Friday, November 6, 2015

How To Fix the American Economy.

                        
                                                           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.

18 comments:

Maria Tan said...

I agree with Stiglitz in that rent-seeking should be tamed. Lobbying, a form of rent-seeking, does nothing for the middle and lower classes. It only gives money to the wealthy. Money is trickling up when it should be trickling down according to trickle down economics. I also with Stiglitz's fair tax proposal. It will generate 1.5 trillion dollars and, at the same time, the wealthy will not not be hurt. Hopefully Stiglitz's novel will reach the right people and our economy will be improve.

Anonymous said...

It is without question that the wealth disparity in the United States is an issue that needs to be addressed; and soon. But I do not agree with Stiglitz's plan in that he is asking for way too radical of a change in order to bring about the needed effects. I believe that in order to fix our economy small, but steady, impactful steps need to be made; these can include Stiglitz's rent-seeking and fair tax proposals, just not all at once.
-Ari Hymowitz

Anonymous said...

I agree that there is a huge separation in wealth in the United States that it is time for us to fix. It does make sense that the rich are getting richer with the decrease in labor unions and the lack of wealth building opportunities in minority communities. I also believe Stieglitz is correct in saying we need an entire overhaul of the economy. I think that the 5% tax increase for the wealthy could benefit the economy entirely. Also his ideas about curbing lobbying, focusing on full employment and a homeowner market that encourages buyers could be really beneficial.

-Morgan Ward

Anonymous said...

I completely agree that there is huge inequality when it comes to wealth in the United States. The rich are getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer. This issue needs to be addressed. I also believe that Stiglitz's ideas on how to improve the economy would benefit everyone. His proposal for a 5% increase in taxes for the top 1% of earners seems fair and helps the economy. However, as great as his ideas are they can not be implemented all at one. The United States has to slowly implement these ideas as to not turn the economy upside down. Hopefully in the never future we see the economy improve.

-Hernan Gallego

Unknown said...

The United States undoubtedly has a wealth inequality issue. The rich continue getting richer and more influential while everyone else struggles to get by. Stiglitz's idea of having a fair tax which would eliminate preferential tax treatment because it would take from the 1% who earns millions or even billions in some cases off their "unjust" stocks. I also agree with some of the other policies he mentioned like having the government sponsor a fair homeownership agency that gave out loans and encouraged prospective buyers.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the inequality in the United States, I believe that it's an ongoing issue that needs to be fixed. The rich continue to get rich while the poor continue to be poor. The poor don't have the same opportunities as others, so it's much harder for them to improve their economic status. Stiglitz's ideas to fix the economy actually make sense. Though it doesn't benefit everyone, it will create equality among the people in the U.S. Raising taxes on the 1% has the potential to raise a lot of money over the years. The U.S. should implement some of these suggestions in order to eliminate inequality.

-Diamond Melhado

Anonymous said...

I believe that the inequality in the Unite States is still very present. I did a research paper on a topic similar to this article last year and what was concluded was the gap between the social economic statuses is rapidly growing. It's becoming more and more hard for the poor to become rich while the rich just keep getting even more rich. Stiglitz's idea of fair tax would actually help the social economic classes evolve and grow, making it equally as easy to gain a higher status. This isn't going to happen over night but if small steps are taken, eventually the United States won't have this problem.

-Eva Hart

Anonymous said...

as i read this article I would say that i still agree that there is an sense of inequality in the united states. Its just too clear that there are the very rich and then there are the majority of poor or lower middle class. The distribution of wealth is just not there and that is something that we need to fix. Either by actually testing a specific taxing method or having some way of getting the lower class bumped up. Either decrease their taxes or increase the tax on the rich. I understand that in theory this may have its flaws but i feel that we never address it anyway so why not try it? I feel that we are a very slow or becoming a slow system because things just take too long to do. So in the end i would say that a short term fix that could maybe solve it all would be a correct taxing method. Im not entirely sure what the method would be but it would definitely need to be something different than what we have today.

- Alberto Monges

Savanah Catucci said...

I don't think that all of these changes that he suggests will ever happen at once. I also don't agree with everything he says in this article such as increasing taxes for the upper class. How is it "fair tax" to tax the richest people, and punish them just because they have money? If you're poor, you don't have to be there forever. No one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you can't earn more than a certain amount of money. There were so many people born into poor families that have made their way up to the upper class. So just because I'm a young college student doesn't mean I'll mindlessly follow an article presented to me that goes against what I believe in.

