Given the simultaneous polycrises we’re now immersed in, it’s always poignant to come across a report that offers possible ways out. So when another such is unearthed, this time by Jonathan Watts of the Guardian, [1]we were particularly intrigued. Partly because it covers some the same tropes we have circled around here ( Justice; LSS 24 4 23 et seq : Inequality: LSS 16 9 25 and governance; LSS 16 1 25 et seq) And partly because one of the report’s moving spirits is the great Historian and economist Thomas Piketty, whose name has also graced these pages. [2]
Living standards can rise for all, the authors asseverate. The worst of climate change may be mitigated. Political and social tensions ameliorated. The key is to tax the small group of billionaires who control most of the world’s wealth and power. While at the same time redirecting investment away from carbon heavy industries such as construction, mining and manufacturing and towards education and healthcare. The new world they envisage would have a shorter working week, be more prosperous (the lowest universal income quartile would come in around $5000 per annum) and above all be ecologically stable. Hyper capitalist consumers and green neo-puritans come in for equal criticism. Both endless consumption and austerity hair shirts are unfeasible say Piketty and co. Sufficiency is their new lodestar for their intriguing (dare we think Whiggish?) Third way. [3][4][5]
And our thoughts? We think the report’s careful scholarship and refreshing new thoughts are clear already. Its recommendations are both sanguine and rational and would undoubtedly contribute to a more tolerable world. But: they run up against what in everyday language is called human nature and in Social Identity Theory comparative advantage. Most people would rather live in a world where they had £10 and their neighbour £5 rather than one in which they had £15 and that neighbour £13, as their relative social advantage is better in the first instance than the second. That, in a nutshell is the human weakness.[6] It suggests that groups enjoying relative social advantage will fight like tom cats to maintain it against inferior groups, rather than join with them to their common benefit. Particularly if they are well funded to do so by sympathetic billionaires who thereby ensure their own supreme advantage over all. This is human instinct. In theory we could overcome it. Have we the cognitive capacity to do so?
[3]World Inequality Conference 2026 – World Inequality Lab
[4]World Inequality Report 2026
[6] Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(3), 1999, pp. 817–868.
#economics #climate change #inequalty #social justice #tax #education #decarbonisation
Learning, Science and Society 