WE DO NOT LEAVE LOOT WITH THE BANK ROBBERS.
When we see or hear anyone speak of today's US economic crisis as WEALTH INEQUITY we know we are reading or listening to a global banking 5% freemason/Greek player getting his/her money by being talented at LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.
One thing US President HOOVER did as ROBBER BARON fraud and corruption during global Wall Street's massive frauds of ROARING 20s is ask those made poor----
WHY DIDN'T YOU SAVE---WHY ARE YOU NOT WORKING ---PICK YOURSELF UP BY BOOTSTRAPS
Of course the person to which HOOVER was speaking could see his money brimming out of the pants' pocket of HOOVER.
SOCIOPATHS ARE INCURABLE---GLOBAL BANKING 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS WITH CORRUPTED 1000BC DNA.
The Nation has always been a far-right wing global banking 1% media outlet paid to pretend to care about 99% populist labor and justice. When it says PROGRESSIVE journalism it means----ECONOMIC PROGRESSIVE which is -----making the rich extremely richer.
'Support Progressive Journalism
If you like this article, please give today to help fund The Nation’s work'
We would not believe anything tied to global banking 1% media like THE NATION and we know any reporter allowed to write for these media are 5% players. When we read an article entitled RISE OF WEALTH INEQUITY industry we look for what global banking 1% is LYING ABOUT AND HIDING.
October 8-15, 2018, Issue
The Inequality Industry
Since 2008, wonks, politicians, poets, and bankers have all started talking about inequality. But are they interested in making us more equal?
By Atossa Araxia AbrahamianSeptember 13, 2018
In the fall of 2011, Janet Gornick, a professor of political science at the City University of New York, went down to Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park to join Occupy Wall Street. For the past two decades, Gornick had been working at the Luxembourg Income Study, an organization with a branch in New York City that amasses data sets on income and wealth disparities around the world. Gornick knew from her work that economic inequality had long been a subject of scholarly inquiry. “There were hundreds of working papers assessing its causes, looking at how welfare states mitigate market-driven inequality, and so on,” she recalls. But for most of her tenure at the LIS, the study of inequality was still a niche field, and an academic one at that. Save for a handful of economists and sociologists, the growing gap between rich and poor wasn’t keeping a lot of scholars up at night. As long as the economy was growing, most analysts in wealthy countries figured everyone would eventually end up better off.
This isn’t to say that no one was paying attention. The late economist Tony Atkinson—the British “godfather” of inequality studies, according to Gornick—had written extensively on how and why societies grow unequal. But for decades, Atkinson was an outlier, someone shouting in the dark. Inequality was also passionately debated in philosophy departments after the publication of John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice in 1971, but that conversation tended to center on highly theoretical notions of how much inequality a society could reasonably tolerate—not popular demands to rein in the earnings of the 1 percent.
After the crash of 2008, the language of inequality began to trickle into the popular discourse. Then the Occupy movement launched it into the mainstream; the fall of 2011 was the first time in generations that concerns about distributive justice drove crowds into the streets and made front-page news. Scholars, pundits, and politicians all took note, and before long, Gornick and her colleagues found themselves at the center of what President Barack Obama called “the defining challenge of our time.” Reporting from a gathering at the Brookings Institution in late 2012, the journalist Chrystia Freeland (now Canada’s minister of foreign affairs) observed: “Three decades later, trickle-down economics”—the theory that slashing taxes on businesses and the rich would spur investment and eventually benefit society as a whole—“has met its antithesis. We are set for one of the great battles of ideas of our time.”
Even the International Monetary Fund, which for decades has imposed privatization and austerity programs on nations as the price of its financial aid, began to sound repentant. In 2013, IMF head Christine Lagarde conceded at Davos, of all places, that “the economics profession and the policy community have downplayed inequality for too long,” and that “a more equal distribution of income allows for more economic stability, more sustained economic growth, and healthier societies.”
These events set the stage for an unlikely best seller: The English translation of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, published in 2014, sold over 700,000 copies. Since then, enthusiasm for the subject has not waned. Professors speak of inequality institutes “springing up like mushrooms” and students looking to “get into the inequality area.” In 2015, the London School of Economics started to offer a master’s degree in inequality studies. (The price tag for a nonresident to attend the yearlong course: $27,000.) That same year, the Ford Foundation, one of America’s most prominent philanthropic institutions, changed its mission statement. Ford’s new focus: offering grants for work seeking to reduce inequality “in all its forms”—an ambitious, if vague, endeavor that funds projects exploring housing fairness, racial disparities, and the future of work. “This is how people are experiencing life in America today,” says foundation president Darren Walker. Even poets were taking note: Frederick Seidel titled his latest poetry collection Widening Income Inequality.
