The 1% have the best of everything that money can buy, but they’re still missing something really important. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz lays it all out in this May 2011 article in Vanity Fair.
Read it here: Stiglitz, "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”
- Stiglitz asserts that the U.S. economy will likely do poorly in the long run given the present trends and conditions, and he presents three reasons to support this assertion. What are they? Which of the reasons do you find most persuasive? Why?
- The fact that income inequality in the U.S. is expanding is not new information, nor is it disputed. And Stiglitz doesn’t propose any concrete solutions to the problems he details. What, then, is his principal argument? Whom is he trying to persuade? Explain your conclusions.
- Read (or re-read) Robert Frank’s essay in Chapter 18 of your text. Both authors are economists, both argue that the growing economic inequality is undesirable, and both present similar evidence. Which of the two essays do you find more persuasive? Why? Explain your reasoning and point to examples in each essay to support your thinking.
- Think about Stiglitz’s challenge to imagine a world where governments have to compete to attract workers, and envision it on a community scale. What would that look like in your town or neighborhood? What would employers and local governments need to offer? Consider the benefits and services that Stiglitz suggests, and think of other factors that would be important to your family and your neighbors. Write an essay describing such a thriving community; make your description as practical and realistic as possible.
They Say I Blog 
In discussion of the United States economy, Stiglitz explains the downfall of its well being throughout the years. In other words, America’s inequality due to social class leads to a poor economy. The differences between the upper class, lower class and the middle class play an important role in running the government as a whole. Many people believe the top one percentile of the upper class is getting too much income. For instance, they start to lose empathy for classes below them that are not as wealthy. The rich do not feel the need to contribute to any class lower than them. After all, they earned their spot on the social ladder, right? Most people get the mindset that if they are satisfied with their life, nobody else’s should matter. As a result, Americans do not feel the need to help one another. As Americans continue to only worry about their personal prosperity, the economy will continue to worsen.
LikeLike
In Stiglitz’s article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Stiglitz claims that the economy is controlled by the top 1% in our nation. In fact, they have the ability to change what is going on in this nation but they are not empathetic. In short, the working class is there to do what little we can. After all, we do not have the control. Then there are the ones that make up the lower class that don’t do anything in the first place, or just so insignificant that they’ve been drowned out. To sum up, the 1% is going to have to oblige and bring down the theoretical “Berlin Wall” that separates “Us and Them”.
LikeLike
In discussion of the United States economy, Richard Stiglitz discusses the financial problems of the different classes in America. The majority of people succeeding in our economy are the top 1%, who take in about twenty five percent of our nation’s income. The top 1% have little to no empathy for lower classes because they feel as if they earned their spot on the social ladder.
Our inequalities regarding social classes have led to a disproportionate economy that is suffering. Although unfair situations like this have occurred since the beginning of the social system they are spiraling out of control and ultimately will lead to the demise of our economy. As a country we need to remove the barrier between social classes and find a way to fairly fix and strengthen our economy.
LikeLike
People assume that with a athletic scholarship, you are at a greater advantage compared to an academic one. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar gives us the knowledge that an athletic scholarship is in no comparison to an academic scholarship a number of students receive. Students attending the college/ university on an athletic scholarship are at a disadvantage from the start. Although an athletic scholarship will pay for your education, it will not pay for your basic necessities, like an academic scholarship would. If injured or incapable of playing, the student loses the scholarship, but gains the debt that has to be paid off in order to continue attending said school. While still attending on an athletic scholarship, the student is not allowed to make money on the side unlike an academic scholarship. Fundamentally, the financial status of a student is a pressing matter during and after college. Especially for a student with an athletic scholarship. It isn’t a guaranteed scholarship that you’ll have throughout college. Some would say that kids attending with an academic and or athletic scholarship leave college with just as much debt as a student without a scholarship.
LikeLike
In his article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, Joseph Stiglitz claims that a split is developing in the American economy, separating the wealthy from the middle and lower class, and favoring the wealthy. He states that the lifestyle of the wealthy is improving, while the lifestyle of the middle class decreases in quality. Furthermore, he says that the wealthy hold substantial economic and political power, allowing for inequality and upper-class domination to grow and continue. It is common belief that the wealthy rule the societal hierarchy, and Stiglitz supports this belief with recent studies, showing a growing split in social classes, isolating a growing upper class. For instance, Stiglitz says that “the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade”, while “those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall.” (Stiglitz). I cannot disagree with his claims, as I notice a decrease in lifestyle quality of the middle class, through lowered incomes and lack of jobs. It’s of no surprise to me that there appears to be an economic trend which favors the wealthy. After all, this concept is one that has existed in America for previous generations. Although the problem of the overpowering wealthy may be solved, as it has in past times, I believe that this problem will remain for generations to come. The problem may fluctuate in prominence, but will never be fully diminished, consequently always lingering.
