David Ignatius used his WaPo column to express his concern that Australia will opt to align itself more closely with China at the expense of its ties with the United States. In making the argument that other regional powers may provide an offset to China, Ignatius cites Indonesia, which he notes has seen its per capita income increase by 50 percent while China’s economy is slowing.
While Indonesia’s growth has been pretty good over this period, China’s per capita GDP increased by 136 percent over the same period. Even with its slowdown its economy is still growing more rapidly than Indonesia’s. It does not seem likely that Indonesia will gain economic strength relative to China any time soon.
David Ignatius used his WaPo column to express his concern that Australia will opt to align itself more closely with China at the expense of its ties with the United States. In making the argument that other regional powers may provide an offset to China, Ignatius cites Indonesia, which he notes has seen its per capita income increase by 50 percent while China’s economy is slowing.
While Indonesia’s growth has been pretty good over this period, China’s per capita GDP increased by 136 percent over the same period. Even with its slowdown its economy is still growing more rapidly than Indonesia’s. It does not seem likely that Indonesia will gain economic strength relative to China any time soon.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Sebastian Mallaby had a column in the WaPo on the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target. Mallaby argues that the 2.0 percent target is arbitrary and makes the case that moving to a higher inflation target, as recently suggested by San Francisco bank president John Williams, would be desirable.
While Mallaby makes some good points, he also gets some items wrong. First, he notes the Fed’s decision to ignore the growth of the housing bubble in the last decade. He said that they viewed the issue of financial stability as one appropriately left to regulators, not a concern for monetary policy. This is largely right, but it ignores the point that the Fed also has enormous regulatory power, including the responsibility for oversight on the issuance of mortgages.
Alan Greenspan essentially ignored these responsibilities, seeing them as inconsequential.This is largely because he didn’t see bubbles as any big deal, or at least this is what he publicly said in a speech he gave at the American Economics Association convention in January of 2004. In this speech he patted himself on the back for having the good sense to let the stock bubble run its course and then pick up the pieces after it burst. (The next day, Ben Bernanke, who was then a Fed governor, explained why it was necessary to still have a 1.0 percent federal funds rate, more than two years after the recession had officially ended. This suggested it was not easy to pick up the pieces.)
The other area where Mallaby is not exactly on target is in discussing the Fed’s tools. While he is correct in arguing that the Fed has more room to lower the federal funds rate in the context of a higher inflation rate, it is not right that this is its only tool. The Fed could target a long-term interest rate. For example, it could set a target of 1.0 percent for the 10-year Treasury rate for the next year.
This sort of targeting of a longer term rate would provide a more direct boost to growth than lowering the federal funds rate. While it might be desirable to rely on a more known tool for monetary policy, it is wrong to imply that there is nothing more the Fed can do to boost growth.
Sebastian Mallaby had a column in the WaPo on the Fed’s 2.0 percent inflation target. Mallaby argues that the 2.0 percent target is arbitrary and makes the case that moving to a higher inflation target, as recently suggested by San Francisco bank president John Williams, would be desirable.
While Mallaby makes some good points, he also gets some items wrong. First, he notes the Fed’s decision to ignore the growth of the housing bubble in the last decade. He said that they viewed the issue of financial stability as one appropriately left to regulators, not a concern for monetary policy. This is largely right, but it ignores the point that the Fed also has enormous regulatory power, including the responsibility for oversight on the issuance of mortgages.
Alan Greenspan essentially ignored these responsibilities, seeing them as inconsequential.This is largely because he didn’t see bubbles as any big deal, or at least this is what he publicly said in a speech he gave at the American Economics Association convention in January of 2004. In this speech he patted himself on the back for having the good sense to let the stock bubble run its course and then pick up the pieces after it burst. (The next day, Ben Bernanke, who was then a Fed governor, explained why it was necessary to still have a 1.0 percent federal funds rate, more than two years after the recession had officially ended. This suggested it was not easy to pick up the pieces.)
The other area where Mallaby is not exactly on target is in discussing the Fed’s tools. While he is correct in arguing that the Fed has more room to lower the federal funds rate in the context of a higher inflation rate, it is not right that this is its only tool. The Fed could target a long-term interest rate. For example, it could set a target of 1.0 percent for the 10-year Treasury rate for the next year.