“It’s where the interest is,” Gornick observes. “It’s where the attention is; it’s where people think the grant money is. People who studied immigration or education now study inequality. People in the humanities are studying inequality in all kinds of qualitative and literary ways.” (A recent Australian study found that women in economically unequal areas tend to take more “sexy selfies.”)
The new conversation around inequality marks an important break in how we think about economic growth. But it is also a complex, evolving, and multifaceted discussion. In the shuffle of income-distribution curves, fiscal policy, and Gini scores (a popular measure of economic disparities), the idea of egalitarianism as a moral imperative tends to get buried by more instrumental aims—particularly when the institutions and individuals who are hosting and paying for these discussions on gaping inequality owe their very existence to it.
Though the policies this research feeds aren’t necessarily egalitarian, some of the solutions that have been proposed—higher taxes on the rich, better social-welfare programs—are generally progressive. Still, given the surge of populist rhetoric in contemporary politics, it’s worth wondering how inequality will end up figuring into politics five, 10, or 20 years down the line—and who will profit by it. We are seeing the emergence of a way of thinking about inequality that many rich people can get behind, one that appeals to those who have no interest in advancing equality on moral grounds. But this raises an important question: Are the new inequality activists interested in achieving equality, or just fighting inequality?
In the United States, economic inequality hasn’t always been seen as a problem. It’s not that the yawning disparities in fortune leading up to the Great Depression didn’t stir up feelings of discontent. Nor were socialists the only ones alarmed by its evils: Even Franklin Roosevelt deplored the moral bankruptcy of the fat cats and bankers. But during the recovery that followed and in the decades thereafter, the central measure of economic health wasn’t equality but rather growth and, to some extent, employment levels. It didn’t matter so much who got rich or by how much, as long as everyone wound up less poor.
This philosophy came to be embraced for decades by politicians, intellectuals, economists, and many ordinary Americans, who clung to a deep faith in capitalism and in their own potential to get ahead. John Steinbeck’s famous (misquoted) observation that Americans are all temporarily embarrassed millionaires was, in this respect, apt: If everyone believes they’re next in line to receive untold riches, it’s perfectly reasonable to let the wealthy be. This also meant the welfare state that emerged in the United States wasn’t as interested in reducing inequality as it was in solving the problems of poverty and instability. While European social democrats were setting up welfare states in a more egalitarian spirit in the first half of the 20th century, American liberals focused on basic subsistence, not redistribution. As Samuel Moyn, the author of Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, recently noted, Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms included the freedom from want, not a positive vision of equality.
In the postwar years, the freedom from want nonetheless helped build a more equal society—what economists and historians have come to call the “Great Compression.” Thanks to deficit spending during and after the Second World War, as well as gains in worker productivity, strong labor unions, and progressive tax rates, inequality in the decades between the 1940s and the ’70s saw a notable decline. Yet the postwar Red Scare made it difficult for those with redistributionist ambitions, and when a New Left emerged in the 1960s, its protest movements were focused primarily on civil rights, poverty, and the Vietnam War.
In the economics profession, the study of inequality was similarly limited. In the 1950s, economist Simon Kuznets advanced a theory that would be widely cited in the coming decades: that as an economy develops, it will see an increase in inequality, followed by a decrease thanks to political pressure for increased social spending as well as lower returns to capital. Kuznets’s analysis was descriptive, but it nevertheless dovetailed with prescriptive political ideologies that argued inequality was natural and self-regulating—much like the market itself. Seen in this light, economic disparities could even be desirable: Encouraging people to get ahead by rewarding their hard work and talent would ultimately benefit society as a whole… or so the story went.
Beginning in the 1970s, inequality began to surge with the economic shocks of that decade. But the language and politics around inequality did not; indeed, by the 1980s, free-market principles were in full force. Under the “Reaganomics” of Ronald Reagan’s presidency, taxes on the wealthy were slashed, dropping from 70 percent in 1982 to just 28 percent in 1988. And a new generation of Democratic politicians felt they had to move to the right on economic and social issues to attain electoral success. Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats” were the avatars of this movement in the United States, and they were joined by British Prime Minister Tony Blair and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder on the other side of the Atlantic.
Clinton’s welfare “reforms,” along with widespread financial deregulation and the declining power of organized labor, would end up pushing wealth further to the top, to the detriment of poor people, who no longer had much of a social safety net or the power to demand one. Still, officials like then–Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan insisted that this accumulation of riches wasn’t a zero-sum game: “[W]hile I do not deny that there are very major holdings of wealth by individuals, it’s by no means clear to me that these have in any way been extracted [from] other people in society.”
By the dawn of the new millennium, the contours of an unequal nation—and an even more unequal world—were coming into focus. Between 1993 and 2010, the top 1 percent in the United States saw their incomes grow by 58 percent, compared with 6.4 percent for everyone else; in 2010, 388 people owned fully half of the world’s wealth.