LikeLike
Stiglitz argues that the decline of the economy will lead to the loss of opportunity. He also insits that it will lead to the decline of the economy, as well as needing the government to invest in itself. I agree that the decline of the economy could definitely result in bad changes for the country. After all, it is the land of opportunity, and if the economy declines too much that may no longer be true. Regardless, I feel that we need to keep positive and hope that the economy will grow.
LikeLike
In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by Joseph Stiglitz, he presents three reasons to support the assertion that the U.S economy will do poorly in the long run given present conditions. The first point he makes is shrinking opportunity. Ultimately, he says “we are not using some of our most valuable assets in the most productive way possible”. In addition, he states in his second point that distortions lead to inequality. He argues that when people get preferential treatment, it undermines the efficiency of the economy. Furthermore, he argues that “collective action” is required. Specifically, there have been cutbacks with funding in areas such as education, roads, technology, and public health. In my opinion, I find Stiglitz’s argument of shrinking opportunity to be most persuasive. It is shown in all fields that jobs are not always done to the highest standard, possibly because of who is doing the job. Not all people are suited for the same job, and placing them in a job that isn’t right for them will affect the work they produce and ultimately affect the company. Consequently, people are often placed in these ill-fitting jobs because of the lack of opportunity, whether that’s education or economic status, which is where the inequality begins, and from there skyrockets.
LikeLike
In his article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%, Stiglitz asserts that a total of 1% of Americans are labeled as the top wealthiest. They have control of essentially everything, and their support with each other seems only to benefit themselves on the top. To put it succinctly, this whole 1% of top wealthiest creates unevenness within American equality and, consequently contributing to a type of shrinking opportunity for everyone else. They make it more difficult for the remaining 99% to build their way up socially and economically, what many strive to do. To summarize, this type of extreme barrier poses problems for America’s future economy and social classes as the barrier is dramatically expanding.
LikeLike
Stiglitz asserts that the US economy will continue to do poorly in the future given the recent trends and conditions. He includes three reasons to support his assertion.For instance, he professes that the growing inequality of wealth in our nation is shrinking opportunity. By extension, he elaborates that diminishing equality of opportunity we are wasting our most precious and valuable assets;people. Further more, Stiglitz asserts, that the distortions that lead to economic inequality, tend to lead to further distortions.To put it succinctly ,he is contending that this trend is and will continue to undermine the country’s economic efficiency.In addition, Stiglitz affirms, that there is a lack of government investments in infrastructure, education and technology to uphold a successful modern economy.In short, the governments inadequacy of expenditures in these areas has lead to a suffering nation and economy that will only continue to suffer. In short, I conclude that the most persuasive assertion made is that of shrinking opportunity. Talented people with undistorted perspectives are being wasted due to lack of opportunity,opportunity that is stripped away by none other than the top 1%. Moreover, if ee are not using these assets in the most productive way we can our economy will continue to retrogress.
LikeLike
In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz argues that there is a growing split in the income equality in America and the wealthiest one percent controls the government and the economy. Stiglitz says “But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way.” He means that the top one percent have the money and the power to control government tax policies to keep the wealthy from losing their money. while the lower people have to struggle more than they do. Stiglitz also argues that there is less opportunity for the poor to make money which also means the difference in incomes will continue to rise.
LikeLike
Vanity Fair’s Joseph Stiglitz asserts that the U.S. economy will likely do poorly in the long run given the present trends and conditions in “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” The current course of the economy is affected by three main conditions according to the article; the fact that 1% of the population controls 40% of the nation’s wealth, pay inequality, and the lack of opportunity in the job market. I find the columnist’s belief that a one hundredth of the nation’s population bridle over a third of the nation’s wealth has the biggest impact on the course of the nation’s economy. If the most powerfully wealthy people in the nation are not willing “to spend money on the common needs.” As a result, the country can suffer economically because it is missing out on taxes and voluntary donations. Later on in Stiglitz’s article, he discusses what has happened to the rich in societies similar to ours; the common people rise up out of rage and rebel against the wealthy, causing them to lose their fortunes. I concur with Joseph Stiglitz when he says that the nation’s economy will likely do poorly in the long run given it’s current tendencies and with the assertions he provides to prove his point.
LikeLike
In “Of The 1%, By The 1%, For The 1%”, John Stiglitz writes about who the 1% of our population is. The 1% is the richest and wealthiest of America. To put it frankly, the top 1% is the basis of power in America. Indeed, they have manipulative power over government, and enough money to care only for themselves. Stiglitz points out other slowly our economy has been declining, and it can only get worse at this rate. In short, the separation between the wealthy and the poor has grown so much, America has become one of the most unequal countries, financially. America, originally being the land of equal opportunity, has become the land of unequal opportunity. Although Stiglitz doesn’t make any suggestions for how to diminish the inequality between citizens, he does make some valid points regarding why the wealthy should care. That top 1% might argue that they are without the need of the government, for they can buy their own home, education, etc. I would argue, and Stiglitz would agree, that this is not in fact true. Specifically, without the wealthy, the rest of Americans lose opportunities to make them more successful. Yes, the wealthy need the government for things like national protection and laws, but in a sense the rest of the 99% need them as well. If the wealthy get more wealthy, the poor get more poor. To take a case in point, we lose special, talented people because they are without the opportunities to make themselves known or even better. In conclusion, I would say that although as the 1% get more powerful and the rest of us get weaker, we need the 1% to recognize us “little people” and work together to make a more powerful, united nation.