This sort of targeting of a longer term rate would provide a more direct boost to growth than lowering the federal funds rate. While it might be desirable to rely on a more known tool for monetary policy, it is wrong to imply that there is nothing more the Fed can do to boost growth.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
One of the highest principles of the Republican Party is destroying Obamacare. It seems that the Republicans in Tennessee may be making a big step in that direction. According to the state’s insurance commissioner, the health care exchange in the state is on the edge of collapse. The number of insurers taking part in the exchange is down to four and the fees they charge are soaring.
That’s great news for people committed to keeping people in Tennessee from being able to get health care insurance. Of course, because of Obamacare, even if the exchange in Tennessee collapses, those who can afford to get insurance on their own will still be able to buy it in the individual market without regard to any pre-existing condition. That means that people with heart disease or cancer survivors will be able to get insurance for the same price as everyone else.
But since the subsidies for insurance are only available for people buying insurance on the exchange, if policies are not offered on the exchange, then Tennessee’s Republicans will have effectively denied the state’s citizens access to the same subsidies that people in every other state can get. Now that is a great accomplishment.
Of course it is not hard to fix the exchanges to make sure there are a substantial number of insurers offering policy. Suppose Tennessee required insurers to offer policies on the exchange as a condition of offering policies outside of the exchange.
The reason the exchanges face problems is that they are attracting a less healthy group of patients. The insurers naturally are happy to insure relatively healthy people — these people are mostly just sending the insurer a check every month. It’s the less healthy people who cause problems, they actually cost the insurers money. So, the state can just require that insurers commit to insuring less healthy people on the exchanges as a condition of insuring the more healthy people on the individual market.
That is one possible solution, there are others, if the point is to enable the people of Tennessee to buy health care insurance. But if the goal is to keep the people of Tennessee from being able to benefit from the Affordable Care Act then it sounds like the Republicans in Tennessee are doing a good job.
I suppose that’s good news for the rest of us, since we will be sending fewer of our tax dollars to Tennessee to pay for health care. I guess it means that people having trouble paying for insurance in Tennessee will have to move to a neighboring state like Kentucky, where the leadership has not been as effective in blocking people from getting health insurance.
One of the highest principles of the Republican Party is destroying Obamacare. It seems that the Republicans in Tennessee may be making a big step in that direction. According to the state’s insurance commissioner, the health care exchange in the state is on the edge of collapse. The number of insurers taking part in the exchange is down to four and the fees they charge are soaring.
That’s great news for people committed to keeping people in Tennessee from being able to get health care insurance. Of course, because of Obamacare, even if the exchange in Tennessee collapses, those who can afford to get insurance on their own will still be able to buy it in the individual market without regard to any pre-existing condition. That means that people with heart disease or cancer survivors will be able to get insurance for the same price as everyone else.
But since the subsidies for insurance are only available for people buying insurance on the exchange, if policies are not offered on the exchange, then Tennessee’s Republicans will have effectively denied the state’s citizens access to the same subsidies that people in every other state can get. Now that is a great accomplishment.
Of course it is not hard to fix the exchanges to make sure there are a substantial number of insurers offering policy. Suppose Tennessee required insurers to offer policies on the exchange as a condition of offering policies outside of the exchange.
The reason the exchanges face problems is that they are attracting a less healthy group of patients. The insurers naturally are happy to insure relatively healthy people — these people are mostly just sending the insurer a check every month. It’s the less healthy people who cause problems, they actually cost the insurers money. So, the state can just require that insurers commit to insuring less healthy people on the exchanges as a condition of insuring the more healthy people on the individual market.
That is one possible solution, there are others, if the point is to enable the people of Tennessee to buy health care insurance. But if the goal is to keep the people of Tennessee from being able to benefit from the Affordable Care Act then it sounds like the Republicans in Tennessee are doing a good job.
I suppose that’s good news for the rest of us, since we will be sending fewer of our tax dollars to Tennessee to pay for health care. I guess it means that people having trouble paying for insurance in Tennessee will have to move to a neighboring state like Kentucky, where the leadership has not been as effective in blocking people from getting health insurance.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Of course the NYT didn’t actually say this, instead it told readers:
“…the White House and congressional Republican leaders mostly agree on the economic benefits of trade.”
