Here’s the thing about equality intersectionality.

A serious effort to reduce socio-economic inequality (that did nothing on race or gender) would inevitably have disproportionate benefits to BAME communities and women.

Because they are more likely to be poor. (1/?)

So Liz Truss’s starting point is not off the wall.
*Sometimes* efforts to increase BAME inclusion or female diversity end up helping only those who were privileged already. The same woman who sits on 8 boards. The privately educated middle class child of a lawyer who gets onto a special internship to improve diversity in the law.
If you want to seriously address racial and gender disparities you need to also tackle poverty and sociology economic inequality. You have to be intersectional.

Because the middle classes - including BAME people and women in them - are good at protecting their privilege.
But the same is true if you start - as Liz Truss does - on the other side of the equation.

As I said: reduce inequality and women and BAME people will disproportionately benefit.

BUT
Many people are trapped in poverty or excluded from opportunity for reasons that are, specifically, to do with their race or gender.

So if you want to complete the job on socio-economic opportunity you’ll need to tackle racism and misogyny on the way.
No-one - on either side - should be turning this into a culture war. Those who care primarily about routes out of poverty need to consider race and gender (and disability). Those who care primarily about racism or misogyny need to consider poverty.
I do believe that much injustice is experienced as racism or misogyny when its roots are primarily class prejudice and socio-economic inequality. We *have* got too distracted by identity politics and lost the focus on the basics of tackling poverty and opportunity for all.
But you can’t say “their system doesn’t work” without proposing a substantive alternative. And until you recognise that racism and misogyny play a big part in socio economic injustice then I will not take you seriously when you say you want to fix it.
Also, if you thought socio-economic inequality was the most important thing why did you (the Conservatives) insist we never enact the “socio economic equality duty” in the equality act?
Also (again) thank God disability isn’t in the crossfires of the culture war. But half ish of people in poverty have a disabled person in their family. So disability should be front and centre of a socio economic inequality / opportunity strategy. I hope it’s in the speech
Final also: I haven’t mentioned LGBT+ protections in the equality act. There’s much less of a correlation between poverty and LGBT+ identity. But that’s a reminder that being poor isn’t the only way that discrimination can harm your life.
That’s why we have - and need - protections against discrimination that go beyond tackling poverty. Poverty matters. It may even matter most. But discrimination hurts no matter who you are and how much money you have.

More from Economy

True that all the people cherishing the support of IMF or WTO for farm reforms need to cool it down a bit, because that is a model we do not want to emulate to the t in India here.

But here are some issues that deserve to be better discussed by all:


1. People who say we are emulating the Western model of agriculture are way off with this assumption. The process of primitive accumulation, the alienation of their people from their land and the way these 'first-world' countries have pushed their people into Industrial sector +

+ was a merciless phase.
But the same assumption won't work for India, because we have always had a large workforce in agriculture, agri subsidies have always run high, protection has been the hallmark of agriculture and rural representation in the parliament has always been+

+ high. Still, it is our utter failure from the beginning that we have not been able to incentivize the movement of our people to other lucrative sectors.

2. This brings us to the another point of providing MSP on all the commodities and the demand side of the issue that we+

+ conveniently ignore. Here's the thing, Food prices in India have about 65-70% weight in calculating the Consumer Price Index and 25-30% of wholesale price index. These indices affect the general price level in the economy i.e. the inflation. If MSP is offered on all the+
The argument for deficits & debt raising interest rates in the US is not increased credit risk, it is that interest rates are a function of economic fundamentals, flows & policy. Deficits/debt change those.

I can't tell if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with @jc_econ.


Increasing government spending or reducing taxes increases demand (or reduces saving). This raises the price of loanable funds or the interest rate.

In a dynamic context, more demand means a stronger economy, the central bank raises interest rates sooner, and long rates rise.

(As an aside, we are not close to the United States needing to worry about credit risk and the risks are more overstated than understated in most other advanced economies too. But credit risk is not always & everywhere irrelevant, just look at the UK in 1976 or Canada in 1994.)

Interest rates have fallen over the last 20 yrs while debt has risen. This does not necessarily mean that debt rising causes interest rates to fall. It could also mean that other things have happened at he same time that pushed down interest rates more than debt pushed them up.

The suspects for these "other things" include slower productivity growth, slower popln growth, higher inequality, less investment, etc. All of which either increase the supply of saving or reduce the demand for investment, reducing the equilibrium interest rate.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.