israel going because they want a strong position in the Middle East. As the Zionist in my DMs argued, “Britain gave us [Israel] the land fairly” which is laughable when you look at the sheer number of lands that Britain has colonized and the number of lives lost at the hands of colonial powers. Britain “gave” Israel that land in 1918 with the British Mandate but it wasn’t until the Holocaust that many Jewish persons fled to Israel for refuge. Note: the Holocaust was fucking horrific. There is no excuse, justification, etc. for the absolute devastation the Holocaust has done to the Jewish, rRoma, and many more communities. There is no justification for genocide. Ever.

In 1948, the Nakba happened. 750k Palestinians became refugees as Israeli forces pushed them out of their homes. As the Zionist explained to me “we were defending ourselves” and “we only expelled the people who would prove to be a threat”. Hear me out; 750k people are a threat including the babies carried by their mothers? Who determined they were a threat? Why were the people of Palestine so angry that they fought against the encroaching Israelis?

After 1948, Israel was recognized by the UN as a nation and a rapidly growing country in the Middle East. But how? How were they developing so quickly? The West needed a stronghold in the region to “combat” the USSR’s presence in the region. WWII decimated Britain’s finances and manpower so the United States’ Marshall Plan came in to save the day. We basically said “we’ll give you money to rebuild, you give us your loyalty and promise to not become a communist”.

That’s it. That’s the Cold War. America and the USSR were two sides of an ideological and military struggle that spread through every region imaginable in the Global South. Nicaragua, Cuba, China, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Israel all can tie their roots back to the Cold War policies that we enacted. The United States is so intent on continuing funds to Israel because we want a strong hold in the region to keep an eye on every nation that surrounds Israel. Apparently, Joe Biden doesn’t care if Palestinians are murdered to achieve his goal.

I used this analogy to explain to the Zionist in my DMs and they kept skirting around it so I want others to read it:

A person walks into your house, points a gun at you and your family, and says get out, this is now someone else’s home. If you fight, you’ll probably die. If you win the fight, more people will come after you. If you concede and move out, you lose your home and have to leave in untenable conditions.

You live on the streets and try to support your family but the people that moved into your home have decided that they don’t want to look at you. They set up blockades and barriers. They take control of your water and gas and borders so they can monitor what food comes in. They treat you like a caged animal.

The person who stole your home walks by one day and sees you sitting on the street, hungry and scared and lost, and they decide to take pity on you and hand you one dollar. Look at that, they’re alleviating the struggle your life has become. The struggle they caused.

If someone did that to you, wouldn’t you be angry? Would you ever trust them again?

[plethoraworldatlas]

On the heels of passing a groundbreaking bird-friendly building design policy last month, the Lake County Board approved a new ordinance at its June meeting to mitigate fatal bird collisions with glass on non-residential buildings in unincorporated Lake County. 

The ordinance, which will go into effect on August 11, 2024, requires bird-friendly design as part of new construction or major renovation of non-residential development in unincorporated areas of Lake County. These projects must use at least 80 percent bird-friendly glass on their exteriors from ground level to 100 feet high. This ordinance also applies to non-residential accessory structures such as free-standing glass walls, accessory storage buildings, glass-enclosed gazebos and pavilions and similar structures.

"The Lake County Board continues to march forward in our commitment towards innovative environmental policies and decisions as highlighted in our strategic plan," said Sandy Hart, Lake County Board Chair. "We are taking a proactive approach to safeguard the numerous bird species that enrich our natural landscape and our lives."

Nearly one billion birds annually collide with glass in the United States according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To birds, glass is an invisible, deceiving threat. Since they cannot see glass the way people do, they do not treat it as a barrier to avoid.

"Bird-friendly infrastructure is not just a win for the environment, but also for the community at large," said Paul Frank, Lake County Finance and Administrative Committee Chair and Board Member for District 11. "These measures will help reduce bird collisions, conserve biodiversity, and set a precedent for sustainable development that municipalities, other counties, businesses and residents can practice too.”

[jackawful]

So we all know that Grocery Stores Bad, right? Like second maybe to housing, food is one of the basic things people need to live that currently costs money, and sometimes a lot of money, and that's pretty ethically fucked up. But there are plenty of ways around this, both through the state and outside of it, and I think it's worth talking about. I've especially noticed that folks raised middle-class & folks who have leftist sympathies but currently lucrative jobs have trouble with this, so I put together a handy guide.

