The letter says: “We know that high inequality undermines all our social and environmental goals. It corrodes our politics, destroys trust, hamstrings our collective economic prosperity and weakens multilateralism. We also know that without a sharp reduction in inequality, the twin goals of ending poverty and preventing climate breakdown will be in clear conflict.”
If we’re needlessly overthinking, I must point out that by rejecting a call to reduce global inequality because you suspect it doesn’t go far enough…you’re siding with / helping the people who DON’T want to reduce global inequality.
That’s a fair criticism. I don’t really have a better answer to the situation at hand. I think it’s just important to keep in mind that this is why were in this situation to begin with.
I don’t think it’s needlessly overthinking as you put it to ask that people work toward sustainable long term changes that can not only alleviate current problems but improve conditions and systems resiliency and fairness long term. The unfortunate truth is that going part of the way also helps the people who don’t want to reduce global inequality. If people are satisfied with a world in which the equilibrium is reached between poverty that is so destructive and impossible to tolerate that global unrest increases as predicted, and a poverty only slightly more tolerable, that is not, in my humble opinion, anything to strive for. It would in fact be the least optimal result, since it maximizes suffering and precludes change.