Americans may now recognize these vast gulfs in wealth. They show up in TV shows like Billions and Succession, blockbusters like Crazy Rich Asians, and even in recent slang, such as the concept of “fuck-you money.” But what’s wrong with inequality, anyway?
Answers to this question are rarely satisfying, but they do serve as a political litmus test about the kind of inequality that matters. A Marxist might concern herself with how economic inequality divides society into classes, allowing capitalists to wield wealth as a weapon, disempower workers, and extract their labor. The humanitarian position tends to prioritize sufficiency of resources and basic rights; feminists, environmentalists, and advocates for the undocumented, the disabled, and minorities would say social inequalities matter, too, and that part of the problem with economic inequality is that it reinforces them. New research has shown us that economic, social, racial, and gender inequality are inextricably linked—and that the effect of high inequality is to create even more inequality.
Thomas Piketty, Joseph Stiglitz, and the many other economists they have worked with or inspired have shown that high levels of inequality hurt democracy because, among other things, they allow rich people and corporations to buy the support of politicians. Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman has helped us more fully understand the consequences of tax havens, which allow money to accumulate offshore instead of being redistributed (or even accounted for), thereby enriching only those who possess it. Branko Milanovic’s tireless work at the World Bank, and now from his post at the City University of New York, has shown that while nations themselves are growing more unequal, the economic inequality between countries has actually fallen, especially as China and India have reduced poverty over the past 30 years. He has also made crucial contributions showing how migration can reduce global inequality. It’s a sign of the times that Milanovic’s update to the Kuznets curve—which maps how inequality in rich countries rises, falls, and then rises again—went viral on Twitter for its elegant depiction of inequality in the 21st century.
The overall effect of this research has been to significantly change the narrative. It has shown that intense concentrations of wealth are a product of policy, not human (or economic) nature. Crucially, it has depicted extreme disparities as harmful because they lead to abuses of power and structural barriers to prosperity, as well as the social tensions and reactionary political movements that follow. It is simply not true that the rich can stay as rich as they are without consequences for those at the very bottom, or that their gains will eventually “trickle down” to everyone else. The imbalance, in other words, distorts society as a whole, creating a host of social ills that could ultimately threaten capitalism itself.
For Darren Walker, who has led the Ford Foundation’s pivot to inequality, this fight is personal. “I was born in absolutely the bottom decile of the income strata in the US,” he says. “I am now in the top.” Walker worries, with good cause, that what allowed him to “climb out of poverty”—namely, public investment in education programs like Head Start and the fiscal policies that support them—are disappearing. But he’s also clear that the foundation’s newfound interest in inequality isn’t a pitch to bring down the institutions of capitalism. On the contrary: “The level of inequality we have today is a result of the way we have constructed economic policies and systems,” he says. “I refuse to believe that this is just a natural phenomenon or a part of capitalism.”
In fact, Walker traces the foundation’s new goals back to its benefactor, the automobile baron Henry Ford, who, Walker notes, wanted the workers on his assembly lines to be able to afford the products they made. This was not because Ford was interested in their empowerment (he was openly hostile to unions), but because he saw their economic well-being as fundamental to his own. Considered in this context, it’s no surprise that tech billionaires and centrist politicians are fretting about the wealth gap and considering basic-income experiments. Otherwise, if things continue as they have been, “who’s going to be able to afford an iPhone?” Walker asks.
Another charitable organization to take up the inequality fight is Oxfam. The anti-poverty organization has been advocating limits on executive compensation, the elimination of the gender pay gap, ending corporate tax avoidance, and taxing the rich more equitably for almost a decade. Each year, Oxfam issues a press release ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, highlighting the astonishing percentage of the world’s wealth that is owned by a small number of people, which routinely gets picked up by thousands of media outlets. Oxfam has also lobbied the United Nations to add reducing inequality to its Sustainable Development Goals.
“We’re a development organization making sure people in poverty were getting resources and accountability,” says Paul O’Brien, Oxfam America’s vice president for policy. “And what we realized is: The way we were approaching our work—largely using resource transfers and dealing with poverty’s symptoms—wasn’t working. So we started calling out the structural issues beneath these widening disparities and asking ourselves: Can we address poverty if we don’t address structural inequality?”
Given that Oxfam is a charity that raises funds externally, rather than relying on its endowments like the Ford Foundation, you’d think the inequality talk would put it in an awkward position—“taking money from rich people to fight rich people having too much money,” as O’Brien puts it. But it turns out there are plenty of rich people who are game; in fact, Oxfam has been invited to participate in the Davos conference itself. “We believe there’s a useful role to be played by engaging directly with those whose behaviors and advantages we hope to correct,” O’Brien explains. Still, he confesses that this dance makes him a little uncomfortable. “Are we being so polite that we, at some level, are being co-opted? We ask ourselves that all the time.”
