SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " inequality " 74 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Sign in to save shuffle history.
Extreme inequality is not a given. It is a political choice.
An International Panel on Inequality would produce rigorous assessments of the magnitudes and changes in inequality, writes Joseph Stiglitz.
Private business fortunes reveal overlooked source of wealth and inequality in America
A majority of Americans blame billionaires for the nation's ever-growing income and wealth divide. But economists Eric Zwick and Owen Zidar say there's a much larger but little-known cadre of very rich ...
The Science Behind the AI Panic Is Shakier Than You Think
A column by Sascha Lobo Is AI making us dumb? So asked DER SPIEGEL on its cover a while ago. After a few weeks of recovery and a therapeutic intervention with the help of my AI, I feel able to respond. That’s a bit unfair, of course; the article itself is more nuanced than the loud cover, the image of a schoolkid with dull prompt questions, or the subtitle: “AI is conquering the schools, and educators fear a disaster.” The short answer to “Is AI making us dumb?” is: no. The long answer is more interesting, and even carries a preliminary glimmer of the spectacular. Unfortunately, it requires a detour into the sphere of artificial intelligence, into the mogul-field terrain of technology assessment, the attention economy, and the destructive virus of cultural pessimism. Along with narrowing the scope to AI’s effects on education and work rather than on intelligence. Because the honest version of the question would be: Does AI help us learn and work, or not? Generative AI, which set off the still-ongoing hype with ChatGPT, has only existed in relevant distribution since late 2022, early 2023. For a technology-driven transformation of people and society, that is extremely short. For that reason alone, research is still in its infancy. And technology assessment is not a fast discipline anyway. Prominent voices from Elizabeth Eisenstein to RAND to Tom Wheeler say we still cannot conclusively judge the consequences of the printing press. Its invention is a mere 580 years back, and some scholars would rather not circulate assessments that might have to be retracted in two or three hundred years. We’re Going Through Growing Pains A phenomenon that already caused upheaval in social media research makes serious assessment of AI’s consequences even harder: the “moving target” problem of LLM-ology, as the linguist Sean Trott called it in 2025. AI develops so quickly and so unpredictably that researchers often end up studying snapshots of the past. There are concepts, from morphological analysis to anticipatory governance, for keeping research, planning, and regulation halfway meaningful anyway. But even with those, universally valid statements are rare. DER SPIEGEL - The German View is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe We should therefore treat findings about the interplay between humans and AI as far more procedural and situational. Unfortunately, this challenge comes at the worst possible time. We are going through growing pains: AI’s everyday impact has grown very large very fast, and with it the longing for guidance. Annoyingly, the body of solid knowledge has not exploded along with it. Experts cannot be moved to broad consensus on even banal statements about AI. Sascha Lobo, born in 1975, is an author and strategy consultant focusing on the internet and digital technologies. Together with Jule Lobo, he explores the debates of the day in the podcast “Feel the News – Was Deutschland bewegt” (”What Moves Germany”). Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang says software developers are dying out. Bill Gates considers coders one of only three professions that will survive the AI tsunami. Top tech economists find virtually irrefutable arguments both for and against an AI bubble. The same naturally applies to the structurally youth-hostile debate over whether AI is good or bad for young people. The gap between the demand for insight and the supply of solid knowledge creates an orientation vacuum. This vacuum of AI cluelessness is filled, as the attention economy described by Georg Franck in 1998 would have it, with half-knowledge (funnily enough, often AI-generated), marketing, and self-marketing. After all, infinite money is at stake, along with academia’s best current shot at global fame. But this iridescent froth of interpretation operates more by the algorithmic principles of the digital public sphere than by seriously earned insight. That is why dramatized, fear-feeding claims about AI are so promising. It tempts parts of academia into distorted drivel, and parts of the media then sensationalize the published drivel once more. Was the Research Aimed at a Desired Result? How badly this can influence academia and public perception is demonstrated by one of the most-discussed studies on AI’s effects: “Your Brain on ChatGPT.” The MIT study by Nataliya Kosmyna also gets plenty of space in the SPIEGEL cover story. What was measured and interpreted: lower brain activity in people who write with AI assistance, compared to people who only google or write without any tools. As is common with preprints, the study has not yet been peer-reviewed, and it contains substantial weaknesses that experts have sharply criticized. The first round had 54 participants in three groups, the second only 18, who reportedly also came from MIT’s own orbit. There was no preregistration (committing in advance to what you want to find out with which data). In their analysis, Stanković et al. even discovered an opposite effect that the study does not further explain. Some measurement data has not (yet) been published. And the EEG analysis method used is considered too imprecise to support such far-reaching conclusions. The biggest criticism, though, is the suspicion of an activism-driven study. In an interview with Time, lead author Kosmyna said she published the study immediately, rather than after full peer review, because she feared politicians might otherwise decide to put ChatGPT in kindergartens. She considers that absolutely harmful. It is legitimate to hold such a view. It just seems unscientific to approach a study with it, and then to design the setup so that the chance of a fitting desired result