Actually, unless the paper has mind readers on staff, its reporters are not in a position to know whether the White House and Republican leaders have the same views on the economic benefits of trade or if they even have views on the economic benefits of trade. It is entirely possible that they are pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) out of a desire to ingratiate themselves with the powerful industries that stand to benefit from the deal. Since the NYT can only know what the White House and Republican leaders say, it would be best if they restrict their reporting to what they know to be true.
The piece also makes a point of noting a study by the footwear industry reporting that the TPP will save the country $4 billion on footwear. It would have been helpful to note that this figure is a projection of savings over the next ten years. The projected savings of $400 million a year comes to 0.0022 percent of GDP or roughly $3 a year per household. According to the study, the TPP will raise the deficit by $1.2 billion as a result of the lower tariffs on imported shoes. The other $2.8 billion in projected savings will come from lower wages and reduced profit in the retail and related industries.
Of course the NYT didn’t actually say this, instead it told readers:
“…the White House and congressional Republican leaders mostly agree on the economic benefits of trade.”
Actually, unless the paper has mind readers on staff, its reporters are not in a position to know whether the White House and Republican leaders have the same views on the economic benefits of trade or if they even have views on the economic benefits of trade. It is entirely possible that they are pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) out of a desire to ingratiate themselves with the powerful industries that stand to benefit from the deal. Since the NYT can only know what the White House and Republican leaders say, it would be best if they restrict their reporting to what they know to be true.
The piece also makes a point of noting a study by the footwear industry reporting that the TPP will save the country $4 billion on footwear. It would have been helpful to note that this figure is a projection of savings over the next ten years. The projected savings of $400 million a year comes to 0.0022 percent of GDP or roughly $3 a year per household. According to the study, the TPP will raise the deficit by $1.2 billion as a result of the lower tariffs on imported shoes. The other $2.8 billion in projected savings will come from lower wages and reduced profit in the retail and related industries.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Ever since NAFTA passed in 1993, the media have been anxious to say how the pact has been a great boon to Mexico, even if its impact on the U.S. might not have been so great. Since Mexico’s growth post-NAFTA has actually been pathetic (the gap in per capita income with the United States has increased), the praise has often involved ignoring the data or even just making things up.
The Washington Post gets first prize in the latter category, famously telling readers back in 2007 that NAFTA had caused Mexico’s GDP to quadruple in the prior two decades. The actual figure according to the I.M.F. is 83 percent. The Post has never corrected this obvious error, indicating that when it comes to pushing its agenda on trade the Post has as much respect for the truth as Donald Trump.
Anyhow, the promotion of the post-NAFTA Mexican boom continues. The latest guilty party is the Los Angeles Times which devotes a lengthy piece to telling us how the boom is not just good for Mexico, but also the United States. Mexico’s per capita GDP growth since 2008 is less than 0.7 percent. This is a growth rate for a developing country that would more typically be described as “pathetic” than a boom.
Ever since NAFTA passed in 1993, the media have been anxious to say how the pact has been a great boon to Mexico, even if its impact on the U.S. might not have been so great. Since Mexico’s growth post-NAFTA has actually been pathetic (the gap in per capita income with the United States has increased), the praise has often involved ignoring the data or even just making things up.
The Washington Post gets first prize in the latter category, famously telling readers back in 2007 that NAFTA had caused Mexico’s GDP to quadruple in the prior two decades. The actual figure according to the I.M.F. is 83 percent. The Post has never corrected this obvious error, indicating that when it comes to pushing its agenda on trade the Post has as much respect for the truth as Donald Trump.
Anyhow, the promotion of the post-NAFTA Mexican boom continues. The latest guilty party is the Los Angeles Times which devotes a lengthy piece to telling us how the boom is not just good for Mexico, but also the United States. Mexico’s per capita GDP growth since 2008 is less than 0.7 percent. This is a growth rate for a developing country that would more typically be described as “pathetic” than a boom.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That seems to be the story according to MarketWatch. It quotes Stanley Fischer the vice-chair of the Federal Reserve Board as saying, “We are close to our targets” for inflation and unemployment. Fischer adds, that the current 1.6 percent inflation rate shown by the core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) deflator is “is within hailing distance” of the Fed’s 2.0 percent target.