Editor Ian Malcolm, who acquired Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century for Harvard University Press, and has since worked on a number of other books on inequality, calls elite interest in the issue “the Bismarck approach”: taking pains to curb inequality “largely in order to prevent revolution and for stability.” “That’s not a bad reason,” he adds, “but the Davos crowd might worry about this, because this is not a problem of justice” for them; rather, they “are pursuing self-interest and thinking, ‘We’ve lost the world where we were preeminent.’”
It feels churlish to complain about the existence of an inequality-industrial complex. No matter the inner contradictions of such an enterprise, the research it has produced is valuable, and the conversations it has provoked are illuminating. Perhaps most significant, it seems to be helping elucidate how these tremendous differences in wealth aren’t a product of moral turpitude or personal failure, but of calculated and determined policy.
This sentiment has been prevalent in recent movements, from the Fight for $15 to Black Lives Matter and #MeToo. It has featured prominently in political campaigns and stump speeches, both from those on the left, like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and those tacking toward the center, like Kamala Harris and Cory Booker. Even Hillary Clinton made inequality a central issue on the campaign trail in 2016. Heather Boushey, who led economic policy for Clinton’s transition team and runs the think tank Washington Center for Equitable Growth, says that it was one of Clinton’s most popular points. (Stephen Moore, an economic adviser for Trump’s campaign, accused Boushey of being “focused on equality instead of growth,” while “our campaign is based on growth, growth, growth.”)
ALL OF THE ABOVE FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING 1% FAKE 'LEFT' -----AS MS ABRAHAMIAN KNOWS
But the fact remains that inequality talk can fuel right-wing rallying cries against immigration as easily as it can figure into left-wing talking points for fairer taxation. Reducing inequality on a national scale still requires drawing boundaries, which raises questions about whom a leveling of resources might benefit, and how. There’s nothing progressive about redistribution in a white ethnostate, for example, even if it means appropriating Rupert Murdoch’s yachts. Nor is there anything admirable about blocking all immigration with the goal of raising wages for “real” Americans.
Recognizing the limits of inequality discourse—and conducting it in an egalitarian, not an instrumental, spirit—is thus crucial. Because regardless of their station, Americans today feel unequal—whether it’s because, as women, they get paid 81 cents to the dollar; or because, as African Americans, they have barely seen their household incomes rise since the civil-rights era; or because, as white men, they are on the “losing” end of initiatives aimed at promoting equality of opportunity, such as affirmative action; or because, as 1 percenters, they feel envious of their neighbor’s sixth car. This suggests that there is something fundamental about advocating for economic equality as a matter of fairness, not just because inequality is a drag on growth. It also underscores the importance of considering inequality in universal, global terms, not nationalist ones.
THE SAME GROUPS ABOVE FEELING UNEQUAL AS CIVIL RIGHTS ERA ---WELL, CLINTON ERA USED EXECUTIVE ORDER TO IGNORE ALL CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS TIED TO CIVIL RIGHTS ERA.
What’s more, the current “inequality paradigm”—the subject of a forthcoming book by London School of Economics sociologist Mike Savage—raises its own set of vexing questions. It just may be that, given the earth’s increasingly limited capacity to handle traditional “growth,” we can’t aspire to bring everyone to the top. “If we want to live in a better society, it’s not ‘How do we grow more?’” Savage points out. “It’s ‘How do we become more sustainable and think about having inequality at a level which people find acceptable and not extreme?’” A rising tide might not lift all boats—or even only the yachts, as Joseph Stiglitz so memorably put it. Instead, it might simply flood us all out of existence.
Anthropologists David Graeber and David Wengrow reject the inequality paradigm for many of these reasons. In a recent essay in Eurozine, they argue that the common policy prescriptions—fiddling with tax rates, for instance—are technocratic, self-serving, and insufficiently radical. The current discussions of inequality may well “shock the public with figures showing just how bad things have become (‘can you imagine? 0.1% of the world’s population controls over 50% of the wealth!’),” but they fail to address “any of the factors that people actually object to about such ‘unequal’ social arrangements: for instance, that some manage to turn their wealth into power over others; or that other people end up being told their needs are not important, and their lives have no intrinsic worth.”
Graeber and Wengrow have a point. Incrementalism, historically, has not worked. Most of the factors that have reduced inequality to a significant degree have been grim: wars, plagues, immiseration, the guillotine. What those without wealth need, even before wealth, is power—through unions, through political parties, and through the state. That might mean pressuring governments to take from the few to give to the many. It might mean more cooperative models of ownership. It might involve burning the whole thing down.