remains as high as possible. Ideologies Collide It is not easy to separate genuine AI insights from studies that trivialize and weaken well-founded AI criticism. The same goes for the opposing, AI-enthusiastic narratives, because the pro-AI side works against it with billions in resources. Ideologies collide, fed by egos, PR strategies, moral posturing, and once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. Doomsday marketing makes the search even harder: AI companies can profit from warnings about the dangers of AI, whether through the notoriety of apocalypse narratives or because, in some target groups, danger translates into power. Some seemingly negative findings are therefore quite welcome in the AI industry. If you try to get at the findings presumably less influenced by interest groups, the picture in education seems relatively clear: AI can improve educational outcomes when the right AI is used the right way, namely pedagogically. Simply dumping an AI chatbot into a classroom, by contrast, accomplishes little. Huge surprise. But something else is also obvious: whether they are allowed to or not, kids use AI for school, which is why the controlled integration of AI tools into education is, in the medium term, entirely without alternative. In the world of work, the landscape of findings is more complex and requires more differentiation. A series of serious studies points to an AI effect that suits neither the alarmists, regulation fetishists, and AI opponents, nor the trillion-dollar corporations with their armada of paid scientists, PR professionals, and ecosystems: working with AI helps the inexperienced (at least for now) considerably more than it helps the pros, in certain fields of work, and provided they know how to use it correctly. Missing Domain Knowledge Among the experienced, the professionals, and the high flyers, by contrast, despite frequent time savings, partially negative effects and new problems are emerging. Take the jagged frontier problem: AI solves task A brilliantly and fails completely at task B, even though both look similar even to professionals. Or the verification-cost problem, in which AI’s greater productivity gets eaten up by the enormous effort of checking its output. Or the illusion of competence, because AI makes new domains seem easily penetrable, until you painfully discover that deep domain knowledge is missing. Taken as a whole, the effects of working with AI do lean positive. But the promise that AI works as a turbocharger for everyone and boosts practically everything simply refuses to materialize. The AI magic the world has been feeling since ChatGPT arrived in late 2022 has so far barely shown up in most companies’ numbers. The consulting firm McKinsey has coined a term for this, the “gen AI paradox,” and believes that work processes and corporate structures would have to be rebuilt quite fundamentally to realize AI’s benefits at scale. Reuters just reported that only 3.3 percent of Microsoft’s customers have subscribed to the AI package Copilot. That may be down to the product; in other areas we continue to see soaring successes and new AI triumphs. But after the first quarter of 2026, disillusionment is the word for all too many AI projects at traditional companies: because the promised revolution of AI agents has so far failed to arrive or been postponed, and because of the leveling effect that many of the studies cited here suggest. Against Inequality The societal effects, on the other hand, appear rather encouraging. Many previous technologies operated on the Matthew principle, named for the Gospel verse about giving to those who already have: they tended to reward the more competent and more privileged. AI, however, seems more often to have an equalizing effect once a threshold of access and education is crossed. Some anecdotal insights point in this direction, for example, how an unemployed man in Leipzig successfully defended himself in court in 2025 against fraud accusations from Germany’s federal employment agency — without a lawyer, armed only with ChatGPT. The AI made mistakes and cited invented court rulings, but in the end the man walked away unpunished. And a key capability of artificial intelligence is its capacity to learn: set up correctly and fed with data, it can keep getting better. It is a question of time, or more precisely of AI innovations and training data, until even free AI chatbots write better legal briefs than law graduates with perfect exam scores. Whether that will make anyone dumb is something the world’s press will surely inform us of in due time. Subscribe Leave a comment
How Brazil is using health literacy to close the health gap | Health Inclusivity Index
Discover how Brazil’s Family Health Strategy is using community-based care and health literacy to improve access, reduce inequality and support more inclusive healthcare outcomes.
‘Racist ideology lodges itself amid austerity politics’: newly elected French mayor on tackling far right
Bally Bagayoko, who was targeted by racist abuse after winning Saint-Denis mayorship, vows to tackle inequality to stem deepening divisions
Youth sports in CT create stress, inequality and distrust
Youth sports are not just becoming more expensive, they are more stressful, unequal, and tougher on kids' mental health.
Hims and Hers Super Bowl ad highlights 'uncomfortable truth' about elite healthcare for the rich and 'broken' system for the rest
The company is putting wealth inequality center stage as millions are expected to drop their Obamacare plans.
Philippines' politics and inequality descend on a golf course in 'Filipiñana'
“Filipiñana” is playing at select movie theaters in Los Angeles
Dropping equity goals for businesses widens inequality
We call on the MMSD Commission to build on decades of progress and uphold policies that narrow long-standing racial and gender inequities.
Should <i>Scientists</i> Decide Policies About Wealth Inequality?
Every situation calls for a U.N. panel of experts!
Philippines' politics and inequality descend on a golf course in 'Filipiñana'
“Filipiñana” is playing at select movie theaters in Los Angeles
Should Scientists Decide Policies About Wealth Inequality?
Reframing policy issues as questions of objective “science” makes it easier to justify relying on “experts”, thereby enfeebling democratic institutions in favor of bureaucratic systems.