LikeLike
Joseph Stiglitz speaks of the economy and how the only 1% of our American population that is rich is affecting the 99% that isn’t in his article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”. He brings up the ideas that those not part of the 1% have shrinking working opportunities, less efficiency with the economy, and less funding or cutbacks for establishments needed for our daily lives. The idea that sticks out to me most from this article is the loss of funding for these certain establishments. Ultimately what is being shown here is that the casual commodities for the rich are more important than strong units in our way of life. After all, the money that goes into taking care of Donald Trump’s luxurious hair is more important than funding arts and music programs in school. To make matters worse, I emphasize again that it is only 1% of the population of America that is determining what is funded and what isn’t, and they aren’t even doing it directly! It is happening purely because these people are rich and indirectly taking America’s money from the other 99% of the population. To summarize, the rich are creating lives for the other American’s that not only have less opportunity and money, but less funding towards programs that could create a human with the mental capability to fix our country. It is with these ideas that I leave you with a question. Which would you choose: Donald Trump’s hair, or a better and brighter country?
LikeLike
After all it is no question that people with a higher education will tend to go on and get well paying jobs. To put it another way, people with less of an education are stuck at the bottom of our economy with no way to rise up. They are being pushed further and further down by the gap that is continuing to be created between the wealthy and the poor. The rich people think and act as though they are above everybody else and don’t put as much thought and care into the city and well-being of others. This means that even though the rich have all this money, they will invest it back in themselves, not back into the city and government so that it can benefit the less wealthy people, the poor. Indeed this also forms a greater gap in our economy. It will continue to grow if the people with lower paying, yet well needed jobs don’t get some more recognition.
LikeLike
In discussions of economic inequality in the United States, one controversial issue has been the split in the income inequality and how the top wealthiest one percent controls the government and economy. On the one hand, Joseph E. Stiglitz argues that the growing income inequality will only continue to make it harder for the poor to get opportunities to become wealthy. On the other hand, Stiglitz contends that the top one percent have the money and the power to control government tax policies to keep the wealthy from losing their money. Others even maintain that the top one percent play major roles in electing government officials, and so government officials will please the wealthy by continuing to lower their taxes. My own view, is that government has complete control over everything. It doesn’t matter whether you are poor, middle-class, or wealthy; either way the government is going to collect taxes from you and control our system of economic income.
LikeLike
It’s no question that the gap between our upper and middle class is growing larger year by year. According to Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself.” I agree with this statement and that ultimately, the richest part of our upper class has become so rich that no tax even puts a dent in their bank accounts. After all, they are so rich that they don’t even need to depend on the government, because they can pay for anything they need by themselves. While on the one hand I do agree with the obvious fact that our economical classes are distancing, I do not agree with Stiglitz’s statement that it is becoming harder and harder for people in this country to become successful and that all odds are against us. No matter where you start off, whether you start as a middle class boy or low class girl, if you challenge yourself in school, surround yourself with good people, and work your butt off you will succeed. There are so many opportunities in our country for people who will work for them and want them. Consequently, if people in our country are convinced that they will not succeed and can not become successful and/or rich, then they simply will not. It might sound cliché, but what will help close the growing gap between the upper and middle class is hard work and dedication.
LikeLike
In his article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, Joseph Stiglitz discusses the issues of inequality regarding America’s economy. He begins by saying the 1% of the people who take about a quarter of the nation’s income will soon come to regret the way they act now. The majority of the wealthy don’t think about the 99% of us that have to worry about money issues everyday. They want to stay on top and will do anything to stay there. The more time passes by, the less empathetic they become to the rest of us. The amount of jobs are decreasing and the economic inequality is only getting bigger. There are other countries in the world with less of an economic inequality than us who’ve toppled their governments. What does this say about America’s future if we don’t change how things are? Stiglitz mentions his concern of this multiple times in the article. The wealthy are continuing to gain power, in turn gaining more money, while the rest of us are losing more and more opportunities and money. A study even shows that youth unemployment is around 20% and conditions aren’t getting any better with the wealthy only thinking about themselves. It’s time for America to begin to understand the huge impact of economic inequality, and do something about it before a bad situation turns worse.