Actually, this is not true. The 2.0 percent target was always identified as an average, not a ceiling. This means that periods of below 2.0 percent inflation should be averaged out with periods of above 2.0 percent inflation to reach the 2.0 percent target. If the Fed were sticking to prior policy, it should be looking to have an inflation rate somewhat above 2.0 percent for a number of years to offset the long period of below 2.0 percent inflation by this measure.
The figure below shows the year over year measure of the core inflation rate since the beginning of 2011. Not only has it been below 2.0 percent for the last four years, it shows no tendency to increase. Stanley Fischer is of course free to deviate from the Fed’s official target in his thinking, but it would have been appropriate to point that fact out. This makes it a much more newsworthy story. Of course, if the Fed does start raising rates the point is to slow the economy and limit the number of people who have jobs. That’s a big deal.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
That seems to be the story according to MarketWatch. It quotes Stanley Fischer the vice-chair of the Federal Reserve Board as saying, “We are close to our targets” for inflation and unemployment. Fischer adds, that the current 1.6 percent inflation rate shown by the core personal consumption expenditure (PCE) deflator is “is within hailing distance” of the Fed’s 2.0 percent target.
Actually, this is not true. The 2.0 percent target was always identified as an average, not a ceiling. This means that periods of below 2.0 percent inflation should be averaged out with periods of above 2.0 percent inflation to reach the 2.0 percent target. If the Fed were sticking to prior policy, it should be looking to have an inflation rate somewhat above 2.0 percent for a number of years to offset the long period of below 2.0 percent inflation by this measure.
The figure below shows the year over year measure of the core inflation rate since the beginning of 2011. Not only has it been below 2.0 percent for the last four years, it shows no tendency to increase. Stanley Fischer is of course free to deviate from the Fed’s official target in his thinking, but it would have been appropriate to point that fact out. This makes it a much more newsworthy story. Of course, if the Fed does start raising rates the point is to slow the economy and limit the number of people who have jobs. That’s a big deal.
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
That’s what readers of a NYT article on support for Trump in West Virginia must be wondering. The piece told readers that Trump was promising to bring back the coal mining jobs to the state. While West Virgina used to have many more jobs in coal mining, that was decades ago.
Employment in coal mining had fallen from a peak of more than 130,000 in 1940 to just over 21,000 in 2000, roughly its current level. Employment did rise somewhat in the last decade, reaching 35,700 in December of 2011. (This was a bit less than 5.0 percent of total employment in the state.) However, it began to decline back to its current level the following year, largely due to the availability of cheap natural gas from fracking.
It’s not clear what Trump’s reference point is in his promise to bring back mining jobs. He could mean the peak hit during President Obama’s first term in office, which would re-employ roughly 14,000 miners. It’s not clear who would use the coal — Trump has not indicated that he wants to restrict fracking — but few thought that West Virginia was thriving in 2011.
It is possible that Trump is referring to the more distant past when West Virginia had more than 40,000 jobs in coal mining, but this would mean going back to the 1970s, more than 40 years ago. The main reason for the decline in coal mining jobs over the next decades was increased productivity in the industry, as strip mining replaced underground mining. If Trump intends to restore the number of jobs to the pre-1980 level then perhaps he would ban more efficient strip mining and make the industry rely exclusively on underground mining again.
Note on Source:
Several comments ask about the source for the figure. It comes from the website Appalachian Voices, which I gather is a community organization in West Virgina. Unfortunately, I could not find their source, but since it follows closely data from the BLS for mining employment (which can include mining of other minerals), I felt comfortable using it. (Those data are available in their discontinued data series.) Sorry about leaving it out initially. As far as the years since 2008, these data are available from BLS in the Current Employment Series giving state level data. This series goes up through June of 2016, but only as far back as 1996.
That’s what readers of a NYT article on support for Trump in West Virginia must be wondering. The piece told readers that Trump was promising to bring back the coal mining jobs to the state. While West Virgina used to have many more jobs in coal mining, that was decades ago.
Employment in coal mining had fallen from a peak of more than 130,000 in 1940 to just over 21,000 in 2000, roughly its current level. Employment did rise somewhat in the last decade, reaching 35,700 in December of 2011. (This was a bit less than 5.0 percent of total employment in the state.) However, it began to decline back to its current level the following year, largely due to the availability of cheap natural gas from fracking.