Artist Kyle McDonald uses private jets to predict emergencies
Kyle McDonald's jet tracker exposes wealth inequality by monitoring private jets, and questions who has access to critical information.
Meta-analysis challenges the link between economic inequality and mental health
Does living in an unequal society make people unhappy? Not necessarily, reveals the largest study ever conducted on the subject. Nicolas Sommet, a social psychologist and research manager at the LIVES ...
As progressives seek to take on inequality, some cite religion as a motivating factor
Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed says his Muslim faith shapes his progressive views
The politics of intergenerational wealth inequality
Letters: Dr Rajiv Prabhakar assesses the best age at which grants should be provided to young people, while Jeremy Galtress argues against redistribution
Tony Blair’s ‘dramatic’ intervention: helpful or harmful?
Both Wes Streeting and Andy Burnham have accused Blair of failing to focus on inequality
Alexis Ohanian Is Bullish on Women’s Sports
In March 2019, in response to the news that players from the U.S. women’s national soccer team had filed a gender-discrimination against their employer, the U.S. Soccer Federation, over pay inequality, Alexis Ohanian fired off a series of tweets. Ohanian, an investor and entrepreneur who co-founded Reddit and, since 2017, has been married to Serena…
How Wealthy People Are Getting to World Cup Games
The skies above the Hamptons are packed with choppers headed to games, as “inequality is taking it right in the face.”
Cited 23 June: Project Cosmos launch | Science ‘under attack’ at Bonn | Emissions inequality
Carbon Brief explains how it built a major new database of climate science research and unveils a new ranking of the 500 most highly cited publications, authors and institutions in climate science.
United CEO Scott Kirby wants a nationwide wealth tax
United CEO Scott Kirby said that income inequality "has become a danger to our society."
Why Christians should care about science denialism
When misinformation fuels disease outbreaks and deepens inequality, science denialism becomes something Christians need to notice.
Asad Haider, Leftist Critic of Identity Politics, Dies at 38
In “Mistaken Identity: Race and Class in the Age of Trump,” he argued that focusing on identity obscured a more fundamental injustice: economic inequality.
United CEO Scott Kirby calls for wealth tax and a near-100% inheritance tax
United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby says wealth inequality threatens society and calls for a national wealth tax and steep inheritance taxes.
Philippines' politics and inequality descend on a golf course in 'Filipiñana'
“Filipiñana” is playing at select movie theaters in Los Angeles
Eric Jones Calls for a New Politics to Fight Corruption, Corporate Power and Rising Costs
Democratic challenger Eric Jones has initiated a campaign for Congress against longtime incumbent Representative Mike Thompson, with his platform emphasizing political reform, the mitigation of corporate influence, and the amelioration of economic inequality.
Inequality and unease are rising as elite Davos event opens with pro-business Trump set to attend
The Swiss town of Davos hosts the annual meeting of elites from business, government and culture this week.
Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream ... about health care
A doctor from Nigeria tells what Martin Luther King Jr. taught him about health, Justice and inequality.
Billionaires are 4,000 times more likely to hold public office
The richest people on the planet are far more likely to be in power politically than everyone else, Oxfam’s annual inequality report found.
Inequality and Unease Are Rising as Elite Davos Event Opens With Pro-Business Trump Set to Attend
DAVOS, Switzerland (AP) — Corporate chiefs and government leaders including U.S. President Donald Trump swarm into Davos, Switzerland this week, joining an elite annual meeting that promotes dialogue and economic progress — even as a domineering tone from Washington has upended the global order and ...
Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream ... about health care
A doctor from Nigeria tells what Martin Luther King Jr. taught him about health, Justice and inequality.
Planetary crises deepen global health inequality, paper warns
The global inequality in health opportunities is being further heightened by the triple planetary crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss and environmental pollution. Addressing it is more than a question ...
How Abdul El-Sayed’s Muslim faith informs his politics
“We’re in an era of historical inequality,” El-Sayed said.