Ways to Fight The Commodification Of Food And Also Eat For Free:

Research, utilize, and support your local food banks! Plenty of food banks get funding based on how many people use them, so by getting what you can from a food bank, you're usually helping them stay afloat. Some food banks are means-tested, especially the ones that get federal funding, but often the coolest volunteers will help you wiggle around a way to present your household finances that'll let you qualify (not fraud, mind - just different ways to present the same situation) or not require paystubs/proof of (no) income. Plenty of food banks are not means-tested. Try to find secular food banks, and failing that, low-pressure religious food banks can be great too. Often the "shopping" experience feels a little bit like a food scavenger hunt & they often get fun weird stuff that grocery stores couldn't sell enough of. Consider donating the money you would've budgeted for groceries if you have spare cash, or volunteering if you have spare time.

Check to see if you qualify for food stamps, and apply. Each state administers EBT differently, and will have different rules, but actually taking the step of signing up and de-stigmatizing the use of EBT when you talk to others is important. I've seen too many people assume they made too much money to qualify, miss out on benefits for months, and then get a fair amount when they do. If you wind up consistently having extra SNAP dollars, consider using them on shelf-stable emergency food or (and you're technically not supposed to do this) giving away staples to projects under number 4 based on community need. If you're in a state where benefits don't roll over month-to-month, do a big shopping trip or go to a take-and-bake restaurant like Papa Murphy's on the last day of the month so your excess dollars don't disappear.

Dumpster dive! Every city and state has different laws and regulations on this, and you'll have to decide how to engage with those. Sometimes just asking employees is good - oftentimes especially places that have ready-made food, like pizza and donut shops, differ on both corporate policy on end-of-day disposal and individual employee convictions. Be mindful of padlocks and "no trespassing" signs. For grocery stores, be mindful of expiration dates and packaging conditions. Dumpster diving for food is a thing that takes a lot of personal risk assessment, and especially if you intend to distribute the food to other people, it's important to know what condition that food is in and what risks may come with eating it, BUT generally you're pretty likely to find good quality stuff. Which, speaking of distributing to others, brings me to:

Other free food projects! Food Not Bombs is the big notorious one, but plenty of cities have similar projects that work on similar models (PDX, for example, has a group that broke off so they could serve non-vegan dumpster'd food). Freeboxes and Little Free Libraries often have food pantries for shelf-stable food, and part of the pandemic mutual aid boom was the Free Fridge project. As with food banks, if no secular projects exist in your area, finding the lowest-pressure religious option in your area is a solid route (Sikh Gurdwaras are usually best, Salvation Army worst, imo). Stuff like this is often lowest barrier to entry of the things on this list, and also easiest to be both a contributor and a recipent of the free food. Google is your friend here, but also, these are things that are comparatively easy to start if you don't have resources in your area - don't be afraid to reach out to more established projects nearby to ask about how they got started!

Grow or forage your own food! As opposed to the last thing, this one is pretty high barrier IMO, involving either having land to tend (owned by you, used with permission, or guerilla gardened) or becoming good at plant identification. Honestly, though, you'd be surprised at how many of thr plants around us are edible and tasty - I just had my first acorn muffins this year and they're great! Checking into native plants and low-effort gardening and compost systems and foraging laws and processing what you get can be labor-intensive, so usually I reccomend people pick one familiar thing to start: blackberries, walnuts, acorns, dandelion, even urban fruit trees. This is another thing where knowing your local laws and assessing risk becomes important, but on top of that, connect with local indigenous groups and learn how to respect the land you're engaging with

I'm not mentioning buying local or CSAs or farmers markets here because while a lot of that stuff can be good, it still costs money, and I firmly believe food should be free. That said, you don't have to become a full freegan overnight, or ever, to take these steps. Each thing I've listed is its whole own rabbit hole of research for you to do, especially because all of them will look different in different places.

Ultimately, though, every bit of free food you get or help others get is a load off your wallet and helps build an alternative food system. No one person is going to be able to abolish grocery stores and institute universal free food, but if everyone does what they can to get less money involved in their own food consumption, that makes our non-monetary food systems more robust and resilient. Everything I've mentioned here is also what people turn to during natural disasters or supply chain collapse, and it's worth building these systems up ahead of time so that they're more able to handle the shock of increased demand.