Savanah Catucci

Valon Brahimi said...

After reading this article, I without a doubt agree that there is still inequality in the United States. it will continue to be like this for a very long time because, rich people today will always continue to inherit more wealth while the poor people continue to get paid less and worried about less, until they lose their job and become homeless. The rich people don't care about the poor at all because they think cause they have money they can do anything the want. Now increasing taxes for the upper class is wrong because some people could have been poor and worked hard to become wealthy, so its not fair to just increase their taxes. Not everyone was born like Donald Trump and received small loans of 1 million dollars at 19.

Anonymous said...

After reading this article I believe a small increase to the wealthy of the United States would be beneficiary. A 1% increase on taxes can raise a substantial amount of money that can assist the bottom tier of American citizens. Although I agree with the slight increase in tax but I do not agree with everything that he presents. I do not agree with the total idea of fairness. If certain regulations were put forward to promote fairness within the United States a portion of people would take the easy way out. If people began doing this our economy would slowly crash and the hard working mentality that built this country would also be destroyed.

-Vincent Vasheo

Anonymous said...

I believe most of Stiglitz's principals are very progressive and straight forward. He is correct in saying that big corporate lobbyists have too much power over politics, and give too many tax credits to the rich. The United states does need a tax increase for the wealthy, however the american people need to realize that the government would most likely not put the extra tax revenue to Education and Infrastructure. The Government would spend most of the revenue on military and National defense which is a main issue most American's don't understand. I believe we need to revamp our Government before we revamp our Economy.
-Banyan McGuire

Anonymous said...

The inequality in the US between the rich and poor is huge. I agree with the stuff Stiglitz thinks we need to change in our economy, but I think it needs to be slowly implemented over time; it cannot just all happen at once. I agree with taxing the top 1% of earners more, but no matter what there will always be an inequality.
Sabrina Ruggiero

Anonymous said...

I agree with Stiglitz because the rules of America's economy can be rewritten to benefit everyone. He mentioned the practices and policies on how the rich got richer and also notes the advancements in technology. Which shows consumers are paying more in fees for financial services, which enriches big banks and companies. He mentions how to fix things and suggests massive revision in the way the US economy does business. Another good point he mentions is a 5 percent increase to the tax rate to the top 1 percent earners. Something call "fair tax" would eliminate many things and would be a better idea. Emphasizing the goal of full employment is also stated rather than focusing on reductive unemployment. In other words, i totally agree with Stiglitz.

- Marchelle Correa

Anonymous said...

There is a very large inequality in the United States, it can't be denied. Do I think it can be fixed? I think there is a small chance just because of the way the world works. Stiglitz's idea is a good one in theory but essentially the top one percent are a huge influence in almost anything that goes on with the economy. Lobbying is real and needs to be stopped because it is damaging to our economy. The idea to raise the tax on the top 1% by 5% is another idea that could stabilize the economy generating a lot in taxes over those ten years. Inequality is very hard to fix.

- Justin Grossmann

Unknown said...

There is no doubt that the income distribution gap between the rich and poor is a big one. It is going to be tough to fix because of how severe it has gotten over the last several years however I think that it is possible. Raising a tax on the people who have larger incomes may reduce this big difference. Stiglitz suggest that lobbying is full at large and is the main reason for why our country is suffering. Overall I think fixing the problem is possible but will be very hard to come by.

Anonymous said...

Of course inequality is still very much alive within the U.S. and impacts the lower class of American citizens making it hard for them to live and survive in this economy. The rich Americans are just attaining more wealth and are climbing higher in wealth and status making this goal unattainable for the lower classes. Stiglitz’s tax has a positive on the lower classes giving them a chance to grow and have economic prosperity and tax the higher classes who can handle the tax and not be burdened like the lower class would be.
-Michael McGuire

Unknown said...

Inequality is very real in the U.S. The lower class in america struggles to barley survive within the economy while the rich get richer and more powerful. Each day the goal of closing the gap becomes more unatttainable. taxing the rich more and the poor less is an efficient way of doing away with this.