Social Security is Facing a Political Crisis
On Tuesday the Social Security Trustees released their latest report on the system’s finances. The numbers didn’t change much: Unless something is done, the Old Age Survivors and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, Social Security’s official name, will be unable to pay full benefits starting in either 2032 or 2034, depending on some technical issues. That’s not far away: If the Trustees are right, the prospect of a Social Security crisis will loom over the next presidential administration. It’s important to understand, however, the nature of the looming crisis. It won’t be an economic crisis. It won’t even be a serious fiscal crisis. Whatever you may have heard, Social Security isn’t in danger of going bankrupt. What we’re facing, instead, is potential political crisis. Congress and the White House could easily take action to sustain America’s retirement system. But given the current state of our politics, there’s no guarantee that they will. There is a widespread misunderstanding of how Social Security works. While Social Security was designed to look like a pension fund, it isn’t. A pension fund pays benefits out of a stock of assets it has accumulated over time. In contrast, Social Security operates as a government transfer program, like food stamps or Medicaid. Now, unlike food stamps — but like the highway trust fund — Social Security is on paper supported by a dedicated tax, the payroll tax, that is assigned to that program. But I say “on paper” because from an economic point of view assigning the payroll tax to Social Security is just an accounting convention. What matters for the U.S. economy is the overall balance between government spending and government revenue, not the difference between one type of spending and one source of revenue. So there’s no inherent economic significance to the fact that by 2034 payroll tax receipts will be insufficient to cover promised benefits. There is, however, a legislative issue. As long as the Social Security Administration can pay benefits out of payroll taxes and its cash reserve, there’s no need for Congress to vote each year to authorize benefits — they just keep going out until further notice. However, once those resources become insufficient, benefits will fall —by 17 percent according to the Trustees — unless Congress passes new legislation that “tops up” Social Security’s finances. Yet the current administration and Republican party are such extremists that there is a real risk that Social Security will be held hostage on behalf of their goals. If this should come to pass, the hostage-takers will claim that shoring up Social Security is unaffordable. Right on cue, Mike Johnson, the Trump-sycophant Speaker of the House, declared on Monday that “entitlement programs” like Social Security “have to be adjusted and fixed,” and that Republicans will introduce a plan to that effect next year. But this is a ploy, because while the cost of maintaining Social Security benefits at their promised level isn’t trivial, it is in fact affordable. According to the Trustees’ report, the actuarial balance of OASDI up through 2050 — the amount of additional funds it would need to keep paying full benefits for the next 25 years — is 1.06 percent of GDP. To put that number in perspective, the Trump administration proposes increasing military spending next year by $420 billion, equivalent to about 1.4 percent of GDP – without any discussion of whether that’s affordable Yet how did we get to the point where Social Security will need to be topped up? The main answer is that we have an aging population, with a growing ratio of retirees collecting benefits to workers paying into the system: Trump’s anti-immigration policies are making this problem worse. According to the Trustees’ report, lower immigration will deepen Social Security’s financial hole because many immigrants are working-age adults who will pay into the system for decades before they collect benefits. In fact, this problem may be much bigger than the report acknowledges: The report’s baseline assumption is that we’ll have net immigration of almost 1.2 million people a year, and even the pessimistic case assumes 750,000 a year. Meanwhile actual net immigration has already been cut far below that — and may now be negative. Moreover, Social Security is being financially damaged by growing income inequality in America. Payroll taxes are levied only on wages up to $184,500, and they don’t touch capital income. With the distribution of income increasingly shifting from labor to capital, as well as becoming more unequal among wage-earners, revenue from the Social Security payroll tax has been falling as a share of national income. From 1990 to 2024, it fell from 5.02 percent of gross domestic income to 4.46 percent. Which brings me to the question that, these days, we ask about everything: How might Social Security be affected by the advent of AI? A short answer: If, as many of us fear, AI accelerates rising income inequality, it will further reduce the payroll tax receipts that currently pay for Social Security and further endanger its finances. On the other hand, if AI, as its advocates promise, leads to faster economic growth, it will increase the potential tax base that could and should be used to support Social Security and other social insurance programs. But to take advantage of that larger base, we’ll have to get serious about taxing wealth and capital income. Is Social Security in trouble? Yes, but only because of the way its financing is currently structured — a structure that no longer works well because our society and economy have become so unequal. Moreover, Trump’s immigration policies are further endangering its already deteriorating financial condition. So don’t believe Republicans’ gaslighting that it will be necessary to cut Social Security benefits. All that is necessary to preserve Social Security is political will to raise taxes on the wealthy and a sensible immigration policy. MUSICAL CODA Actually 67 under current law.
CEO pay soared in 2025, 20 times faster than workers’ pay
Analysis finds real wages fell 12% since 2019, with inequality widening in the US beyond global levels
Business Income Has Moved Beyond Corporations, and Tax Policy Must Follow
Since the 1980s, partnerships have displaced traditional C corporations as the largest source of business income, transforming business taxation and contributing to rising economic inequality.