Eat free food. Help other people eat free food. Fight the idea that this should be tied to your income, give back where and when you can, and encourage the people in your life to reduce their dependance on the grocery system.

[sarahmathewsblog]

Are you grappling with the complexities of international economics assignments, desperately searching for someone to guide you? Look no further! We understand that the world of international economics can be challenging, and that's why we're here to offer you expert assistance. Whether you're a struggling student or simply looking to enhance your understanding, our assistance is your gateway to academic success.

We specialize in providing comprehensive assistance to students like you who seek clarity in this fascinating but often perplexing subject. So, if you've ever found yourself thinking, "Do my international economics assignment," you're in the right place!

Why Choose Us?

Expert Guidance: Our team consists of seasoned professionals with a deep understanding of international economics. Whether you're struggling with the theory of comparative advantage or analyzing the effects of trade barriers, our experts are equipped to provide comprehensive assistance.

Customized Solutions: We recognize that each assignment is unique, and we tailor our solutions to meet your specific requirements. Our commitment is to deliver high-quality, personalized content that reflects a thorough grasp of the subject matter.

Timely Delivery: We understand the importance of deadlines in the academic world. We prioritize timely delivery, ensuring that you have ample time to review and understand the solutions provided.

Plagiarism-Free Content: Academic integrity is paramount. Our experts adhere to a strict code of ethics, delivering original, plagiarism-free content that meets the highest academic standards.

Affordable Services: We believe that quality education should be accessible to all. Our pricing is competitive, making expert guidance in international economics affordable for students at all levels.

How it Works:

Getting assistance with your international economics assignment is a seamless process. Here's a step-by-step guide to ensuring your success:

Visit Our Website: Navigate to our website at https://www.economicsassignmenthelp.com/international-economics/.

Submit Your Assignment: Fill out a simple form with details about your assignment, including the topic, deadline, and any specific requirements.

Receive a Quote: Our team will assess your requirements and provide you with a quote for our services.

Make Payment: Once you're satisfied with the quote, make a secure payment through our website.

Get Your Solution: Sit back and relax! Our experts will work diligently on your assignment, and you'll receive the completed solution within the agreed-upon timeframe.

Conclusion:

Embark on your journey through the exciting world of international economics with confidence, knowing that our experts are your dedicated. Say goodbye to assignment-related stress and hello to academic excellence. Remember, whether you're grappling with trade policies or international finance, our experts are here to make your academic journey smoother. So, the next time you find yourself thinking, "Do my international economics assignment,"– your trusted companion in the realm of international economics.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

[The Daily Don]

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 27, 2023

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

APR 28, 2023

Catie Edmondson and Carl Hulse in the New York Times yesterday noted that House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) cannot bring his conference together behind a budget plan. He wanted to pass a bill demanding major concessions from President Biden before the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling, both to prove that he could get his colleagues behind a bill and to put pressure on the Biden administration to restore the old Republican idea that the only way to make the economy work is to slash taxes, business regulation, and government spending.

McCarthy was pleased to have passed his measure with not a single vote to spare, but it appears he got the vote because everyone knew it was dead on arrival at the Senate. According to Edmonson and Hulse, McCarthy got the bill through only by begging his colleagues to ignore the provisions of the measure because it would never become law. He urged them to focus on the symbolic victory of showing Biden they could unite behind cuts.

But today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan outlined a very different vision of the global economy and American economic leadership. First of all, just the fact this happened is significant: Sullivan is a national security advisor, and he was talking about economics. He outlined how Biden’s “core commitment,” “his daily direction” is “to integrate domestic policy and foreign policy.”

Sullivan argued for a new economic approach to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Biden administration is trying to establish “a fairer, more durable global economic order, for the benefit of ourselves and for people everywhere.”

The U.S. faces economic challenges, he noted, many of which have been created by the economic ideology that has shaped U.S. policy for the past 40 years. The idea that markets would spread capital to where it was most needed to create an efficient and effective economy has been proven wrong, Sullivan said. The U.S. cut taxes and slashed business regulations, privatized public projects, and pushed free trade on principle with the understanding that all growth was good growth and that if we lost infrastructure and manufacturing, we could make up those losses in finance, for example.

