160

It’s no great surprise, but now there’s proof that the rich get what they want | Torsten Bell (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by Danterious@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

This article is two months old by the way.

Another link from !@queermunist@lemmy.ml focusing more on American politics but this one is much older. "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

top 17 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Plaid_Kaleidoscope@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Edit:

My bad y'all. Wrong thread!

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I don't understand?

Edit: Is this posted on the wrong thread?

[-] FlounderBasket@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

They probably meant to comment on this post. https://lemdro.id/post/138039

Link doesn't work, sorry. There's a post about Samsung and privacy.

[-] Plaid_Kaleidoscope@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yup, sorry about that. Thanks!

[-] Mic_Check_One_Two@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Wrong thread. This is an article about the rich being happier with policy changes.

[-] Danterious@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

This is the text of the article

We aim to bring you surprising and important findings from the world of research. I fear this week’s offering may not manage the “surprising” part but it is important.

In a great new study, Swedish researchers investigated how policy outcomes reflect public attitudes towards those policies. They looked across 30 European countries over 38 years on issues ranging from welfare to immigration, foreign policy to the environment.

The good news from the democracy side of things is that more popular policies are more likely to happen. Phew.

But the authors go on to ask: who specifically is more likely to get what they want? The rich. That’s less good.

The size of the difference isn’t enormous – the average share of households who support policy that happens was 57.1% for rich households and 53.7% among low-income ones (the middle class… is in the middle). But what is staggering is how consistent it is across countries and decades.

We’ve known for a very long time that American politics is sensitive to the preferences of the rich. That’s generally been seen as obvious – a system where having or raising huge amounts of cash is a prerequisite for being competitive electorally is a politics with a price tag, and in a highly unequal country it’s the rich that can pay to play.

But this research is telling us that high-income citizens are more likely to agree with policy changes than low-income citizens in all but two European countries, and that income inequality levels or tightness of financial rules around political campaigning don’t seem to be driving the effect.

In democracy you can’t always get what you want, but being rich gets your chances up. Who knew?

[-] Anemia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

It honestly was less bad than i expected. Not saying it's perfect but it could have been a lot worse.

[-] DaveNa@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Now?

[-] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

When are we going to address green privilege?

load more comments

this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2023

160 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39000 readers

2090 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.