How Trumpism Stirred Up Class Politics Again in the US
For nearly four decades, American political discourse worked assiduously to sideline the subject of class. This was not because economic inequality had
Private equity’s move into youth sports brings some truths home
Investments create benefits but also lead to higher costs and risk of inequality
Brazil: Lessons from a Disaster
By Antonio Martins (Outras Palavras) Defeats become deeper and more prolonged when we misunderstand what caused them, avoid correcting course, and embrace “solutions” that only compound our mistakes. Lula’s government and the Brazilian left suffered a disaster in Sunday’s election. Contrary to every poll, the president finished the first round 2.2 million votes behind Flávio Bolsonaro—and, more significantly, 3.4 million votes below his total four years ago, when the machinery of the state was working against him and in favor of his opponent. His vote share declined in 98 percent of Brazil’s municipalities. The PL, the main party of the far right, elected 121 deputies and 28 senators, becoming the largest caucus in both houses of Congress. The parties aligned with the Centrão—Brazil’s bloc of transactional center-right parties—were somewhat diminished, but will still hold roughly 250 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 35 in the Senate. That will make it easier to assemble the majorities needed to amend the Constitution or impeach Supreme Federal Court justices. If elected, Flávio Bolsonaro could appoint four members of the Court, substantially altering its internal balance of power. What produced these results? How can the far right be prevented from consolidating them into a prolonged political hegemony? And what is the essential change of direction the left now needs? Explaining the Disaster Across the commercial media and the exuberant chaos of digital platforms, interpretations are multiplying. Some focus on specific episodes: Lula’s absence from the Globo debate, his very close relationship with Alexandre de Moraes, or his emphasis on issues supposedly remote from most people’s everyday concerns, such as rare earth minerals. Among the more systemic interpretations, three seem especially questionable. One argues that the principal defeat was not the left’s, since its congressional representation declined only slightly. The decisive movement captured at the ballot box, according to this view, was a shift within the right itself—from the more moderate and transactional forces of the Centrão toward the more ideological and radicalized forces of the PL and Novo. A second interpretation holds that the nature of electoral and political processes has changed. The material interests and aspirations of society, it argues, no longer play the central role they once did; they have given way to forms of subjective self-identification that the left has yet to understand. And a third concludes that, because of these two developments, we should expect a political winter: a prolonged period in which the far right and the broader right dominate Brazilian political life. There are important elements in all three interpretations. The problem lies in what they deny or leave out: Lula’s third government was a small-bore government. It offered the majorities that elected it neither a clearly better life nor reasons to believe again in politics and its power to transform society. These failures flowed from two fatal accommodations, which I will examine below. As a result, the government suffered a slow but steady erosion of support. And, as has happened in so many Western countries, it gave the far right the opportunity to present itself as anti-system and to benefit from popular frustration and distress. The interpretation that emphasizes the migration of votes from the center-right and traditional right toward the far right has been advanced, among others, by the courageous journalist Leonardo Sakamoto. In his UOL column on Monday, October 5, he highlights the miserable behavior of the traditional conservative parties. Over the past four years, they repeatedly joined forces with the “neo”-fascists, helping to “normalize” them—a criticism that could equally be directed at almost the entire corporate media. Believing they could use the far right as a stepping stone, they instead ended up partly devoured by it. This was especially true in the Senate, where the PL’s gain of 13 senators and Novo’s gain of two came at the expense of the PSD, which lost nine; the MDB, which lost two; the PSDB, which lost two; and the PP, which lost one. Sakamoto’s observation is accurate and necessary, but it leaves uncomfortable questions unanswered. Why did the erosion of the Centrão benefit the far right rather than, for example, producing growth for the left—as has happened so many times before, both in Brazil and elsewhere? The answer is not difficult. Throughout its four years in office, Lula’s third government was almost invariably associated with the Centrão. Here lies its first accommodation: accepting the limits imposed by conservative institutions; avoiding, as much as possible, any attempt to strain those limits through popular pressure; and believing only in the modest changes that could be squeezed through openings in Congress. The failure of the campaign to end the six-day workweek is emblematic. Lula could have electrified the presidential race by pairing it with a popular campaign for passage of the measure. Instead, he chose to place his hopes in the hands of Senate president Rodrigo Alcolumbre. He generated no mass mobilization, did not force his opponents onto an uncomfortable defensive, and won no victory. In September 2025, the government squandered the greatest of its many opportunities to shake up conservative power in Congress. Popular opposition to the so-called Shielding Amendment—which, if approved, would have restricted criminal proceedings against members of Congress—brought crowds into the streets, mobilized primarily by artists and social movements. This opened the possibility for a broader political education: a campaign that could begin exposing the limits and dysfunctions of Brazil’s political system while putting Bolsonaro’s movement on the defensive for its predictable support of political privilege. The amendment was defeated. But the executive branch then backed away from the fight. It remained associated with an institutional world widely seen as corrupt, elitist, and indifferent to ordinary people’s struggles. In doing so, it forfeited its credibility as a vehicle for the protest vote. On Sunday, it reaped the bitter fruits. Are We Doomed? Taking a different approach from Sakamoto, the philosopher Moysés Pinto Neto and other writers have drawn attention, in their first analyses of October 4, to the fragmentation of the public sphere produced by Big Tech platforms. Through their algorithms, these platforms present each person with a different view of social reality. As a consequence, it becomes much harder to identify common material problems and demands—for example, the fight for labor rights or for a properly funded public health system. Voters no longer embrace such demands, these authors argue, because they no longer see themselves as part of a collective. Instead, they tend to value the identities assigned to them by neoliberal subjectivity—the role of the entrepreneur, for example. On this interpretation, the left’s possible error lies in clinging to outdated illusions. Moysés’s warning is highly relevant and resonates with arguments such as Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor’s “Apocalyptic Fascism and the Billionaires’ Bet.” Unlike a century ago, the far right no longer promises a radiant future. It concentrates instead on resentment—especially that of young men. “They belong to a generation that fears it may never own a home, but compensates with the pleasure it gets from constantly provoking progressives online. Convinced their future has been stolen, they share memes romanticizing historical authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. But Moysés seems to confuse this danger with inevitability. He fails to see that the left’s answer cannot be adaptation. On the contrary, it must strengthen the possibility of politics as collective action. Nor does he recognize that precisely such a reversal is already becoming possible in some of the most promising mobilizations of the twenty-first century: the election, at the end of 2025, of the young Muslim Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York, on a platform centered on the intensely material fight for an affordable city; the Left Party’s victory in Berlin two weeks ago, built around the demand to expropriate private real-estate corporations; and the very recent wave of demonstrations in Spain—including an occupation of Madrid’s Puerta del Sol—in which tens of thousands of young people mobilized by the Tenants’ Union have demanded limits on rents. By putting itself in the straitjacket of the “fiscal framework” in the first months of 2022, Lula’s third government adopted the second fatal accommodation of its term. Faced with conservative institutions and a country devastated by four years of Bolsonaro, increased public investment was the government’s remaining weapon for offering a more dignified life to the majority and forging an anti-conservative pact with them. The same state that disburses 1 trillion reais a year to enrich a small class of rentiers could instead spend money to extend the Family Health Strategy to every Brazilian, at a cost of 30 billion reais; provide full-day public schooling and childcare to all adolescents and children—and, especially, relief to their mothers; achieve universal sanitation while cleaning up polluted urban rivers; multiply metro systems; begin transforming the urban peripheries; and undertake many other urgently needed projects. In April 2023, an article in Outras Palavras warned that the fiscal framework could “shrink the Lula government and preserve the forces that condemn the country to inequality and regression.” A year later, another article showed that restraints on public spending were strangling policies vital to ordinary people and undermining the president’s popularity. In November 2024 came a reality check, in the form of the government’s humiliating defeat in the municipal elections. Even then, the fiscal lock was neither removed nor loosened. On the contrary: throughout the government’s four years, fiscal restraint remained central to its political narrative. The administration proudly proclaimed that it had “put the state’s accounts in order,” without grasping either how misleading that phrase was—given the payment of 1 trillion reais in interest—or how badly the message was hurting it politically. Lula finally woke up in September 2026. The increase in Bolsa Família benefits, after four years of being frozen; the announcement that anti-obesity drugs would be offered through Brazil’s public health system; and the ban on online betting showed that the state has the power to act decisively on behalf of the majority when those in government are willing to confront obstacles. The huge marches that closed the campaign in Fortaleza, Salvador, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo on the eve of October 4 showed how such initiatives can mobilize activists and the broader public. But it was too late—and too little to change the outcome of the first round. History has not ended The possibility of a turnaround in the three weeks leading up to November 25 cannot be ruled out. It will not be simple or easy. Lula must not only make up a deficit of 2.2 million votes; he must also offset the movement of voters who backed other right-wing candidates in the first round, most of whom are likely to move toward Flávio Bolsonaro. Pulling that off will require a broad, grassroots effort to win over voters, potentially reinforced by new initiatives from Lula. The coming hours and days will be decisive. If Bolsonaro’s movement also wins the presidency, the result will create a high-risk situation for Brazilian sovereignty and democracy. The enormous challenges posed by such an outcome would require the left to reexamine, in depth and with a genuine willingness to engage in self-criticism, its political projects—or its lack of them—and its practices. But would that mean we are condemned to the long winter of far-right hegemony that some analyses are beginning to forecast? It is far too early to say, suggests a recent text by Álvaro García Linera, the thinker who served as vice president of Bolivia under Evo Morales. His central hypothesis is that this political current will prove short-lived. At a moment when the entire world is once again talking about sovereignty and protecting national economies, the far right offers a stale, recolonizing neoliberalism. Its submission to the United States is as blatant and pathetic as Flávio and Eduardo Bolsonaro’s overtures to Donald Trump. Its project amounts to something like every man for himself: greater inequality, capitalism without limits, devastation, and supremacism. Will it work? In the United States, just two years into his second term, Trump himself is reaching record levels of unpopularity and may be on the verge of losing Republican control of both the House and Senate in November. Every new beginning is difficult. Whatever the outcome of the second round, the defeats of October 4 show how profoundly the Brazilian left will have to rethink and rebuild. But just as it would be foolish to underestimate the seriousness of its mistakes, it would be equally foolish to conclude that rebuilding a political project is no longer possible. History has not ended. The times are moving faster than ever. Originally published in Portuguese by Outras Palavras. English translation by Eric Blanc; I’ve added the subtitles. More We can’t stop the far right at home or abroad without a revitalized labor movement, which is yet another reason why you should become a sustaining supporter of the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) — one of US labor’s pivotal bright spots. Relatedly, Jacobin published a short piece of mine reflecting on a decade of Bernie Sanders inspiring a whole new generation of young worker organizers.
Park inequality in Southern California creates health risks, especially during the heat
Park-wise, the region has long been a land of haves and have nots. But a new study from researchers at UC Irvine and Chapman University shows that not all parks are created equal.
Leaders discuss challenges for Latino communities at the State of the Union on Latino Health
The State of the Union on Latino Health brought together leaders in Pennsylvania to address challenges such as health inequality, housing, and transportation for Hispanic communities.
Philippines' politics and inequality descend on a golf course in 'Filipiñana'
“Filipiñana” is playing at select movie theaters in Los Angeles
Detroit can't survive without small, mid-sized businesses
Detroit must invest in small businesses and underserved communities to combat inequality, says a business leader, as Mayor Sheffield marks 100 days.