As countries lowered their economic barriers and became more closely integrated with each other, they would also become more open and peaceful.

But that’s not how it played out. Privileging finance over fundamental economic growth was a mistake. The U.S. lost supply chains and entire industries as jobs moved overseas, while countries like China discarded markets in favor of artificially subsidizing their economies. Rather than ushering in world peace, the market-based system saw an aggressive China and Russia both expanding their international power. At the same time, climate change accelerated without countries making much effort to address it. And, most of all, the unequal growth of the older system has undermined democracy.

Biden has attempted to counter the weaknesses of the previous economic system by focusing on building capacity to produce and innovate, resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks, and inclusiveness to rebuild the American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

After two years, the results have been “remarkable.”

Large-scale investment in semiconductor and clean energy production has jumped 20-fold since 2019, with private money following government seed money to mean about $3.5 trillion in public and private investment will flow into the economy in the next decade. Building domestic capacity will bring supply chains home and create jobs.

But this vision is not about isolating the United States from other countries. Indeed, much of the speech reinforced U.S. support for the positions of the European Union.

Instead, the U.S. is encouraging our allies—including developing nations—to build similarly to increase our united economic strengths and to enable the world to address climate change together, a field that offers huge potential for economic growth. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 Indo-Pacific nations is designed to create international economic cooperation in that region, and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay, is designed to do the same here in the Americas. The U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council and our trilateral coordination with Japan and Korea are part of the same economic program.

With this economic approach, the U.S. does not seek to cut ties to China, but rather aims to cut the risks associated with supply chains based in China by investing in our own capacities, and to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies. The U.S. has “a very substantial trade and investment relationship” with China that set a new record last year, and the U.S. is looking not to create conflict but to “manage competition responsibly” and “work together on global challenges like climate, like macroeconomic stability, health security, and food security.” “But,” he said, “China has to be willing to play its part.”

In today’s world, Sullivan said, trade policy is not just about the tariff deals that business leaders have criticized the administration for neglecting. It is about a larger economic strategy both at home and abroad to build economies that offer rising standards of living for working people.

The administration is now focusing on labor rights, climate change, and banking security in this larger picture. Through organizations like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment the administration hopes to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in financing in the next seven years to build infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries and to relieve debt there.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries,” Sullivan said. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” Rather than simply adjusting tariff rates, it means international cooperation.

And, Sullivan said, “it means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

This strategy, he said, “is the surest path to restoring the middle class, to producing a just and effective clean-energy transition, to securing critical supply chains, and, through all of this, to repairing faith in democracy itself.” He called for bipartisan support for this approach to the global economy.

Sullivan noted that the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” came from President John F. Kennedy, not from later supply-side ideologues who used it to defend their tax cuts and business deregulation. “President Kennedy wasn’t saying what’s good for the wealthy is good for the working class,” Sullivan said, “He was saying we’re all in this together.”

Sullivan quoted Kennedy further: “If one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats. That’s true for our country. That’s true for our world. [And] economically, over time, we’re going to rise—or fall—together.”

“And that goes for the strength of our democracies as well as for the strength of our economies.”

Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen noted that David Wessel of Brookings asked Sullivan for a quick summary of this new economic vision. Sullivan answered: “We’re at a moment now where we need to build capacity to build the goods & invent the technologies of [the] future & we’re going to make the investments to do that—us, +everyone who wants to be in on [the] deal. & then we’re going to build the resilience we need…so that no natural disaster or geopolitical shock can stop us from getting things we need when we need them….”

—

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[mariacallous]

International negotiations often follow a similar pattern: Global north countries promise bold action, summits come and go, and resources fail to materialize. In June, the ambitiously titled “Summit for a New Global Financing Pact” ultimately generated a road map of future meetings and announcements that rich countries would meet commitments they were supposed to have fulfilled years ago.

This pattern has only hardened the assumption that global north countries are unlikely to prioritize the needs of the global south. When global south countries complain, global north governments tell them to be realistic. For instance, last year, then-Executive Vice President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans told African governments that “many of our citizens in Europe will not buy” the argument that Europeans hold outsize responsibility for addressing the climate crisis because they have emitted disproportionately. “Their worries are linked to their own existence in this energy crisis, in this food crisis, in this inflation crisis,” he said.

