The Oracle of Omaha may not be all that incredibly wise after all, just incredibly rich and sheltered from the real world of work.
George Will’s latest op-ed on inequality gets just about everything wrong. The huge point he misses: There’s more to life than the cost of a 50-inch plasma TV.
Modern-day conservatives like Paul Ryan seem to have discovered inequality. But don’t take that discovery too seriously. Their world views still reflect a Gilded Age contempt for society’s struggling.
A nationally prominent conservative academic is charging that critics of America’s top-heavy distribution of income and wealth are missing the bigger global picture. In the process, other economists are pointing out, he’s only fogging that picture up.
Many individuals helped construct neoclassical economics, often with financial support from the robber barons and their successors. I will focus on two: in the United States, John Bates Clark (1847-1938), and in Europe, Vilfredo Pareto (1848 to 1923).
The new Congressional Budget Office report projects that the Affordable Care Act will lead to a decline in full-time equivalent workers of 2.5 million. This is people voluntarily deciding to work less–like mothers with small children, or workers in poor health or close to retirement. That should mean higher wages for the remaining workers.
Making the market “decisive” means that the Chinese government has decided to place profits before people — and even before that previously invincible talisman, economic growth.
Fox News may have failed to have an impact on the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election in the United States, but media organizations controlled by Rupert Murdoch celebrated a victory this year in Australia.
Call their bluff. Take the plunge. Go over the cliff. Let the government default on its bonds.
It was the perfect “natural experiment:” in April 1992, New Jersey’s minimum-wage was scheduled to rise from $4.25 an hour to $5.05, while neighboring Pennsylvania’s minimum wage remained unchanged.
Call it vote-buying if you want, but when a government effectively buys the votes of 80 or 90 percent of the population, I call that government of the people, by the people, for the people.
How can things be so much worse now when the economy is essentially in the same place it was five or six years ago? The answer in two words is: Rising inequality.
Friends of America’s financially favored have argued loud and long that higher taxes on the nation’s rich punish small business and generate no new revenue. What does the research tell us? Academic analysts have just brought a cart of “facts on the ground” to Capitol Hill.
Median household income fell more than 6% in the last decade, yet national income per household grew 6%. Where did all that money go?
Would it be such a terrible thing if fast food workers got a twenty percent raise this year while executives took a pay cut? It’s not our economy that needs rethinking; it’s our ethics.
The US economy has been growing since July 2009. So why aren’t things improving in the US realonomy?
Retail sales are up this holiday season in the top 1 percent plutonomy, but down in the realonomy where the other 99 percent live. And it’s not just the poor who are struggling. Even high-income, college-educated professionals have seen no income growth in over a dozen years.
Warren Buffett last week made an insightful case for higher taxes on America’s rich. The reaction to that case, from our wealthy’s most ardent defenders, offers insights, too — on our plutocracy.
House budget-cutters are taking their inspiration from the greatest giveaway — to the rich — artist the nation’s capital has ever known.
If the wealth of the wealthy really bothered Americans, flacks for grand fortune enjoy declaring, our political system would be shaking something fierce. They don’t see a whole lot of shaking. Should we?
The rising public clamor for higher taxes on America’s wealthy has conservative ideologues uneasy. For good reason. They don’t have the numbers on their side. Or history either.