Trump, Inequality Threaten Global Health Efforts
U.S. dysfunction is undercutting attempts at equality.
From politics to portfolios: the market impact of rising populism
Populism has become part of the global landscape, rooted in frustrations over inequality, stagnant mobility, and a sense that mainstream policymakers have failed to adapt to shifting economic realities.
Exclusive: South Korea labour minister calls on tech firms to share excess AI profits with suppliers, staff
South Korea's labour minister called on the country's major tech firms to share the spoils of their massive windfall profits, warning that unprecedented chip-sector gains stemming from the AI boom risked widening a gap in inequality.
The hidden health inequality facing even the wealthiest Black mothers
Khiara Bridges took on Josh Hawley. Now she’s taking on the maternal healthcare system.
Elitist Journal Lists Undermine The Social Purpose Of Business Schools
FT’s list of ranking-worthy publications undercuts research into power, inequality & corporate responsibility, write Carl Rhodes & Alison Pullen.
At China’s Big Political Meeting, a Rare Debate About Inequality
China’s plan to raise pensions for farmers by less than $3 a month prompted rare criticism from lawmakers about the country’s threadbare social safety net.
Political Inequality Isn’t Responsible for Economic Inequality
Jennifer Gaudette finds that election officials can increase trust in elections by informing citizens of basic facts, such as that election machines are not connected to the Internet.
The Law of Conservation of Information
There are a lot of details here, and the result is nontrivial though the conservation of information inequality looks utterly elementary and straightforward.
US inequality is getting worse in ways you might not expect
From tax policy to gas prices and tariffs, a mix of new factors is making inequality in the US more extreme.
Opinion | Affordability and the ‘Epstein Class’ Will Define American Politics
The fight over inequality will define the 21st century.
US: Millions Lost Health Insurance When Subsidies Expired
The United States Congress’ failure to extend public subsidies for private health insurance has caused millions to lose healthcare coverage, increasing financial hardship and deepening inequality.
Planetary crisis heightens global inequality of health opportunities
The worldwide inequality of health opportunities is being further heightened by the triple planetary crisis - climate change, loss of biodiversity and environmental pollution.
Chan Discusses China’s Politics of Inequality
Associate Professor of Government Alexsia Chan recently discussed the research that went into her book Beyond Coercion: The Politics of Inequality in China, in a talk sponsored by the Asian Studies Program and the Political Science Department at Clark Uni
Abramson advancing research at intersection of health, inequality and AI
Corey Abramson's research earns him a year in residence at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (CASBS) at Stanford University.
Social Inequality and Structural Vulnerability as Predictors of Health-Related Quality of Life: A Prospective Cohort Study
Background Social inequality and structural vulnerability are increasingly recognized as important social determinants of health; however, longitudinal evidence regarding their impact on heal...
Why do people with mental illness die younger? Research reveals mental health inequality
People with a severe mental illness die more than 10 years earlier than the general population, research led by The University of Queensland has found.
Jim Crist: How affordability relates to income inequality and money in politics
A formula for saving America
Can the “human rights economy” rebalance power in our politics?
Shifting focus from disparity of wealth to disparity of power could help redress economic inequality.
Rome’s Inequality Was Bad. But China's Han Dynasty Was Even Worse
The richest one percenters dominated ancient Rome and Han China.
Postpartum politics: What it means to run for government as a new mum
Victorian Greens candidates Nina Crawley and Lini Fernando reflect on their experiences running a political campaign just months after giving birth. From the challenges and compromises to the support networks that wrapped around them, and why showing up vulnerably in public space matters. Subscribe In 2024, when my second child was four months old, I decided to run for local government. Fast forward two years, I am again four months postpartum, with my third child, and this time running in the state election. But this time has hit differently. Going through pregnancy, birth and postpartum while being a political candidate has had a more profound and personal impact than I ever expected. I reached out to my fellow Greens candidate for the state election, Lini Fernando, who gave birth 20 days before me, and her experience closely mirrored mine. Postpartum has its own unique challenges that we’ve not seen reflected in stories about women running for office. When people discuss the “juggle”, they’re usually talking about the practical mechanics of looking after small children - childcare arrangements, pumping schedules and logistics. As mums of multiple children, we were both aware of the logistical changes and difficulties that accompany giving birth and the months after. We assumed that combining this with running for election would be hard, but that we could organise our way out of any problems. What neither of us anticipated was the intense vulnerability that comes with putting yourself into the spotlight of a state election campaign at a time when you are physically exhausted and navigating things like breastfeeding and feeling like a stranger in your own body. There have been challenges that neither of us anticipated. Firstly, needing to buy new clothes because the supportive leggings that are a staple of the postpartum wardrobe weren’t going to cut it for community events. Lini held her first fundraiser - a trivia night - just three weeks postpartum. A business-casual wardrobe, several sizes bigger than pre-baby, was needed, and fast. As women, how we look is closely scrutinised, and the internalised fatphobia is loud. We are conditioned from our earliest days to believe that our appearance is tied to our