In fairness, inequality researchers have begun to quantify power imbalances—by adding up corporate power, for instance, or revealing the distortionary effects of monopolies, or examining how inequality corrupts the political process. At the same time, there is always the risk of the issue becoming depoliticized by technocrats, much like past initiatives to fight poverty or promote sustainable development.
Now that we understand these phenomena better, we need radical solutions to come into play in the political arena as well as the intellectual one. And they need to be animated by an egalitarian spirit, not a technocratic one that, in the current context, is doomed to fail. Boushey suggests going back to basics and figuring out what it is we’re referring to in the first place when we talk about economic growth. The gross domestic product “has been our measure,” she points out. “We think that if GDP went up, that’s good! But we need to show people what matters is not how much it grows [but] to whom the gains go.”
“We need to make sure wealth is not self-perpetuating,” Boushey adds. “We got here by saying, ‘Rich people and Wall Street have our interest at heart, and they’ll regulate themselves and there will not be bad outcomes if we let them do what they want.’ We saw how that turned out.”
Gore's sale of what was a ZERO MEDIA outlet---meaning it was never intended to be a success---it was created to DEREGULATE policies inside America......in this case bringing a foreign-owned media network ---both print and TV sharing our US sovereign air waves. The EMIR is of course that global banking 1% ARABIC ONE WORLD partner to EUROPEAN OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Any captured media outlet or reporter as THE NATION's article on WEALTH INEQUITY INDUSTRIES is not coming from the LEFT----it is telling us what global banking 1% is installing and our 99% should embrace it as POPULIST-----THEY ARE HELPING THE 99% AFTER ROBBING THEM.
Al Jazeera was always sold as a LEFT POPULIST media outlet for our 99% of Arabic citizens---working for justice ----but that was FAKE NEWS.
An Inconvenient Truth: Al Gore Sells Current TV to the Emir Of Fossil Fuels
By John Smith | Jan. 9, 2013
Late last week it was announced that former Vice President Al Gore struck a deal to sell his television network, Current TV, to the Qatar-based network Al Jazeera. Despite the red flags that such a deal spawns, many in the media failed to explore the crucial elements that surround the sale, and decided to focus on Glenn Beck's rebuffed offer to buy the network instead.
Gore's decision to sell the network, alone, raises questions concerning the sincerity of his self-proclaimed ideologies. Especially when considering to whom he sold the company, Gore’s moral servitude can be questioned as well.
Al Jazeera, which was launched in 1996, is headquartered in Doha, Qatar and is funded by the Qatari government — more specifically, the Emir of Qatar, Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani. Since its inception, Al Jazeera has received criticism for its critical coverage of U.S. and Israel policies.
As described by the U.S. State Department, Qatar's "customs, laws and practices" are founded by "Islamic beliefs and tribal traditions," also known as Sharia Law. Of which, is a religious practice that is widely contested and seen as void of human rights, especially women's rights.
Qatar is also extremely homophobic, and the U.S. State Department has outlined the severity of the situation, stating that "homosexual activity is considered to be a criminal offense, and those convicted may be sentenced to lashings, a prison sentence, and/or deportation." Views that seem to heavily contradict the video that Gore released a few years back, which addressed and supported gay rights.
The country has even provided funding to known terrorist groups. Most recently, during a visit to the Gaza Strip, Emir Al-Thani pledged $400 million to the terrorist organization Hamas, which is responsible for countless terrorist attacks, especially in Israel.
Possibly the most surprising part of the whole ordeal, however, is the fact that Qatar is one of the world's largest exporters of oil, and is the largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. And anyone who has heard Al Gore's name outside of this article knows that he's a staunch defender of the environment and finds oil repulsive at best. The sale of Current TV to Al Jazeera is an inconvenient truth indeed.
FOR GOODNESS SAKE, NO---GORE IS NOT A DEFENDER OF ENVIRONMENT---HE IS A DEFENDER OF FAR-RIGHT WING GLOBAL BANKING GLOBAL GREEN REVOLUTION FAKE ENVIRONMENTALISM THAT IS WHY HE DOES NOT CARE IF A FOSSIL FUEL PLAYER GETS THE MEDIA OUTLET.
Gore's pro-environment agenda is so extreme that he's even compared the global warming strife to the civil rights movement and has advocated for "fertility management" as a means of curbing the world's population and ultimately pollution.
Of course, when a $500 million deal is involved, disregarding the actions of your sugar daddy may be an easier task to overcome than one may think, even if it means overlooking the rights of many, selling out your beliefs, and parting ways dignity.
