Essay on The Price of Inequality by Joseph E. Stiglitz

Modern Americans always appeal for freedom, as it is stated in the national pledge that the U.S. is “one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. Many civilians are chasing freedom for freedom, yet most of them need constraints and guides. In “Rent Seeking and the Marking of an Unequal Society”, Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the inequality created by monopolistic businessmen and suggests that American government need to regulate the economy and trading system. He defines some of those monopolists as rent-seekers who do not create new profits into the society, but take advantage over others to acquire wealth. Tim Wu, the author of “Father and Son”, talks about the monopolies within information world – the competition between Apple and Google. Apple first “opened” personal computing to individuals under the inspiration of Steve Woznaik, but turned into an exclusive company when Steve Jobs introduced “closed” Macintosh. Then Jobs consolidated this enclosure through iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Google, as the “son” who focuses on Web directing, keeps the openness of Internet information by building a “searching” web system. However, Google does not open its searching engine program to the public. Apple and Google are creators and rent-seekers of information world at the same time, because they do not really produce entirely new technology. Instead, they build their companies on the premise of the previous innovations and improve these innovations by adding

In the United States, high standard of living is not equally shared with in the Americans. The 1970s and 1990s was period where economic inequality began to grow. Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley has been doing a research for the U.S. income inequality. He states that there has been an increase since the 1970s, and has reached levels that have not been seen since 1928. “In 1928, the top 1% of families received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. But the Depression and World War II dramatically reshaped the nation’s income distribution, by 1944 the top 1%’s share was down to 11.3%, while the bottom 90% were receiving 67.5%, levels that would remain more or less constant for the next three decades. But starting in the mid- to late 1970s, the uppermost percent income share began rising dramatically, while that of the bottom 90% started to fall.”(DeSilver) Ever since then, economic inequality continues to increase, especially in the last three decades.

Stiglitz identifies dwindling opportunity, monopoly power and tax treatment, and the investments of the government as the effects from manipulating the economy to exclusively benefit the top 1%. The societal impact becomes clear when the author states that the ultimate price is the “erosion of our sense of identity,” which includes “fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community” because a majority of people realize the importance of these topics related to the success of themselves and their country (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”). The article concludes with the significance of paying attention to common welfare as a “precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being” that the top 1% have a history of failing to grasp before meeting their

In Paul Krugman’s essay, “Confronting Inequality,” he discusses various points about how America has developed into quite the divided country over the years. The United States of America has become unequal in terms of annual income, living standards, education and school districts, politics, and social standards, just to name a few. Several matters of combatting the injustice faced by the nation are also mentioned. All of Krugman’s points revolve around one central question, being “why should we care about high and rising inequality?” (Graff, Birkenstein, Durst 561). I believe inequality truly does raise concerning problems within our society, but it also may be a positive thing for our people. Extreme equality could, in turn, result in a communistic government in which those who work into overdrive earn the same titles as those who do not.

The view that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer has been heard repeatedly in reference to America’s income inequality. Though ironic, it comes as no surprise that America, a continent that easily trumps other countries in terms of wealth would be affected by the issue of poverty at such high levels. While much has said regarding the poverty levels, many economists, educators and scholars feel that the income inequality in America may be the reason why it is difficult to live and maintain a middle class lifestyle or to rise out of poverty into the middle class in the current economic state. With this in mind, the only way America, has a chance of lessening or eliminating poverty altogether is by understanding how it exists.

Wealth inequality in the United States has grown tremendously since 1970. The United States continuously reveals higher rates of inequality as a result of perpetual support for free market capitalism. The high rates of wealth inequality cause the growing financial crisis to persist, lower socio-economic mobility, increase national poverty, and have adverse effects on health and well being.

This first lecture gave us a close look into the unequal share of wealth and the factors that determine the wealth of individuals in the American society. One of the first factors that affect immensely the inequality in America is the obsessiveness of wanting to classify people and make them mark a box for their gender, race and class. Where men and whites have more privileges than any other person and are not only paid higher, but would most likely spend less time in prison for committing the same crime as an African American. The United states is so unequal that the top 1% of the population has 38.1% of the wealth and the bottom 40% which is a little less than half of the people living in America only have 0.2% of the wealth. And as if that statistic alone was not scary enough, we learn in this

In “inequality for all”, a documentary presented and narrated by Robert Reich, Reich discusses what is happening in terms of the distribution of income and wealth in the US, why it is happening, and is it a problem. “Inequality for all” is directed by Jacob Kornbluth, it premiered in 2013, and it runs for 90 minutes. Reich studied at the University of Oxford in during the late 1960’s, where he befriended future president Bill Clinton. Subsequently, they kept in touch, and in 1993, when Clinton was elected president, he reached out to Reich, to be secretary of labor. Reich was in office for the following four years, and today he is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. For about three decades now, Reich announced that out of all developed countries, the US has the most unequal distribution of wealth, and that inequality is getting even greater in the US. In the documentary, the most compelling topics covered by Reich, are the changes that started happening in the late 1970’s, the fact that 42 percent of Americans born into poverty stay poor, and that nowadays, money controls politics.

This “middle-class nation” is struggling to support all those who live in its borders and the misconceptions about wealth are vastly overrated. Furthermore, the idea of wealth and stability is incorrect, and there is a very sharp contrast between the rich and poor in the country. As the richest twenty percent of American hold ninety percent of the total household of the total household wealth in the country, those at the bottom have managed very poorly and suffer to get through the days.

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted

Over the past few decades, the “American Dream” vision has been quickly vanishing as a result of the increasing troubles and weakening of the middle class. It has lost the view of being the most successful and wealthy middle class in the world, while the middle classes in other countries are excelling in earning higher middle and lower class incomes. The issue of the declining wealth of the middle class explains a huge problem in the United States’ future prosperity and well being for the citizens and the country. There are many issues that affect the success of the middle and lower classes, such as structural differences in the economy, culture, and government. The gap between the middle and high classes is increasing specifically. The United States has the image of giving people life and prosperity, but inequality is increasing significantly due to issues in education, decrease in taxation among the upper class, and decrease of middle class power in the democracy, while other ideas and mechanisms can be take from other nations.

One of the social issues concerning power, status, and class in American society today is income inequality. The income gap between the social classes has increased drastically throughout the last few decades, creating a significant gap between the wealthy and the poor. This gap has become so large that the middle class has nearly diminished, creating a social class comprised of the rich and the poor. The significant gap between the two social classes is unhealthy for the economy because it provides too much power in the hands of those with high social status.

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.

In his report, Stiglitz’s clearly shows his disapproval for our current economic rules by discussing numerous economically related areas that he takes issue with. Although this report covers a great deal of topics, the two that I found most relevant to highlight are low taxation on the wealthy and worker suppression. Stiglitz sees the low taxation of the rich as a way for the wealthiest to gain at everyone else’s expense. He argues that not only has lowering tax rates for the rich shrunk the overall tax pool but it has also increasingly placed the burden onto the backs of the lower and middle classes in order to keep important social programs going. Worker suppression is also a trend that Stiglitz takes issue with. He

While most will shrug their shoulder when they hear about income equality, Stiglitz is attempting to bring awareness to educate and inform, thus distributing his article to Vanity Fair. The author mentions, in terms of income equality, how America lags behind any country in Europe and that the country’s closest counterparts are Russia and Iran truly showing how the nation needs to confront its system. The article by in large isn’t controversial, the author presents the problem in an informative manner, this would encourage most people to read it as there is somewhat a lack of bias throughout the