worth, and taught how we are allowed to show up in public. Women who dare to put themselves into the spotlight also receive more abuse than their male counterparts, including criticism of their appearance. To stand in front of members of your community and try to convince them that you’re the best person to represent them in parliament is a challenge in and of itself. To do it with leaking breasts, a pelvic floor that could betray you at the first sign of a sneeze, a body that still feels unfamiliar, and with half your hair falling out (hello postpartum hair loss!) is another thing altogether. It requires courage, allowing yourself the grace to be vulnerable in public, and the belief that showing up, however imperfectly, matters. And the vulnerability isn’t just physical; it also includes factors like having to ask a campaign team to accommodate the realities of having a baby. Asking for help is hard, and it’s a skill that both new parents and hopeful political candidates need to become comfortable with. Parents understand the disappointment that comes when a call for help or connection is rebuffed, like a friend cancelling a much-needed coffee. That rejection is amplified for political candidates calling dozens of people each week. Many people don’t realise running for Parliament, when you aren’t the incumbent, is a volunteer role supported largely by other volunteers who have to squeeze volunteering in around their paid work. Calls need to be made and meetings held after work hours - usually during “witching hour” (5-8 pm), that special time of night when babies cry for no reason. I found that I was struggling to make these commitments, or having to tap out and ask for them to be rearranged. When I spoke to Lini, we realised that she had had a similar experience, this push-pull of being the candidate and wanting to show our faces at meetings and help recruit new volunteers at ‘calling parties’, but also being the only people who could settle our newborns. Sometimes we could merge the two worlds; Lini and I realised that we had both attended 7:30pm meetings online, sitting in a dark room, struggling though breastfeeding and settling our babies. Although we’re both committed to breaking the stigma around breastfeeding, it can be hard to keep your composure while trying to feed a young baby as they try to latch, spew and fuss. Ultimately, Lini and I agreed that showing up vulnerably in public space matters. Leaders should possess empathy and understanding for those who feel raw and in transition; from the dad who just got evicted to the teen who acquired a disability - anyone who feels they aren’t the version of themselves they expected right now. The patriarchy tries to tell us otherwise, but women shouldn’t have to wait until they’re ‘recovered’, no longer vulnerable, before they feel entitled to participate in public life. In fact, we could all benefit from our leaders being a little more vulnerable. *This piece was cowritten, but has been presented in the first person for the sake of style. About the authors Nina Crawley is former teacher and community organiser who now works in human rights and inequality advocacy for a non-profit. She’s a mother of three keen to get back to running as soon as her pelvic floor allows! She’s contesting the seat of Ivanhoe for the Greens in this year’s state election. Lini Fernando is a lawyer working in diverse areas of law including anti corruption and public law. She’s a mother of two and a gardening and good policy enthusiast. She is currently contesting the seat of Croydon for the Greens in this year’s state election. Thanks for reading Cheek Media Co. ! This post is public so feel free to share it. Share
Zaynub Akbar: How young Senedd member went from poverty to Team GB
Zaynub Akbar says she plans to use her Senedd mandate to address some of the inequality she experienced.
Özgür Tuncer: Health and vaccine equity
Cold-chain dependence is not just a logistical burden, it is a primary driver of global health inequality. Following promising Phase 1 results for SPVX02, StablePharma’s chief executive discusses how thermostabilisation technology can redefine global health equity.
No Neutral Number: The Politics of Defining and Measuring Inequality
Before anyone can reduce inequality, someone has to define it, decide how to measure it, and choose how to respond.
Davos' elite World Economic Forum set to open with pro-business Trump set to attend and inequality on the rise
The World Economic Forum, the think tank that hosts the annual event in the Alpine snows starting Tuesday, has a stated motto of "improving the state of the world" and this year's theme is "A spirit of dialogue."
Watch out for college sports 'reforms' that shortchange student-athletes
If the system is constrained for those whose labor actually generates the revenue, that is not reform — it is codified inequality.
In photos: Jesse Jackson's life, activism and politics
His career in activism and politics coincided with a national transformation in civil rights and inequality
Politics of Dignity: How Status Inequality shaped Redistributive Politics in India - WID
Politics of Dignity: How Status Inequality shaped Redistributive Politics in India Why do some marginalized groups prioritize representation over redistribution? Poulomi Chakrabarti explores how status inequality has shaped redistributive politics in India.
Aristotle’s Politics has wisdoms and warnings for our age of tech utopias and inequality
Are we all political animals? Aristotle thought so. Politics, he believed, was the art of the possible, but extremes of wealth could harm democracies.
International Women in Science Day – local schools look to narrow gender gap in STEM
In 2015, the United Nations proclaimed February 11 as “International Women in Science Day,” a day to celebrate women’s accomplishments and raise awareness against gender inequality. For decades, men h...
Inequality and unease are rising as Davos opens with pro-business Trump set to attend
The Swiss town of Davos hosts the annual meeting of elites from business, government and culture this week
New Book Examines Small Business Recovery and Racial Equity After the Pandemic
UCLA Luskin Professor Robert Fairlie explores how government aid, entrepreneurship and racial inequality shaped small business recovery after COVID-19.