What THE NATION article was written to do is sell the idea that there really is a WEALTH INEQUITY INDUSTRY. This mirrors global banking 1% back in 1970s-80s selling the idea that far-right global banking GREEN REVOLUTION was really LEFT ---when the goal was killing our environment. A WEALTH INEQUITY industry will end looking just like PAY-DAY LOANS and THE SHARING INDUSTRY. When our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE allow ourselves to think these are JOBS/BUSINESSES we are digging our graves deeper and deeper as all this simply MOVES FORWARD ONE WORLD extreme wealth extreme poverty while pretending it is a REAL ECONOMY.
This is much like SODOM AND GOMORRAH where the 99% of citizens had to beat back the prostitutes and criminals.
GETTING INTO THE INEQUALITY AREA WHEN THERE IS NO INTENTION OF ANY 99% OF CITIZENS ESCAPING.
'These events set the stage for an unlikely best seller: The English translation of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, published in 2014, sold over 700,000 copies. Since then, enthusiasm for the subject has not waned. Professors speak of inequality institutes “springing up like mushrooms” and students looking to “get into the inequality area.” '
Below we see two major INEQUALITY INDUSTRIES----Georgetown is that global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS having been the source of much ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of America. No bigger supplier of global banking 5% freemason/Greek players than GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY---
Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality.
The Center on Poverty and Inequality
The Center on Poverty and Inequality works with policymakers, researchers, practitioners, and advocates to develop effective pol
Below we see another global corporation pretending to be LEFT helping on issues of INEQUITY while being a predatory and profiteering arm of global banking 1%------they will write policies for global banking 1% pretending to be POPULIST all while killing our 99% of WE THE CITIZENS much like ASPEN INSTITUTE----ROOSEVELT INSTITUTE----
Whenever an article or media presentation has these global banking players being called LEFT and POPULIST-----we know that article is FAKE NEWS. What we do see with these international INEQUITIES corporations is a replacement of what used to be our American institutions tied to inequity.
About the III
The International Inequalities Institute (III) was launched in 2015 with enthusiastic support from across the LSE.
Recognising the LSE’s distinctive strengths, the III will provide co-ordination and strategic leadership on the inter-disciplinary analysis of inequalities.
The III aims to bring together research and teaching that crosses disciplinary - and in LSE's case, departmental - boundaries.
The III aims to...Connect research on inequality across LSE:
- act as an umbrella institute facilitating co-ordination between different Departments and Research Centres to allow research synergies to take place and to support innovative research programmes.
- run regular seminars and workshops to allow better understanding between different centres and departmental initiatives, including staff and PhD students working on relevant issues, and to build research synergies to develop larger-scale interdisciplinary research bids.
- develop a web site to act as a portal to related research published in different places across the School and to other centres.
Engage with the public and policy-makers:
- support a programme of public engagement, including high profile events, social media activities, an annual high profile lecture, and an annual Inequalities report/brief to showcase our research.
- give advice on inequality issues to public and private sector bodies, and to promote a powerful LSE public presence in debates on inequality both within the UK and globally.
- develop links with leading NGOs and INGOs (including bodies such as UNESCO and the World Bank)
Develop & support new world-class research on inequalities:
- develop new proposals to raise major research funding. The research itself would predominantly be carried out within departments and centres and aimed at producing high quality academic publications.
- run a cross-departmental MSc programme on inequalities, drawing on existing courses across a range of departments, but with its own bespoke core course.
- support interdisciplinary doctoral students with interests in inequalities.
Whenever an article or media presentation has these global banking players being called LEFT and POPULIST-----we know that article is FAKE NEWS.
International Inequalities Institute
The International Inequalities Institute at LSE brings together experts from many LSE departments and centres to lead critical and cutting edge research to understand why inequalities are escalating in numerous arenas across the world, and to develop critical tools to address these challenges.