LikeLike
In the article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, Stiglitz’s main view point is the change in today’s economy and the inequality growing more and more each day in America. America is supposed to be a country of opportunities and advantages. However, America is turning into the exact opposite of that. Such injustice for Americans in the middle class is what’s making America less of an opportunity state and more of an inequality state. The top 1% has the most advantages in America because their incomes keep rising instead of falling. Thus the middle class income will keep falling instead of rising because “…America has allowed inequality to grow.” In other words, the growth of inequality will keep increasing for many Americans except for the 1%. To sum up the discussion of today’s economy and the increase of inequality, as a united nation, Americans in the 1% should support other Americans in the need of benefit so that we can come together again as a state of opportunity instead of a state in despair and disappointment.
LikeLike
The people in the upper 1% are mostly in politics. It is true that while their incomes increase, the middle classes and the lower classes’ income decrease, but we, in the middle class and the lower class keep on voting for the people in the upper class just because they say they will change how things work, but obviously just want the history to keep repeating itself, therefore the same things will keep on happening if we don’t change who we give the power to.
LikeLike
There is no question that the economic gap between the middle and upper class is growing, as Stiglitz’s stresses in his article. I understand that this is happening, but I don’t agree with his reasons as to why it is happening. Stiglitz’s shames the upper class saying they don’t have it nearly as hard as the middle class, maybe they don’t, but that doesn’t mean the upper class doesn’t work hard. People in the upper class all worked tremendously to get to where they are today. They deserve their incomes. I’m not saying people in other classes don’t work hard, but maybe of they just went for that extra mile they could financially be better off. However I do realize that the economy is tough now and finding a job is no easy task, but maybe if people just went out of their comfort zones to find a job it wouldn’t be all that bad. As for the tax issue I do agree with Stiglitz’s that the upper class should pay more taxes, it is only fair. However they should not pay so much more to the point where they lose their hard earned money, just enough to put back economical balance. All in all income seems to be based off of hard work in America, by simply working hard everyone can benefit.
LikeLike
It has become a common scene in today’s society of the 1% of the population controlling mostly all of the economy. More money means more power and in this scenario it seems true. Stiglitz address in his article that gap between the middle class and upper class has increased and this results in more power and money for the upper 1%. It is often thought that the upper class never go through any troubles and control the economy. I believe that it is true that they do control the economy but at the same time it could be beneficial. Not every billionaire or millionaire became rich through some selfish scheme, but most started from the middle or even the lower class. They went through tremendous amount of work to get where they are and some even still live a simple lifestyle and not a lavish one. The think Stiglitz is mistaken because he overlooks the immense work it take to get where they are. Although I believe that hard work should be admired, I think that it should’t hurt the lower classes as well. I agree that the upper class should pay more taxes and give back to the government in order for to help the lower classes. The gap is becoming larger and I feel that it is bad for our economy but in order to help our economy, we must stop shamming the upper class and instead receive more assistance from them like loans to start up a small business or funds to help a single mother get back on her feet after sending her children to college. If steps like these are taken, slowly the gap will start to become smaller and there will be more successful people from the lower classes.
LikeLike
In this article Stiglitz argues that the top 1% control our economy, an argument that he backs up with facts. They make 25% of the total income per year, and own 40% of the total wealth in the United states. He also claims that the income for normal Americans has gone down over the past 10 years, while it has gone up for the wealthy. This in my opinion is a result of the upper class working very hard to get where they are. The middle class definitely works hard too, but it isnt a cakewalk to be in the upper class. Some people really aren’t given the same opportunities as others, but when those opportunities are present the ones in the upper class are usually the ones who took advantage. This article seems to make out the upper class as the bad guy, maybe they should be helping out the lower classes more. In reality the ones in the upper class probably aren’t thinking about the other classes, when they really should be. The upper class is somewhat dependent on the labor intensive jobs of the lower class. These hard jobs are very important, and in some circumstances they could maybe pay a little higher.
LikeLike
In the article Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%, Stiglitz states the unfair balance between two proportions of the population. In other words, 1% control almost all of the wealth while the 99% are left hanging. These two proportions of the population go hand and hand in our nation’s economic growth, but the 99% never have the chance to grow their own wealth as the 1% so easily did. In the past, the wealthiest had the mind to give back to the community that made them rich. An example includes Carnegie donating to build public libraries. Now most of the wealthiest give back to fill their own agendas.
LikeLike
Mr.Steglitz has a great deal to say about the socioeconomic landscape we live in today, as he is markedly upset about the current situation in the United States. In his article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, he describes a growing issue between the richest and poorest members of our country, as well as those who are stuck in the middle, with statistically declining incomes. Although he isn’t perfectly clear in suggesting what solutions could be offered to solve the problems we are beginning to see develop, he does point out the treatable causes of these things–the refusal of the richest 1% of our country to realize how their self-imposed self-alienation from the rest of our social classes could have a great negative impact on our economy. In other words, Mr.Steglitz submits that the problems America will very soon be facing are the fault of the richest citizens and there inability to preemptively recognize what damage their lifestyles could have on the U.S. as a whole.