This hard-headed framing assumes that global north populations will naturally oppose the increased redistribution of money and power for the benefit of people abroad who they’ve never met. But what if this widely held assumption is not true?

According to conventional wisdom, globally redistributive policies—or policies that pull resources from wealthy countries and distribute them to poorer countries—go against the interests of the global north and will therefore never be implemented. But encouragingly for supporters of global justice, global north populations don’t seem to buy this argument.

A working paper from the World Inequality Lab, authored by Adrien Fabre, Thomas Douenne, and Linus Mattauch, suggests that global redistribution and cooperation are actually quite popular among the populations of rich countries. The paper, “International Attitudes Toward Global Policies,” is based on a survey of more than 40,000 people from 20 high- and middle-income countries. The respondents constitute a representative sample, both in terms of demographics and partisanship. While the results are surprising, existing research suggests that the paper’s findings are not an anomaly.

In every country but France, more than 65 percent of respondents said countries that have emitted less carbon in recent decades should get a larger share of the world’s remaining carbon budget than countries with higher emissions. (And although France was the least supportive, 57 percent of French respondents thought so, too.)

In a world where the average American emits seven times more than the average Indian, this would require rich countries to take on far more ambitious emissions reductions than poorer countries, yet Westerners say they favor it anyway. Beyond climate, the paper finds that 78 percent of Spaniards and 72 percent of British people support allocating voting shares at international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank in proportion to population—a change that would cut Spain’s voting share at the IMF in third and the United Kingdom’s share by nearly five.

If populations in the global north express high levels of support for globally redistributive policies, why do their governments so regularly resist them? For example, in global climate negotiations, rich countries led by the United States fought to water down the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, which demands more ambitious climate action from high-emitting rich countries—the same dynamic that the World Inequality Lab paper found Western populations largely support.

As this clash between global north public opinion and global north policies highlights, abstract public opinion only counts for so much in politics. Expressing support for a policy does not mean that someone will pressure their government to implement it, and many voters often don’t even know what current government policy is.

Right now, despite its immense global political and economic significance, global justice isn’t a politically salient issue in global north domestic politics. Global north populations have a relatively warm predisposition to global fairness, but they know little about it. This reality cuts both ways. The upside is that global north governments could advance globally redistributive policies without suffering the political costs that they fear. But as the status quo demonstrates, going against public opinion and resisting these policies does not yet bring sufficient political consequences.

It’s time for these governments to let go of a false premise: Globally redistributive policies are not anathema to their electorates. But until governments come around, it’s up to supporters of global justice to make them do it.

As many global north voters recognize, globally redistributive policies are often an investment in a better future for everyone: These policies could enable countries in the global south to combat problems with international effects, such as climate change and pandemics. Global development creates new trading partners and prevents the waste of talent, and redistributive policies build good will toward countries in the global north.

Public support for global justice in the global north is not without its limits. For example, when Americans draw up their ideal budget from scratch, they dedicate 3.7 percent to economic aid to other countries—more than a tripling of current levels, but still a small share of the budget. Research shows that residents of rich countries are sensitive to the costs of global policies even when they support the policies’ goals, but strategic policy design can help mitigate these concerns.

They are more likely to support investing money in global initiatives when others pick up the tab—whether by ensuring the burden is shared with other countries or by placing the costs on better-off people. In an example of the latter approach, one of the most popular policies in the recent World Inequality Lab working paper—with more than 67 percent support in every country surveyed—was a global tax on millionaires to provide finance to low-income countries.

There is a dire need for these types of policies. As it stands, half the world lives on less than $3,000 per year, resulting in a scarcely comprehensible level of daily struggling and stunted human capital. Developing countries face growing climate impacts, caused by a stock of carbon in the atmosphere that was mostly put there by rich countries. Mitigating climate change also cannot be achieved without developing countries: They now produce a majority of global emissions, even if this share of emissions is significantly less than their share of the population.

It is hard to see how this status quo meaningfully changes without large-scale supportive action from global north governments, backed by significant public resources. Worldwide economic and environmental action passes through global institutions where these governments hold decisive power, as would reforms to the structure of those institutions. The global monetary system runs on the U.S. dollar.