It’s not clear what Trump’s reference point is in his promise to bring back mining jobs. He could mean the peak hit during President Obama’s first term in office, which would re-employ roughly 14,000 miners. It’s not clear who would use the coal — Trump has not indicated that he wants to restrict fracking — but few thought that West Virginia was thriving in 2011.
It is possible that Trump is referring to the more distant past when West Virginia had more than 40,000 jobs in coal mining, but this would mean going back to the 1970s, more than 40 years ago. The main reason for the decline in coal mining jobs over the next decades was increased productivity in the industry, as strip mining replaced underground mining. If Trump intends to restore the number of jobs to the pre-1980 level then perhaps he would ban more efficient strip mining and make the industry rely exclusively on underground mining again.
Note on Source:
Several comments ask about the source for the figure. It comes from the website Appalachian Voices, which I gather is a community organization in West Virgina. Unfortunately, I could not find their source, but since it follows closely data from the BLS for mining employment (which can include mining of other minerals), I felt comfortable using it. (Those data are available in their discontinued data series.) Sorry about leaving it out initially. As far as the years since 2008, these data are available from BLS in the Current Employment Series giving state level data. This series goes up through June of 2016, but only as far back as 1996.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
In his Washington Post business section column Gene Marks made a classic journalistic mistake: he reported what people claim to be the case as fact. Specifically, he reported that employers are curtailing hiring and increasing part-time employment in response to Obamacare. In fact, the basis for this assertion is a survey of 200 business executives by the New York district Federal Reserve Bank.
There are two basic problems here. The business executives may be inclined to say they are cutting jobs or increasing part-time work because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), even if it’s not true, because they don’t like the ACA. The other problem is that they may not know the exact effects of the ACA (actually, no one does), so their response may be based on factors that are not attributable to the ACA.
Specifically, the survey indicated that the executives were responding to a large increase in insurance premiums this year. However, the rise in premiums had been quite low in prior years. It would be difficult to determine how the path of health care costs has been changed by the ACA, but it is indisputable that the growth path has been considerably slower than was expected when the ACA was passed in 2010. So unless these executives can somehow determine that they are paying more for insurance today because of the ACA, they actually don’t have a basis for saying that their response to the latest rise in premiums is a response to the ACA.
Economists tend to look at what people do rather than what they say. In this category, the data tell a story that is the opposite of what is indicated by the survey. Job growth has been very fast since the ACA went into effect. In addition, the number of people involuntarily working part-time has fallen sharply. It is down by 23.5 percent since the exchanges and Medicaid expansion went into effect in January of 2014.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of people choosing to work part-time, notably young parents. (These are presumably parents of young children, but we only have data on the parents’ ages.) This is one of the intended effects of Obamacare. By allowing people to get insurance from outside of employment, Obamacare made it possible for many parents to get insurance without working at a full-time job that provides health care as a benefit.
It is interesting to know what business executives have to say about the impact of Obamacare, but it is a serious error to report this as truth.
In his Washington Post business section column Gene Marks made a classic journalistic mistake: he reported what people claim to be the case as fact. Specifically, he reported that employers are curtailing hiring and increasing part-time employment in response to Obamacare. In fact, the basis for this assertion is a survey of 200 business executives by the New York district Federal Reserve Bank.
There are two basic problems here. The business executives may be inclined to say they are cutting jobs or increasing part-time work because of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), even if it’s not true, because they don’t like the ACA. The other problem is that they may not know the exact effects of the ACA (actually, no one does), so their response may be based on factors that are not attributable to the ACA.
Specifically, the survey indicated that the executives were responding to a large increase in insurance premiums this year. However, the rise in premiums had been quite low in prior years. It would be difficult to determine how the path of health care costs has been changed by the ACA, but it is indisputable that the growth path has been considerably slower than was expected when the ACA was passed in 2010. So unless these executives can somehow determine that they are paying more for insurance today because of the ACA, they actually don’t have a basis for saying that their response to the latest rise in premiums is a response to the ACA.
