Comments due Nov. 13, 2015
In his new book, a Nobel laureate outlines how the huge disparity arose and the huge course correction needed to address it. Stiglitz, a Nobel-prize winning economist, professor at Columbia University, and the chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute, asks the question “Can the rules of America’s economy be rewritten to benefit everyone—not just the wealthy?” The answer, he insists, is yes. Stiglitz describes the current situation as “ a stark picture of a world gone wrong” : He notes that 91 percent of all income growth between 2009 and 2012 was enjoyed by the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. In the first half of the book, Stiglitz focuses on the practices and policies that have gotten the country to this point. It is a familiar story: The demise of labor unions, the increasing financialization of the economy, and the lack of wealth-building opportunities in minority communities have made the rich richer while leaving everyone else to flounder. He lists off a bevy of other contributors too: weak wages, ineffective regulation and federal oversight, and a focus on short-term versus long-term growth, which embodies a preference for rewarding shareholders over workers and consumers. Stiglitz also notes that despite advancements in technology, which should— in theory—increase efficiency and lower costs, consumers are paying more in fees for financial services, which enriches big banks and companies while siphoning money out of the middle class. All of these things, he says, have created a society with a gaping hole, not only in its economic makeup, but in its morality.
Stiglitz spends the latter portion of the book laying out how to fix things. Like his primer on how inequality came to be, the solutions cover everything from fiscal policy to corporate boardrooms to retirement savings. His overview doesn’t prioritize pragmatism: A solution that only involves overhauling the few things that everyone agrees need to be overhauled is no solution at all, he argues. Instead, he swings for the fences, suggesting a massive revision in the way the U.S. economy does business. First up is the attempt to tame what is called rent-seeking—the practice of increasing wealth by taking it from others rather than generating any actual economic activity. Lobbying, for example, allows large companies to spend money influencing laws and regulations in their favor, but lobbying itself isn’t helpful for the economy besides creating a small number of jobs in Washington; it produces nothing but helps an already rich and influential group grow more rich and more influential. Stiglitz suggests that reducing rent-seeking is critical to reining in inequality, especially when it comes to complex issues such as housing prices, patents, and the power that large corporations wield. To overhaul these behaviors and the policies that support it, Stiglitz says that America should give up what he deems the “incorrect and outdated” belief in supply-side economics, which grows from the premise that regulation and taxes dampen business opportunities and economic growth. Instead, massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed, he says, in order to curb rent-seeking. For instance, increasing tax rates, ending preferential treatment for top earners, and refining the tax code would decrease incentives to amass extreme amounts of wealth, since it would be so heavily taxed, and that tax would be difficult to shirk. Stiglitz suggests a 5 percent increase to the tax rate of the top 1 percent of earners—a move that he says would raise as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He also calls for a “fair tax, ” which would eliminate preferential tax treatment for money earned from capital gains and dividends—perks enjoyed primarily by people who can afford to own a lot of stock. To further ensure that corporations, markets, and individuals aren’t pursuing profits at the expense of workers and the public, Stiglitz calls for a more active central bank. He accuses the Fed of being both too narrowly focused on macroeconomic indicators, and too deferential to the businesses and markets it has the ability to regulate. He wants the government to sponsor a homeownership agency that would dole out housing loans in a way that encourages buyers instead of developers and would closely monitor the market for fairness. Stiglitz ’s thoroughness is admirable, but his prescriptions can be overwhelming, given how much it would take to make each change. The agenda also includes emphasizing the goal of full employment rather than focusing on the sometimes reductive unemployment figures; investment in public infrastructure; better access to financial services, childcare, health care, and paid leave; and strengthened opportunities for collective bargaining. Oh, and better wages for workers, and more corporate transparency, too. Actually implementing all of these changes would require a complete shift in American policy and practice. The world that Stiglitz envisions in his book, one where all citizens can enjoy the promise of education, employment, housing, and a secure retirement seems at once like the realization of the American dream and an unattainable utopia.
Stiglitz states that "the rules of America's economy can be rewritten to benefit everyone", however I don't believe it will ever be. Our nation will forever have areas that generate less income will always be labeled as inferior. No matter how hard our government attempts to equalize wealth distribution in all 50 states, these poor areas will still exist. In addition, taxes would have to be adjusted in order to fulfill government earnings, which can really affect places people would want to live. So in reality, if these new rules were imposed, it wouldn't benefit anyone because taxes would increase, the value of the dollar could weaken, not to mention that the poverty line would be higher. I hate to say it, but poverty and underdevelopment are necessities to the U.S. since without them, everyone else will have to be paying more.
ReplyDelete“Can the rules of America’s economy be rewritten to benefit everyone—not just the wealthy?” This is a huge controversial topic in America that we cannot seem to figure out. Most countries in Europe have figured out a balance to even out the wealth among its many citizens. America still is searching and seeking answers.