Find out who's who at the III
DirectorProfessor Mike Savage
Martin White Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology
Contact: M.A.Savage@lse.ac.uk, 020 7955 7356
Office: Tower 1, 8.01H
Centennial ProfessorProfessor Sudhir Anand
International Inequalities Institute
Office: Tower 1, 8.01
Research DirectorProfessor David Soskice
School Professor of Political Science and Economics
Department of Government
Office: Tower 1, 8.01I
Director, MSc Inequalities and Social ScienceDr Sam Friedman
Department of Sociology
Office: STC S216
Research StaffDr Aaron Reeves
Associate Professorial Research Fellow in Poverty and Inequality
Contact: 020 7955 6304, firstname.lastname@example.org
Office: Tower 1, 8.01F
Dr Luna Glucksberg
Contact: 020 7955 4932, email@example.com
Office: Tower 1, 8.01J
Dr Jonathan Mijs
Assistant Professorial Research Fellow in Ethnicity, Race and Equity
Contact: 020 7955 1137, J.Mijs@lse.ac.uk
Office: Tower 1, 8.01I
Dr Susanne Wessendorf
Assistant Professorial Research Fellow in Ethnicity, Race and Equity
Contact: 020 7955 1137, firstname.lastname@example.org
Office: Tower 1, 8.01I
Contact: 020 7106 1107, email@example.com
Office: Tower 1, 8.01J
Institute ManagerLiza Ryan
Contact: 020 7955 7308, E.Ryan@lse.ac.uk
Visiting ProfessorProfessor Andrew Miles
Visiting Senior FellowsNaomi Eisenstadt
Office: Tower 1, 8.01B
Office: Tower 1, 8.01B
Office: Tower 1, 8.01J
Visiting FellowsDr David Hope
Contact: 020 7955 1107, firstname.lastname@example.org
Dr Tom Kemeny
Office: Tower 1, 8.01J
Dr Erica Lagalisse
Dr Paul Segal
Office: Tower 1, 8.01D
Atlantic Fellows for Social and Economic Equity programme
Professor Beverley Skeggs
Office: Tower 1, 8.01
Rana Zincir Celal
Deputy Director of the AFSEE programme
Contact: 020 7106 1138, R.Zincir-Celal@lse.ac.uk
Programme Manager, AFSEE programme
Contact: 020 7849 4982, email@example.com
Programme and Events Associate, AFSEE programme
Contact: 020 7106 1136, V.Treadwell@lse.ac.uk
Programme Coordinator, AFSEE programme
Communications and Events Officer, AFSEE programme
Contact: 0207 106 1109, K.M.Shook@lse.ac.uk
'Poverty pimps often directly benefit financially from pretending at saving people and communities, usually based on their job'.
Here in US last century as we discuss often we had an INEQUITY INDUSTRY what we call global banking 5% freemason/Greeks hired by global banking to pretend they are helping the poor ---fighting against inequity ---while being predatory and profiteering killing those people they pretend to help. All those FAKE alt right alt left NGOS tied to labor and justice-----these are POVERTY PIMPS. What THE NATION describes as an INTERNATIONAL INEQUITY INDUSTRY is simply our sovereign global banking NGO players going global corporation. So, these GLOBAL INEQUITY INDUSTRIES will kill our local global banking 5% freemason/Greek player PRETENDING to help the poor.
THE NATION describes all this as a legitimate industry staffed with people who really CARE-----but as with GLOBAL GREEN CORPORATION people-----they are sociopaths only trying to move public policy for global banking 1% pretending it helps our 99% of WE THE PEOPLE.
What is POVERTY PIMP?
What does POVERTY PIMP mean? POVERTY PIMP meaning & explanation
Published on Aug 16, 2016
What is POVERTY PIMP?
What does POVERTY PIMP mean?
POVERTY PIMP meaning & explanation.
Poverty pimp or "professional poverty pimp" is a pejorative label used to convey that an individual or group is benefiting unduly by acting as an intermediary on behalf of the poor, the disadvantaged, or some other "victimized" groups. Those who use this appellation suggest that those so labeled profit unduly from the misfortune of others, and therefore do not really wish the societal problems that they appear to work on to be eliminated permanently, as it is not in their own interest for this to happen. It could be applied to someone who sees poverty as a career, and as such alleviation of poverty-related issues would be a threat to their livelihood. The most frequent targets of this accusation are those receiving government funding or that solicit private charity to work on issues on behalf of various disadvantaged individuals or groups, but who never seem to be able to show any amelioration of the problems experienced by their target population. It has also been used to describe the leader of a civil rights group who whips up hysteria over some real or imagined fear (usually racism) and keeps a major portion of the donations.
Here is our newest far-right wing global banking 1% neo-liberal media outlet REAL NEWS-----located in hyper-global neo-liberal TORONTO and BALTIMORE-----with that THE NATION reporter Abrahamian telling us what REAL EQUALITY should look like. Mind you, Baltimore was top gun ROBBER BARON sacking and looting of America so it will not tell us what FIXING INEQUALITY by recovering tens of trillions of dollars stolen ----it will focus on new immigrants being exposed to these same predatory and profiteering criminal structures.
We we global banking 5% freemason/Greek player MARC STEINER-----bringing TRUMP and white people into this discussion of wealth inequality in US caused by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS KNIGHTS OF MALTA TRIBE OF JUDAH-----having nothing to do with TRUMP or our white 99% of citizens. No focus on that global banking 5% freemason/Greek players---white, black, and brown players behind all these POVERTY PIMP fleecing of our 99% of citizens.
REAL NEWS is FAKE NEWS---and a good source for finding which media are global banking 5% players.
As Marc knows, Baltimore invented the inequality industry as poverty pimps------so we do not go here to get a solution to recovering tens of trillions of dollars criminally looted from our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
What Does Real Equality Look Like?