LikeLike
Stiglitz writes about wealth in America in his article, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.” He comments on the increased separation between social classes in America. He argues that the wealthy 1% run America in regards to politics, taxes, and the government. Although several other countries facing the same hardship, America seems to be the only country where the problem is getting worse and not better. To put it bluntly, the people of the middle and lower classes have no chance in success in our society. Since the gap keeps widening, the likelihood of you and your family moving up the ladder is substantially lower. To grow up with a better paying job you need to go to college. To go to college you need to succeed in high school and have the money. To have the money you need to work. To succeed in high school you need to have time, money, and help. Not everyone can obtain these perfect conditions so their chances at college are diminished which means their chances at getting a higher paying job are also diminished. I argue, along with Stiglitz, that a change needs to occur in order to stop the separation between classes and take all the power and wealth away from just the 1%. Americans deserve a better shot at a good, happy life than what they are presented with at this time. Their odds shouldn’t be 100 to 1. The American Dream shouldn’t just be of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.
LikeLike
In this topic about economic wealth it states that the rich are too rich and the poor are struggling. In today’s world our some of this country’s lower class is living off of the taxes that we pay. While on the other hand , our middle class are in stable jobs trying to pay off bills and afford the daily necessities. Many Millionaires donate to charities and others spend it on big houses and fancy clothes. While the upper class is “living the life” many families and people are “struggling to find a full time job.” As a result we have people in our country. We do not have enough jobs for every person who wants one. Others may look at our economic issue and push it to the side. On the contrary there are many reasons as to why this is such a big topic. In conclusion if america continues to have the financial issues that it has today, our families and our communities will not do well in the long run.
LikeLike
I feel like Stiglits is writing from pure assumption. There isn’t really any hard evidence on what he is saying. For instance he talks about what the 1% want and do as if he’s been there and seen what they think. I think those people aren’t just some babbling idiots sitting at the top. I don’t think that being part of the 1% is as easy as it sounds. These people most likely have worked really hard to achieve this kind of success. Although Stiglits is right about how the income gap is increasing. And i don’t think there is a way to stop it. Only time will tell. Regardless the 1% probably know what they’re doing since they are the 1%.
LikeLike
As unemployment rates have increased in past several years people are beginning to question the benefits of actually going to college and enduring the years of debt afterwards. Gillian White argues for a higher level of education, stating the 80% of people who get a degree earn more money than people who only have their high school diploma. Although the price of college is overbearingly high evidence shows that earnings of college graduates compensates for the debt acquired. Personally, I agree with White. College has always been in the plan for me and although the loans are increasingly high I couldn’t imagine another source of income for my future. Ultimately, then, the goal of this article is to inform people of the benefits of getting a college degree while understanding the burden of loans debt.
LikeLike
Stiglitz argues that the top 1% are an elite few that have control of 40% of the Nation’s wealth at the moment, and that they feel it should be that way. They are capable of controlling which political figures are elected and the taxes that they receive. Likewise, as the 1% gain more and more money they grow more powerful. Thus the general public’s opportunity to rise up the social ladder is slowly disappearing. Although Stiglitz makes a valid point, he doesn’t give us a solution for this problem. Is there a solution, or are we stuck with it?
LikeLike
I say the American Dream for some might be to be part of that 1% that gets nearly a quarter of the nation’s income. After all, most people’s dreams are to have so much money to spend on themselves. As Stiglitz argues that America should be where we have many choices (to do things willingly and freely) and should be care-free (of worrying) , we’re really not. As a result, most of us are in the lower class where we, ourselves, and/or even our parents, worry for our own expenses. Jobs nowadays don’t offer what one might deserve no matter how much they try. Therefor, many of us are owing money or are behind in debt. Consequently, we’re falling backwards on the society class ladder of money. In the same way, I agree with Stiglitz that the 1% shouldn’t have the power to all the money they get. How about “Of the 1%, By the 1%”, not for the 1%, but for us?
LikeLike
In today’s economy, people can see the lack of fairness coming from the power of the 1%. In other words, Americans are hurt due to the fact that a great amount of economic power is given to a select few of the total population. Our nation contains an economy that is increasingly getting worse as the years go on, even though we have these few wealthy and powerful people. Naturally, I agree with Stiglitz when he explains the bias’ that are shrinking opportunities since our society cannot prosper with such a large division of wealth. This division destroys the concept of unity which is a large part of our nation. In conclusion, I agree that the issue at hand is that the 1% of wealthy people do not understand what the other 99% has to go through in order to provide for themselves and their families.