ReplyDeleteStiglitz argues and states that rent-seeking, such as lobbying, is just made to benefit these large companies by spending money and making regulations to their own favor and not the American people as a whole. Examples like this show why the top one percent of Americans are growing. In solution, Instead, Stiglitz states that massive changes to tax laws, regulations, and the financial sector are needed in order to eliminate and reduce these rent-seeking actions and policies.
A lot of Stiglitz's arguments seem to be drastic changes that seem unreasonable to many people. In contrast, I would argue that we need to continue to push towards these large changes because the top one percent cannot be the only group of Americans that continue to grow. The economy does not work better that way in my opinion. The middle class needs to grow and people like Stiglitz need to be heard and accounted for.
The main argument stated such a lobbying has only benefitted these large companies by spending and regulating with their own rules. America is in an economic drought and that is what is being proposed to all the candidates running for president. Who will make the change and step up as a leader is one of the economical questions that we have all been asking.I agree with Stieglitz's idea of a stronger central bank that not only controls the imports and interest rates. America will be great again....
ReplyDeleteThere is huge controversy over the topic of re-writing the American economy so it is beneficial to everyone and not just the 1%. This is a very difficult problem to solve. America needs to find a way to balance the wealth throughout its citizens. Stiglitz has many good points like how lobbying, and rent seeking behavior are ways big businesses are hurting the general public. Stiglitz states their needs to be new major tax laws and regulations in order to balance out the money fairly. This problem has been one for a long time and isn't going to be easy to fix. Stiglitz's argument seems very unreasonable to a lot of people. It is a problem that needs to be fixed, but it has to be done the best way possible.
ReplyDeleteI am sympathetic to the ideas behind universal basic income, I don't think Americans will accept it. It will be extremely difficult to do what Stiglitz suggests, and it really won't help if there are no jobs. The two currency system removes most of the moral problems from capitalism by ensuring everyone has the opportunity to earn what they need, and it makes the hoarding of dollars less of a disability to others. If these new rules were to be considered the dollar amount would end up increasing and there will be even less jobs than there already are. I agree that Stiglitz ’s prescriptions can be overwhelming, given how much it would take to make each change.
ReplyDeleteI do believe there is a way to change the American economy to benefit everyone however, it will involve the wealthiest 1% sacrificing for the benefit of the poor which is something most wealthy people will simply not do. It also involves finding people that are in poverty jobs. This will help balance out the ridiculously unbalanced distribution of wealth without resorting to communism.
ReplyDeleteI believe that no matter how hard we try our economy will never get to where we want it to be. Can we get close? Most likely, but there are gonna be areas of the economy people are opposed to and unhappy with. Even if we try to improve it will probably involve some new taxes being brought into play and that alone will cause people to be upset. No matter where we are in the economy people will be benefited, but other people will not benefit from the ways of the economy. I don't believe there is a possibility of an economy that benefits everyone. I believe this economy can be fixed in a lot of aspects, but unfortunately I don't see an economy that everyone agrees with in the future.
ReplyDeleteI Believe to fix the U.S. economy we must start from the bottom. Right now the poverty line is not representative of what poverty actually is. Fixing this will allow for more reforms to be made to help the bottom of the us economy will overall strengthen the economy. Strengthening the bottom will have a continuous effect that will strengthen the working class and so on. I do not agree with the economist that we should just overhaul a couple things i believe that that will just make a continuous circle of overhauling policies and then realizing we needed some of it, putting some policies back in place and then overhauling them again. I feel that the best way will to be strengthen the bottom of the economy as that will make the economy have a solid base on which it can continue strengthen from
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Stiglitz when he claims that the American economy can be rewritten to benefit everyone and not just the wealthy. 91% of all economic growth from 2009 to 2012 was within the 1% and it is not very likely that they would be willing to give that up. Although rewriting the economy would be beneficial for economic growth as a whole because much of the money being made now is by rent-seeking and lobbying. Both of these do not do much in the way of growing the economy but rather taking money from others. These things would have to be tamed and a large increase in the taxes of the 1% would have to be instituted for the economy to become more balanced. However these are some things that the 1% will not easily let happen.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a way we can change the U.S economy in order for everyone to benefit from it. Instead of having the 1% we need to find a way where we can balance the economies money instead of it only leaning towards the wealthier party. In our economy there needs to be new taxes that are fair for everyone, instead of them being in favor for the rich people. With the taxes on the people and the balancing of the money the U.S economy would have a chance at becoming better than it is now.
ReplyDeleteSitglitz approach to fixing the economy and improving the distribution of income gap sounds great in theory, but it is likely unattainable. This does not mean we shouldn't try to achieve the unachievable, it means that the policies envisioned in Stiglitz Utopia would require a radical change in government approach and legislative cooperation.
ReplyDeleteStiglitz main issue is reducing the income distribution gap so that all the economic gains are not going to the top 1%.This is the biggest dilemma in the current state of our economy, and Stiglitz way off tackling it is through increased government intervention and increased tax rates for the highest earners. His theory, be it what it will, rests on the assumption that taxes on massive amounts of wealth will lead people to diverge from that much accumulation.
