The economist calls for some new ideas for today's old problems.
You may want to read the whole thing before jabbering anything overly predictable from your team. They are calling for synthesis (philosophy term), and that takes a bit from what you like and a bit from what others like, with a very strong mix of actual results and data to guide it all.
To wit:
BY THE end of the 19th century, the first age of globalisation and a spate of new inventions had transformed the world economy. But the “Gilded Age” was also a famously unequal one, with America’s robber barons and Europe’s “Downton Abbey” classes amassing huge wealth: the concept of “con uous consumption” dates back to 1899. The rising gap between rich and poor (and the fear of socialist revolution) spawned a wave of reforms, from Theodore Roosevelt’s trust-busting to Lloyd George’s People’s Budget. Governments promoted compe ion, introduced progressive taxation and wove the first threads of a social safety net. The aim of this new “Progressive era”, as it was known in America, was to make society fairer without reducing its entrepreneurial vim.
Modern politics needs to undergo a similar reinvention—to come up with ways of mitigating inequality without hurting economic growth. That dilemma is already at the centre of political debate, but it mostly produces heat, not light. Thus, on America’s campaign trail, the left attacks Mitt Romney as a robber baron and the right derides Barack Obama as a class warrior. In some European countries politicians have simply given in to the mob: witness François Hollande’s proposed 75% income-tax rate. In much of the emerging world leaders would rather sweep the issue of inequality under the carpet: witness China’s nervous embarrassment about the excesses of Ferrari-driving princelings, or India’s refusal to tackle corruption.
In this section
Reprints
At the core, there is a failure of ideas. The right is still not convinced that inequality matters. The left’s default position is to raise income-tax rates for the wealthy and to increase spending still further—unwise when sluggish economies need to attract entrepreneurs and when governments, already far bigger than Roosevelt or Lloyd George could have imagined, are overburdened with promises of future largesse. A far more dramatic rethink is needed: call it True Progressivism
...
It is also true that some measure of inequality is good for an economy. It sharpens incentives to work hard and take risks; it rewards the talented innovators who drive economic progress. Free-traders have always accepted that the more global a market, the greater the rewards will be for the winners. But as our special report this week argues, inequality has reached a stage where it can be inefficient and bad for growth.
...
That is most obvious in the emerging world. In China credit is siphoned to state-owned enterprises and well-connected insiders; the elite also gain from a string of monopolies. In Russia the oligarchs’ wealth has even less to do with entrepreneurialism. In India, too often, the same is true.
In the rich world the cronyism is better-hidden. One reason why Wall Street accounts for a disproportionate share of the wealthy is the implicit subsidy given to too-big-to-fail banks. From doctors to lawyers, many high-paying professions are full of unnecessary restrictive practices. And then there is the most unfair transfer of all—misdirected welfare spending. Social spending is often less about helping the poor than giving goodies to the relatively wealthy. In America the housing subsidy to the richest fifth (through mortgage-interest relief) is four times the amount spent on public housing for the poorest fifth.
...
Read the rest of it here:
http://www.economist.com/node/21564556
Not a bad article at all, tbh.... the premise is solid, and inequality DOES need to be addressed.... the way to do this is to legalize competing currencies, and allowing private charities to grow and prosper instead of undercutting them with bloated inefficient government programs, tbh....
"Messrs Obama, Miliband and Hollande need to come up with something that promises both fairness and progress."
why? there won't be any change since the 1% own the US legislative/relgulatory levers.
I agree about letting the charities grow. Rather than the government becoming the charity, it should promote more growth in privately funded charities.
Privately funded charities are, generally, extremely inefficient means of helping people.
Plus,many of them run very high overheads eg, salaries and expenses, and many are corrupted/misdirected by corporate/1%.
If you say so. If you think government is more efficient, then that's your prerogative. However.... Charities do not take money out of my pocket without my permission!
Then don't give to one of those ones.
Here's the real issue. With charities, you have a choice as to who to give to and who not to.
You guys hit a real low slamming charities...
That is precisely why they are so inefficient. Ever look at the financials for most charities?
That actually brings up a really good point.
When was the last time you (anybody reading this) looked at the financials of the charity or church you gave money to? Why or why not?
There's a rating agency for charities, but for the life of me I can't remember the name. Have any idea?
nm....teh google ftw!
http://www.charitynavigator.org/?gcl...FcxcMgodpiQAKg
Interesting take on a case study.
http://www.charitywatch.org/articles/aipmethod.html
My search brought up a lot of them. Heh, the best of course required a $40 donation to get their ratings list.
^ there ain't many people who dare to embezzle or misuse government's money the way they do charity fund. although the government takes your money away w/o asking for your consent, it's safe to say it won't go straightly into an asshole's private account like the charity money could tbh
Two words:
Medicare fraud
Government programs have their own drawbacks/costs. It all has to be weighed.
If one agrees with the statement:
People who need help, should get it.
Then the only answer is how best to do that, which is all the squabbling over en lement programs is, when you get down to it.
I look at this before I give to ANY charity:
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
"United States Government" isn't listed, btw.
It's "War on Poverty" is half a century old - not THAT'S efficiency!
People can agree on the statement, but have VERY different views of the meaning of the word "need".
IRS budget:
$12bn
% of federal budget spent on collections, assuming 100% of budget can be classified that way:
0.3%
That is one of the standard metrics of charity efficiency. Find one with a lower number.
I'll wait.
Interesting logic. Let's see where it gets us.
The Catholic church has been giving to the poor for over a millennium, they must really suck at helping the poor.
Is the Catholic Church a failure at helping the poor?
Indeed.
As Clinton's welfare reform showed, however, the views aren't as different or controversial as one might think, once one gets down to brass tacks.
Because foreign aid, Social Security, and welfare are just a smash success....
Wait, I'm looking for another charity with the U.S. government's ability to take houses, arrest people, etc... behind it to enforce collections - not to mention compel employers to collect for them, again under threat of anything, up to and including death.
It might be a while.
How about this metric.
How much does it spend?
What positive outcomes are achieved for THAT level of expenditure?
And, again, the "War on Poverty" is now 50 years old.
Seems like it. I don't give to the Catholic Church, however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