LikeLike
In today’s economy, people can see the lack of fairness coming from the power of the 1%. In other words, Americans are hurt due to the fact that a great amount of economic power is given to a select few of the total population. Our nation contains an economy that is increasingly getting worse as the years go on, even though we have these few wealthy and powerful people. Naturally, I agree with Stiglitz when he explains the bias’ that are shrinking opportunities since our society cannot prosper with such a large division of wealth. This division destroys the concept of unity which is a large part of our nation. In conclusion, I agree that the issue at hand is that the 1% of wealthy people do not understand what the other 99% has to go through in order to provide for themselves and their families.
LikeLike
In “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”, Stiglitz insists we can no longer allow the top 1% to control so much of our nation’s income. He started off his argument with a fact that makes a great impact on the audience: 1% of citizens are making 25% of the income of the U.S. and also own 40% of the country’s wealth. These values are so contrasting, that the reader simply cannot ignore them. They also drive the author’s point of just how extremely unevenly distributed the wealth is in America; and this gap is only growing greater. The middle class is watching its income get smaller and smaller, while the upper class continues to prosper. How far will this go-how big will the gap become? And what are the consequences?
LikeLike
Stiglitz states in his article that the top 1% of the country have far too much power and wealth currently when compared to the general population, and that this will continue to grow and cause issues in the future US economy. This growing inequality causes a loss of opportunity for nearly everyone, and forces people to choose jobs that are less productive to society if they wish to have any significant amount of wealth. His point is visible to anyone who looks at the current situation in the U.S. The rich have massive influence over the government, and one of the more noticeable ways they exert this influence is in tax breaks and kickbacks for the rich and their interests, while they simultaneously campaign to remove even the smallest social welfare programs that help the very poorest of society, an unfair exchange in anyone’s eyes. Our point of view agrees with that of Colin Bunker, and he makes other well thought out points about the ways that the rich influence the government.
LikeLike
In today’s economy the lack of fairness is coming from the power of the 1%. In other words, Americans are hurt due to the fact that a great amount of economic power is given to a select few of the total population. Our nation contains an economy that is increasingly getting worse as the years go on. even though we have these few wealthy and powerful people, Naturally, I agree with Stiglitz when he explains the rich get richer and that shrinking opportunities happen which cause our society to not prosper with such a large division of wealth. This division destroys the concept of unity which is a large part of our nation.I agree that the issue is at hand and that the 1% of wealthy people do not understand what the other 99% has to go through in order to provide for themselves and their families. In a reality where the government has to attract people to work for them there wouldn’t be a 1% but the wealth and creation of our economy would be split up evenly depending on how hard you work and help give you endless opportunities of trying to strike it rich.
LikeLike
The three reasons that stiglitz gives in regards to why america will continue to do poorly are shrinking opportunity, the distortions in the economy undermine efficiency, and collective action. The point I found most persuasive is his section on collective action. America has suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure. I’ve noticed how roads have been uneven when driving and how long it has taken the government to fix these issues. I feel that the government invest a lot of their money in technology and research rather than the care of this country. I’ve seen advertisements on how to make the world greener, but the only effective thing the government has contributed is recycling bins. Is that really enough to sustain a healthy and growing economy, or is it just a stand by for all the other things they want to invest in?
LikeLike
I disagree with Pablos statement being that this article is nonsense. There is a such thing as a one percent in this economy. They are the wealthiest of all. I believe that this article provides information that all should be aware of. He gives his opinion, as well as facts to support his argument. It’s a really good article, nonsense is not a word to describe it.
LikeLike
in this article he states than America is ran by the wealthiest people. in my opinion, it shouldn’t be ran by the rich, it should be ran by all. It should be a fair economy and hard working people. Not everyone lives the American dream, but the ones who work for it should and the ones who don’t wont get it. But overall it need equality.
LikeLike
I disagree with this article. The reason the poor are poor is because it was their choice at one point to either do good in life, or do bad. The rich people didn’t just sit around and become rich. They had to work hard and be smart and wise to make money. Also the 1% does not control the country, everyone can vote so everyone has equal say into what goes on. The rich pay taxes and the poor don’t, I don’t see how thats fair, the poor also can be on welfare and get free healthcare, so it encourages them to just be lazy and not work.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say this article is argumentative at all at this point. Maybe back when it was originally written it could be perceived as an argument but now it is actually more an informative statement of facts. The presidential candidates are a prime example. One of the things I have heard that people like about Donald Trump is that he isn’t in anyone’s pocket because his own pockets are quite deep. He is the one percent and his agenda has nothing in common with the other candidates. Maybe he read this article and is choosing to learn from history (hopefully). I would also say this article is no longer persuasive either, not in this day and age. The rift between the rich and poor is center stage and everyone is watching because of the upcoming elections. A few posts, and in the article itself, repeating history is mentioned, and how it’s usually a bad thing. I grew up thinking that the USA was unique in a lot of ways, maybe we won’t need to make the same mistakes as so many other countries have before us. I think an economic and government melt down in the states would actually make for a pretty bad day for the rest of the world too. I feel like I need anot economic history lesson to provide a solution to the problems brought to light in this article.