The 1% have been the topic of discussion in the last several years. As Stiglitz has acknowledged in the article, this problem has gotten out of control and something needs to be done to rectify it.
ReplyDeleteI think his suggestion of a major revision to the way the U.S does business is a great idea. I believe a major revision is needed because soon enough there will be no more middle class. I think something needs to be done before this happens. My favorite suggestion is to refine the tax code which would decrease incentives to a mass extreme amounts of wealth. I do understand that there will have to be additional actions taken, but this would be a good first step.
Thank you,
Ashley
Sitglitz approach to fixing the economy and improving the distribution of income gap sounds great in theory, but it is likely unattainable. This does not mean we shouldn't try to achieve the unachievable, it means that the policies envisioned in Stiglitz Utopia would require a radical change in government approach and legislative cooperation. I believe there is a way to change the American economy to benefit everyone however, it will involve the wealthiest 1% sacrificing for the benefit of the poor which is something most wealthy people will simply not do. It also involves finding people that are in poverty jobs. This will help balance out the ridiculously unbalanced distribution of wealth without resorting to communism.
ReplyDeleteThe author in this article writes about how "consumers are paying more in fees for financial services, which enriches big banks and companies while siphoning money out of the middle class". I believe that this statement is true. With consumers paying more than what they should be paying, companies are able to make more money off of the consumers. Which widens the gap between the 1% and middle class. During the Great Recession the government had bailed out all the big banks with taxpayers money because they are "too big to fail" . Even after the government bailed out the banks with taxpayers money, the banks still haven't changed their business practices on the backs of the consumer. The author also discusses rent-seeking also known as lobbying. I agree that what companies are doing is wrong because it only benefits themselves. Companies are able to hire lobbyists while everyone else does not. The only thing close to a lobbyist that someone can have are Congressmen. But what do Congressmen actually do to benefit the people who voted for them? Most times they appease lobbyists so they can get reelected. On the other hand, too much government intervention causes too many problems. The author calls for investment in infrastructure. An example of infrastructure problems was the Boston Big Dig. The Big Dig took longer then expected (additional 9 years) and cost a lot more then expected (original estimated cost of $2.8 billion and completed at a cost of $14.6 billion) and then even had problems with the tunnel. With the $1.5 trillion that would be made from the tax that was suggested by Stiglitz in the article, how would that amount resolve the current unfunded liabilities which exceeds $127 trillion as of 2014? (Forbes)
ReplyDelete(http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
Stiglitz suggests many ways to fix the economy. At first glance they seem like reasonable suggestions but upon further review I believe they will do either absolutely nothing for some or work in the opposite direction(have a harmful impact on the economy) the only exception to this is raising the tax rate of the 1% which has been suggested a million times and offers nothing new to the conversation. Some of the worst suggestions include forcing wage increases which will do nothing as the products that the companies produce would have to increase their prices and thus nothing is gained (except inflation). Second, a centralized bank will defeat the entire purpose of an open market. Banks can offer different interest rates and many different incentives. If there is one centralized bank then banking has a literal monopoly over itself. Third, utilizing supply side economics rather than demand based economics sounds great in theory but has been shown to completely fall apart when the economy is not doing well, since if no one is buying anything producing more will have no positive impact on the economy and would actually hurt it.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Carapola
No matter how far our economy goes there will always poor areas existing. The theory that is stated in the article sounds good in theory, but almost too good to be true. There's no denying that the 1% in society is causing an issue but it would be very hard to solve in a timely manner. Hopefully it will be accomplishable in the near future to fix our poor areas. A good area to start would be tax reform.
ReplyDeletewhat stiglitz's is failing to consider is there are things that CAN be done, and there are things that WILL be done. He says that- “Can the rules of America’s economy be rewritten to benefit everyone—not just the wealthy?” The answer, he insists, is yes.-Well of course things CAN be done. The problem is that they won't be done. Look I have carefully danced around this all semester, However since we are halfway through, i am going to speak my mind. Nothing will change with the current government that we have in office. All most democrats care about is redistribution of wealth. They will continue to spend my tax dollars on people that don't do a dime for it. While I struggle to eat everyday, just because I choose, and always have chosen to work for a living, and work for everything that I have. Our government just wants to line there own pockets along with the pockets of the "less fortunate". Unfortunately, they are lining the "less fortunate's" pockets with my hard earned tax dollars. And why, because the government thinks other people deserve to have what I work hard for. The difference is they do not work for it. So like I said, yes the government CAN be changed to benefit 'everyone", but it will never happen, as long as the government continues to think the way that they do. One thing I do agree with as he suggested,- he agenda also includes emphasizing the goal of full employment rather than focusing on the sometimes reductive unemployment figures;-this is true. The way they count unemployment, is ridiculous. and it shouldn't count that unemployment has gone down, if you are not counting the people that timed out of the system, because they were on unemployment for too long. I only hope in 2016, we elect someone who is a little more concerned with putting america back on top, and a little less concerned with "offending" anyone.
ReplyDelete