Economists tend to look at what people do rather than what they say. In this category, the data tell a story that is the opposite of what is indicated by the survey. Job growth has been very fast since the ACA went into effect. In addition, the number of people involuntarily working part-time has fallen sharply. It is down by 23.5 percent since the exchanges and Medicaid expansion went into effect in January of 2014.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of people choosing to work part-time, notably young parents. (These are presumably parents of young children, but we only have data on the parents’ ages.) This is one of the intended effects of Obamacare. By allowing people to get insurance from outside of employment, Obamacare made it possible for many parents to get insurance without working at a full-time job that provides health care as a benefit.
It is interesting to know what business executives have to say about the impact of Obamacare, but it is a serious error to report this as truth.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
People don’t expect to see honest debate on economic issues on the opinion pages of the Washington Post, which is why it is not surprising to find a column from Charles Lane trashing Bernie Sanders and his wife for buying a $575,000 vacation home in Vermont. While Lane indicates that he thinks it is okay that they buy this home, he thinks it somehow contradicts Sanders’ self-described socialism. At best, this claim shows how utterly ignorant Lane is of what Sanders said throughout his campaign.
Just to start with the basic economics, Sanders pay as a senator is roughly $175,000 a year. Jane Sanders, his wife, is also a professional can be expected to earn somewhere in that range. This would give them a combined income of $350,000 a year. That is the edge of the 1.0 percent (a bit below), but obviously better off than the vast majority of people in the country. If they took out a $460,000 mortgage (80 percent of purchase price), the monthly payments would be $2,200, certainly well within affordability given their incomes. So there is zero reason to believe that this home purchase implies secret money or some sort of illicit activity.
So the question is whether there is something inconsistent with the Sanders earning $350,000 a year and the views he espoused on the campaign. If so, it is difficult to see what it would be. Sanders said that he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he never said that he thought everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of how hard they worked or their talents.
It is of course convenient for people who don’t want to see the issue of higher taxes on the rich be discussed to convert the debate into one on radical egalitarianism. However, the latter has nothing to do with Sanders’ campaign positions. One would hope that the people who write columns for the Washington Post would at least know that much about the Sanders campaign.
Note: For my part, I am less a fan of higher taxes than ending the government interventions (e.g. patent monopolies, corrupt corporate governance system, and Wall Street favoritism) that allow for ridiculous pay checks in the first place. Thanks to rigged markets, partners in hedge funds and private equity funds (think Mitt Romney) can make more in a day than the Sanders earn in a year. But you’ll have to wait for my book this fall to get the full story.
People don’t expect to see honest debate on economic issues on the opinion pages of the Washington Post, which is why it is not surprising to find a column from Charles Lane trashing Bernie Sanders and his wife for buying a $575,000 vacation home in Vermont. While Lane indicates that he thinks it is okay that they buy this home, he thinks it somehow contradicts Sanders’ self-described socialism. At best, this claim shows how utterly ignorant Lane is of what Sanders said throughout his campaign.
Just to start with the basic economics, Sanders pay as a senator is roughly $175,000 a year. Jane Sanders, his wife, is also a professional can be expected to earn somewhere in that range. This would give them a combined income of $350,000 a year. That is the edge of the 1.0 percent (a bit below), but obviously better off than the vast majority of people in the country. If they took out a $460,000 mortgage (80 percent of purchase price), the monthly payments would be $2,200, certainly well within affordability given their incomes. So there is zero reason to believe that this home purchase implies secret money or some sort of illicit activity.
So the question is whether there is something inconsistent with the Sanders earning $350,000 a year and the views he espoused on the campaign. If so, it is difficult to see what it would be. Sanders said that he wanted to raise taxes on the rich, he never said that he thought everyone should make the same amount of money regardless of how hard they worked or their talents.
It is of course convenient for people who don’t want to see the issue of higher taxes on the rich be discussed to convert the debate into one on radical egalitarianism. However, the latter has nothing to do with Sanders’ campaign positions. One would hope that the people who write columns for the Washington Post would at least know that much about the Sanders campaign.
Note: For my part, I am less a fan of higher taxes than ending the government interventions (e.g. patent monopolies, corrupt corporate governance system, and Wall Street favoritism) that allow for ridiculous pay checks in the first place. Thanks to rigged markets, partners in hedge funds and private equity funds (think Mitt Romney) can make more in a day than the Sanders earn in a year. But you’ll have to wait for my book this fall to get the full story.
Read More Leer más Join the discussion Participa en la discusión