LikeLike
The article by Joseph Stiglitz discusses the nature of inequality that Americans and not just about to experience but are already in it. Based on the author’s argument, the reason for the disparity has been as a result of the growing interest in the selected few he all the 1 per cent, who have made it trend for people to prefer to be associated with the percentage at the expense of the vast majority. Stiglitz discusses that the trend is likely to make the economy of the nation to stagnate as economists outlining the magnitude of the imbalance. It is stated that just as it has been in the media about people protesting about inequality in other countries, the Americans might just be in the process too with increasing youth unemployment.
The author uses an indirect but a firm style in voicing his opinion about the situation where the few are controlling the economy at the expense of the other citizens. He however acknowledges that the United States has not been affected as other countries such as Libya and Syria to alert the reader about the impending problem. He mainly uses appeal to get the reader’s attention on the subject especially when he states that the rate is growing so badly and because of the position of the U.S. in the perception of the world, the image would be demeaning. I agree with this perception because it is also a major part for why he wrote the article because if America is affected, it would mean that the inequality has gone global. Based on the usage of appeals stated above, it is prudent to conclude that the author only intends to use a persuasive approach to pass the message.
LikeLike
Joseph Stiglitz states that top 1% of the population takes 25% of the nation’s income, owns 40% of the wealth with 18% growth in income over the last decade. He insists “the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe”. Rich can afford good homes, good schools, higher education and health care on their own and hence they have no incentive in investing for the common good of rest of 99% of the population. Isn’ t it how capitalism works? Should we be asking federal government not to show favoritism i terms of tax cuts and other incentives for rich to get richer? I do not want to be pessimistic, but, I feel American dream is too far or impossible for most of the 99%.
LikeLike
This article, while very interesting, was a very frustrating article to read. It speaks the truth on a lot of different points. It’s becoming more and more difficult to make a living off of anything less than a bachelor’s degree. That seems to be the new high school diploma. When more time is spent looking into jobs that will make the most money, rather than the jobs that are beneficial to the greater good of man, it creates a shift in our society. I tend to agree that it’s not a good one. It’s not only the upper divisions of education that are seeing changes, even preschools and public grade schools are seeing a change. Parents pay a very high price, and wait sometimes years to enroll their children in a program they hope will benefit them as they continue their education. More and more families are putting up with the costs of taking their children to private or charter schools as the decline in quality of public schools continue. On a day to day basis, these families can afford to spend some extra money, but as this article points out, many are living beyond their means. Having a healthy savings account, investments, a retirement plan, or even owning a home is no longer common. Though some families are dealing with these new costs, other families cannot afford to even dream about these options. These families are forced to raise a generation with a fate worse than their own. This begins the slow decline of the middle class. The rate of pay is not increasing with the demand of life for the middle class.
LikeLike
In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz gives three reasons supporting his statement of inequality. The first reason given by Stiglitz is, “Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible” describing to the reader how their opportunities are decreasing by the increasing gap between rich and poor. In addition, Stiglitz states, “…many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy,” blaming those in control of the monopoly of the inequality we are facing. He wants the reader to understand that while the top 1 percent of society keeps on holding such a power over our monopoly and taxes they will continue to favor the wealthy and not the poor. Lastly he argues, “a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology.” By investing in public services, schooling and applications of scientific knowledge government is opening doors for our economy to become less diverse. He tries to persuade anybody who is interest enough about the problems of inequality going on in the U.S. The difficulties presented by Joseph Stiglitz could be an impediment to fulfill your American Dream, but in my opinion I have seen people with these same difficulties and still become successful.
LikeLike
Today in America people just want money handed to them. The top 1% have earned their money. Through hard work to start a good business, or inherited the money. We all have the opportunity to make money. Most people are too lazy to start a business and run it. What makes America great is that we all have the chance to make money. One of my best friend’s dad was working at R.P. Lumber, and he started an excavating business. Now he has all the money needed to live happy. Now with that being said we know people are going to hate the rich, but I believe everyone has a perfect chance of becoming wealthy.
LikeLike
America was supposed to be the land of opportunities, where everyone, regardless of their social classes, was equal. But it has not been the case for a long time. It is more suited to call America the land of opportunities for the wealthy. The unequal distribution of income and wealth takes away the equal opportunity that we all once thought we had. While the government is focused on supporting the rich, it loses the ability to support all of the population of US. It appears that American dream has turned into a wealthy class dream and middle/lower class nightmare.
Stiglitz believes “An economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul.” The government should invest in projects that have the potential to improve the life of our population as a whole. These investments should be focused on closing the income gaps between wealthy and poor.
The top 1%, as the norm for a capitalist country, would like to gain more wealth regardless of its consequences. As a result of top 1% greed, the poor and middle class, have suffered greatly.
