Skip to main content

Home/ Politics & Economy in the US/ Group items tagged org

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Jessica Olsen

U.S. Income Distribution: Just How Unequal? | Inequality.org - 0 views

  • he Gini coefficient was first defined in a 1912 paper by the Italian economist Corrado Gini (1884-1965). The coefficient measures the degree the degree of concentration in a country’s income distribution. Social statisticians today use many different inequality measures, but none more than the Gini coefficient.
  • The Gini coefficient amounts to a kind of percentage and can run from 0 to 100. A Gini of 0 represents 0 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution. In a country with a Gini coefficient of 0, everyone receives exactly the same income
  • A Gini coefficient of 100 represents 100 percent concentration in a country’s income distribution. In a country with a Gini of 100, one person receives all of the country’s income. Everyone else gets nothing.
  • ...3 more annotations...
  • A Gini of 50 could mean that half the people share all of the income while the other half get nothing. In other words, a country that literally consisted of haves and have-nots in a 50-50 split would have a Gini coefficient of 50.
  • According to the Census Bureau, the official Gini coefficient for the United States was 46.9 in 2010, the most recent year with data available. This is way up from the all-time low of 38.6 set in 1968.
  • A major gap in the measurement of income inequality is the exclusion of capital gains, profits made on increases in the value of investments. Capital gains are excluded for purely practical reasons. The Census doesn’t ask about them, so they can’t be included in inequality statistics.
Jessica Olsen

The Richest 1% Have Captured America's Wealth -- What's It Going to Take to Get It Back... - 0 views

  • February 16, 2010  |       Like this article?Join our email list:Stay up to date with the latest headlines via email.       if (typeof window.GA_googleFillSlotWithSize == 'function') { GA_googleFillSlotWithSize('ca-pub-5155643920455169', 'AlterNet_Economy_300', 300, 250); }   This is Part II of David DeGraw's report, "The Economic Elite vs. People of the USA."
Jessica Olsen

taskforcereport.pdf (application/pdf Object) - 0 views

Jessica Olsen

Capitalism: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty - 0 views

  • Clearly, these assumptions were at odds with both common sense and the reality of market conditions. Under real competition, which is what capitalism delivered, companies are rivals for sales and profits. This rivalry leads them to innovate in product design and performance, to introduce cost-cutting technology, and to use packaging to make products more attractive or convenient for customers. Unbridled rivalry encourages companies to offer assurances of security to imperfectly informed consumers, by means such as money-back guarantees or product warranties and by building customer loyalty through investing in their brand names and reputations (see advertising, brand names, and consumer protection).
  • . Neither rivalry nor product differentiation occurs under perfect competition, but they happen constantly under real flesh-and-blood capitalism.
  • Small-scale producers denounced these innovators as “robber barons,” accused them of monopolistic practices, and appealed to Congress for relief from relentless competition. Beginning with the Sherman Act (1890), Congress enacted antitrust laws that were often used to suppress cost cutting and price slashing, based on acceptance of the idea that an economy of numerous small-scale firms was superior to one dominated by a few large, highly efficient companies operating in national markets (see antitrust).
  • ...5 more annotations...
  • Instead, a capitalist society supplies new gadgets, appliances, and luxuries that arouse envy in those who cannot afford them and that inspire a ceaseless obsession with securing more among those who already own too much.
  • He argues that low taxes are harmful to the poor because they give government inadequate revenue to provide essential services to the poor. Higher taxes really would not harm the well-to-do, he says, because money and material possessions are subject to diminishing marginal utility. If such claims have a familiar ring, it is because Galbraith made the same points fifty years ago
  • . “Is it really your money?” Singer asks, citing economist Herbert Simon’s estimate that a flat income tax of 90 percent would be reasonable because individuals derive most of their income from the “social capital” provided by technology and by protections such as patents and copyrights, and by the physical security afforded by police, courts, and armies rather than from anything they personally do. If the “fruits of capitalism” are merely a gift of government, it is an argument that proves too much. By the same logic, individuals might be enslaved if they were not protected by government, so conscription (servitude for a brief period) would be entirely unobjectionable, as would the seizure of privately owned land to turn it over to new owners if their uses would yield higher tax revenues—exactly the basis of a 2005 Supreme Court ruling on “eminent domain.”
  • In fact, giant corporations are fully consistent with capitalism, which does not imply any particular configuration of firms in terms of size or legal form. They attract capital from thousands (sometimes millions) of investors who are strangers to each other and who entrust their savings to the managerial expertise of others in exchange for a share of the resulting profit
  • Today, the United States, once the citadel of capitalism, is a “mixed economy” in which government bestows favors and imposes restrictions with no clear or consistent principles in mind. As the formerly communist countries of Eastern Europe struggle to embrace free-market ideas and institutions, they can learn from the American (and British) experience about not only the benefits that flowed from economic individualism, but also the burden of regulations that became impossible to repeal and trade barriers that were hard to dismantle. If the history of capitalism proves one thing, it is that the process of competition does not stop at national borders. As long as individuals anywhere perceive a potential for profits, they will amass the capital, produce the product, and circumvent the cultural and political barriers that interfere with their objectives.
Jessica Olsen

millions_billions.pdf (application/pdf Object) - 0 views

  •  
    Wealthy avoiding estate tax. Accounts of events in the policies in the government made to shelter the rich's money. List of Super-Wealthy Families and their activities.
Jessica Olsen

AmpedStatus - Knowledge Is Power - 0 views

  • t’s time to Occupy Democracy
  • Through a system of legalized bribery — campaign finance, lobbying and the revolving door between Washington and the most powerful global corporations — our government has devolved into a rigged system of exploitation.
  • we will focus our energy on striking at the root of evil by ending the system of political bribery that holds our future hostage.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • The first is a Public Service Announcement campaign to pump the message out to the masses. Here’s the first 30-second spot to come out of the new 99% Get Money Out campaign:
  • The second effort is a campaign that I am currently focusing my time on, and is without a doubt the most ambitious project I have ever been part of. The #MoneyOutPack is a collaborative community and social network dedicated to, you guessed it, getting money out of politics and combating government corruption. The campaign and website are still in development, but it is a highly participatory citizen empowered movement driven by a decentralized and distributed network of power, effectively maximizing and riding the wave of communication technology that the internet has created for new movements of change to thrive.
  •  
    The 99% movement, article about non-profit activities that are political. Wall-Street is under attack by this group who wants to change the hands that all the money is in.
Jessica Olsen

Another Argument For Buffett Rule: Fairness Among The 400 Richest - Forbes - 0 views

  •  According to that brief, over the last 50 years, the average effective tax rate for the top 0.1% (including both income and payroll taxes) has fallen from 51% to 26%, while the middle quintile’s average burden has risen slightly from 14% to 16%.
  • t is unclear, however, if the fairness issue is the political winner the White House believes it to be.  According to a new poll of independent voters in swing states commissioned by Third Way, a centrist Democratic group, an “opportunity” theme resonates with these voters more than a “fairness” argument does. When given a direct choice in the poll, 51% preferred a candidate who emphasizes “an economy based on opportunity” while only 43% opted for one who pushes “an economy based on fairness.” The report notes: “Swing Indepen
1 - 14 of 14
Showing 20 items per page