Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
And here are the "narratives" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378016300681 …pic.twitter.com/vc03YkXyVV
Inequality down in all futures, likely below *any* inequality in world last two centuries Inequality will drop the *most* with fossil fuels Inequality reduced since 1980s (with ⬆︎middle-class China/India) Continue: poor people will see incomes x23, rich just x5pic.twitter.com/PTca48papA
Fascinating; well actually the only word for it is stunning. Why the massive inflection point around 2000? And is this projection a complete contradiction of Piketty, or is it measuring something different?
Global inequality is *definitely* declining Piketty: *within* societies,¨ inequality growing, lot in anglophone countries, much less other places (https://ourworldindata.org/income-inequality …) Think: low-skilled workers in rich countries fall behind, many more in China/India gain
Here as well it seems noteworhty that "the sustainable pathway" performs as good as "the fossile fuel one", so far I can tell. (Perhaps reading it wrong though.)
More interesting perhaps: How much growth would be needed to keep standard of living etc at an acceptable (~current) level in "western" countries, given that development increases global equality? (Or, which of the pathways would be economically acceptable for westeners?)
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