In this passage, Stiglitz tries convince the readers that “American Dream” is dead. When people have no control over their life, and only know struggle to survive, while wealth is the first factor in determining one’s future, and talent and effort come next, we sure can assume that American Dream is dead.
LikeLike
The American dream today is not the same one that was around when the idea was penned. Now it serves as a misnomer for a concept that suffers from a crisis of identity as we, the followers and believers of this idea, struggle to remain a “nation of the people, by the people, and for the people” as our forefathers has so graciously called us. In analyzing our surrounding, our crisis seems to originate from a disappearing standard of economic and social equality in America. Now, the rich are our ruling class, and seek to keep the “little guy” at a disadvantage just as the monarchy of Britain once did. Stieglitz, our author, himself pointed out the statistics of how in America, “the top 1% controls 40% of the wealth in America” and a “quarter of [its] income.” Even more disturbing is the fact as Stiglitz pointed out that a poor person or middle class person has more chance of making it in Europe than in America, the very place that when our nation was founded, we had tried to differ from in nature. In fact, he implies that in regards to fiscal equality we rank in the low tier. The ironic part of it all is that the only ones who can stop this large amount of inequality are the rich. In order to solve the issue, the government would have to implement a different organization system, one that would not be tainted by the will of the rich, as many of our organizations are now.
LikeLike
In “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by Joseph E. Stiglitz he writes about how in the long run the economy cannot continue the way it has been. He gives three very important reason as to why that is the case. His first reason is that with a decreasing economy we are less like to employee individuals that might make a real difference in productivity. He follows up by saying that many younger people choose to rather go in a more lucrative career, then something that they have a passion for. Finally, Stiglitz states that there needs to be more government action in the matter; and that America needs to invest in its own future. I believe that Stiglitz three reason is the most important. Without government support nothing we do will stick, with the one percent holding all the power there is nothing we can do to stop them on our own. They need to start putting money in place that will help the economy. The best way to do that is to create the need of more jobs, more jobs will aid in find employees of all skill levels. Only then will we truly have a good future where people can find good jobs that both pay well and have great benefits. Perhaps then we can see the return of the much need middle class.
I believe that Stiglitz argument is that we need to wake up as a nation and realize what is going on and fight back. We have all seen what is occurring within our nation, it is no surprise what is happening. It is sad that we have just stopped caring and allowed the one percent to do what they want and answer to know one. All we are doing in hurting ourselves, if we don’t start to make changes then it will just get worse until we are all left with nothing. We have to start to holding our government accountable for all their actions. If not thing will only get worse soon we will come to the point where everything breaks, that is something that we can never come back from. We need the middle class to come back only then will things start to get better; look how much we have suffered without a strong middle class. Hopefully people listen to what individuals like Stiglitz say before it’s too late.
LikeLike
The 1 percent. Well what can I say this is something that I had read about couple of months ago and it’s just crazy to me how that one percent is receiving most wealthy and it continuously keeps growing as the years go by. Joseph Stiglitz says, and it is something that is know that the one percent is trying to keep us from moving up, they only want their people and that it it. In American an interesting point brought up was that many unions were removed from many corporate businesses which makes sense because what do unions do they help our people to get what they want in their work place. For example Walmart they don’t have a union they are not even aloud to talk about a union or they can risk their job. America is like walking around a big high school you have that small percent of wealthy popular people that won’t let anyone be a part of their group you have the middle kids that are quiet sitting out on the grass then you have the big percentage of low income kids that no one ever notices. Stiglitz is trying to persuade the middle and low class, he does not offer any solution to the problem, in these types of situation I don’t believe there is a solution. There is no solution because it’s the big people that are running us. I have found this summary very persuasive, it gives many details and shows how society has changed over the past years.
LikeLike
In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%,” Stiglitz explains how the United States economy will most likely do poorly in the future for three main reasons. The first is that the 1% show no interest in donating to government projects like building or renovating roads, bridges, airports, etc. This is because they already have everything they need so they’re alienated from the lower classes which makes them have less sympathy and will to help society. Another reason is because the opportunity is shrinking as the rich become more rich and the poor become more poor. The final reason he discusses is because of the monopoly power and the special treatment on taxes that the 1% have. It feeds into the issue and makes it become more of a problem. I find the one about the 1% not helping to build and renovate societies infrastructure the most persuasive. This is because they are alienated and they most likely don’t see those buildings that need work, or don’t care enough about them because they don’t need to when they already have everything they need. I agree with this because when they aren’t constantly seeing how others live, they have no sense of sympathy for everyday people which creates a bigger gap between them.
Stiglitz’s argument is that the 1% shouldn’t control as much of the wealth and it should be more equally distributed among the other classes. I believe his audience is everyday people so they realize something needs to change and become passionate enough on the subject to have the motivation to make things change. This is a useful and informative to everyday people who could have the power to shrink the gap between the 1% and everyone else.
LikeLike