To meet the Paris climate agreement, developing countries collectively need at least $1 trillion per year in external finance, and yet they face far higher costs to investing in renewable energy than richer countries, as discussions at the first ever Africa Climate Summit hosted in September by Kenya highlighted. They simply don’t have enough money, especially in the face of high interest rates and debt. But global north countries do.

It is therefore very good news that global north populations tend to support more ambitious policies of global redistribution and cooperation than their leaders currently enact. Global northerners sometimes value altruism above traditional conceptions of the national interest. In a 2021 poll from the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Americans thought combating world hunger was a slightly more important foreign-policy goal than maintaining global military superiority or limiting China’s international influence.

A 2022 paper by Gautam Nair and Kyle Peyton found that Americans thought it was more important to allocate COVID-19 vaccines on the basis of need than to distribute them in ways that would increase U.S. strategic influence.

However, this public sentiment will not change government policy on its own. Take the example of COVID-19. Supporting global vaccination efforts should have been a no-brainer—circulation of the virus anywhere creates a risk of more dangerous mutations everywhere. According to one leading estimate early in the pandemic, a $50 billion investment in global vaccination could have brought $9 trillion in benefits to the global economy. But even now, nearly two-thirds of people in low-income countries are yet to receive a shot.

As this missed opportunity highlights, the central barrier to getting global north publics to mobilize in support of progressive international policies is that—even when these policies are highly consequential for their own lives—the causal chain between global policies and their impacts is not directly visible. When access to vaccines expands domestically, people hear their friends and neighbors talk about getting vaccinated. They see schools reopen.

But apart from the minority of northerners with personal ties to global south countries, a brief news snippet or a charity appeal was all most were likely to hear about the state of global vaccination. Following the alphabet soup of vaccine policy debates—COVAX, TRIPS, MPP—was entirely beyond them. Northerners directly experienced new variants, but few realized how their governments’ failures to invest in global vaccine access made the positive COVID-19 tests in front of them more likely.

As a result, there was not a commensurate opposition to overcome the typical barriers to globally redistributive policies: policy inertia, inaccurate government perceptions of public sentiment, and the influence of concentrated interest groups—in this case, the pharmaceutical industry.

Although global north citizens often hold abstract support for global justice, their limited knowledge about inequality means that they struggle to understand when that justice is at stake. When the World Inequality Lab paper asked whether voting shares in international institutions should be allocated proportionately to population, large shares of global northerners agreed. However, these citizens know little about international institutions—less than half of Americans have even heard of the IMF, and even fewer know that voting power is based far more on a country’s wealth than its population.

If reforms to align IMF voting shares with population were on the table, many global northerners could be susceptible to opposition arguments calling the reforms giveaways to China and India, countries that global northerners tend to have little trust in, rather than understanding these reforms as advancing the principles of democracy and fairness with which they agree.

Advocacy and organizing groups can help citizens make sense of when their interests and values are at stake. While public sentiment is largely friendly to increased global cooperation and redistribution, there is a dire need for organized efforts to channel that sentiment into policy. Right now, the first resort for individuals who want to address unmet needs in the global south is to donate money to aid nonprofits; it is far more difficult for them to figure out how to use their votes and their time to influence the political dynamics that dictate why there are so many unmet needs in the first place.

Providing easily understandable information, accessible political action opportunities, and supportive organizing communities can help move people from latent and relatively uninformed supporters of global justice to active drivers of political change. Donors should take note: Because public resources are so much larger than charitable giving, funding advocacy and organizing can generate outsize impacts.

When there is a shortage of constituencies pressuring governments over their policies toward global south countries, policy failures such as the failure to advance global COVID-19 vaccination do not produce sufficient political costs. Officials have faced few public protests and attack ads over vaccine hoarding or shortchanging global climate funds. At the end of the day, that type of political backlash is more politically persuasive than significant human suffering or even global economic and public health challenges that rebound to their own countries.

In a perfectly fair world, the residents of the global north would demand that their governments embark on a program of global equity on a scale akin to a wartime mobilization. In a perfectly rational, informed, and self-interested world, they would push their governments to make large-scale investments in global public goods. In the world we have, if organized supporters of global justice and cooperation give the publics of the global north a hand, they could get their governments to do a whole lot more than they do now.