Published on Sep 25, 2018
Nation Senior Editor Atossa Araxia Abrahamian wrote a lead article, 'The Inequality Industry,' which takes a deep dive into its history, the present political struggle and the future
THERE IS NO WEALTH INEQUALITY IN US-----we are working to recover massive frauds against our US wealth. Creating public assistance instead of recovering the tens of trillions -----NOT LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE.
People during OCCUPY WALL STREET were NOT protesting wealth inequity as we read in THE NATION---REAL NEWS----we all were protesting the massive frauds and the failure to get our US justice system to recover the sacking and looting of our nation---below we see the same around the world.
The OCCUPY protests were not about wealth inequity they were about massive criminal global banks stealing tens of trillions of dollars with no US justice recovering that personal and public wealth.---THERE IS NO WEALTH INEQUITY IN US.
Slovak Farmers Drive Tractors to Capital to Protest Against Subsidy Fraud
June 20, 2018, at 1:22 p.m.
BRATISLAVA (Reuters) - Farmers drove dozens of tractors from central and eastern Slovakia to Bratislava on Wednesday to protest against agricultural subsidy fraud, brought into the spotlight by a murdered reporter in his last story.
The farmers said the government and the ruling leftist Smer party, in power for most of the past decade, have for years overlooked a system that enabled politically connected people to claim subsidies on land they did not own nor had any other title to.
Slovakia's government at its Wednesday session agreed to set up a special task force to investigate subsidy fraud allegations.
The General Prosecutor's office said this week it had looked into 35 cases related to the farmers' complaints. It did not say when its results would be made public.
Small farmers say they face violence or blackmail by local thugs trying to force them off their land or collect the subsidies while the police look away.
According to Slovak law, anyone who farms on the land but does not necessarily own it is entitled to claim subsidies for each hectare, funded by the European Union.
Farmers allege that people illegally claim subsidies; that they fail to deliver any documentation proving they use the land, or provide fake papers; and have contacts in public administration.
"It is unacceptable that small farmers are not able to live off the land they own (...) because of speculative claims for subsidies," farmer Frantisek Oravec told reporters after meeting with President Andrej Kiska on Wednesday.
Kiska, a ceremonial rather than a political leader, sided with the farmers.
"We need to restore the rule of law in the Slovak countryside and clear land ownership rights because the current system creates conditions for fraud," Kiska said.
Mass rallies against corruption and lack of progress in the investigation of investigative reporter Jan Kuciak's murder were due to take place in several Slovak towns on Friday.
Kuciak brought attention to Italian businessmen in Slovakia with suspected mafia links, including Antonino Vadala, who had business ties with two people who went on to work at former prime minister Robert Fico's office. Both have resigned and denied any wrongdoing.
Vadala has been charged with agricultural subsidy fraud in Slovakia but he was extradited to Italy over an unrelated drug trafficking charge in May. The Slovak case has been pending in his absence.
Kuciak, who also covered a number of other topics, was found shot dead at home with his fiancee in late February. The murder has shaken Slovakia, prompting mass protests that forced the resignations of the prime minister, two interior ministers and a police chief.
No one has been charged over the deaths, which the prosecutor overseeing the case said was likely a contract killing.
Slovak reporters have followed up on Kuciak's story and reported alleged cases of subsidy fraud schemes by Slovak business people including a former lawmaker of the Smer party. There have been no charges yet. The Smer party suspended the membership of the accused lawmaker, who has denied any wrongdoing.
'The Economist hailed Professor Piketty as "the modern Marx" (Karl, that is). But what is his book all about'?
Of course what THE NATION-----and our reporter Abrahamian along with MARC STEINER and REAL NEWS are selling as the answer to our US 99% having been sacked and looted of all our public and personal wealth ---is MARXIST solutions. This begins with PUBLIC ASSISTANCE as with BASIC INCOME. Our US 99% of WE THE PEOPLE would be far-richer then before CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA massive and systemic frauds if our US justice system simply bring back the fraud with DAMAGES. Each US citizen 350 million citizens would be awarded several hundred thousand dollars----THAT is justice for victims of crimes---
What INTERNATIONAL INEQUITY INDUSTRY wants to do is declare all our US 99% POVERTY CASES needing yet another PUBLIC ASSISTANCE scheme-----and NONE of this is LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE. So MARC STEINER and REAL NEWS is setting the stage for pretending MARXISM is left when what is MOVING FORWARD is far-right wing global corporate extreme wealth extreme poverty INDUSTRIAL MARXISM. These were the far-right Clinton neo-liberal media outlets that silenced REAL LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVES these few decades continuing the LYING, CHEATING, AND STEALING.
The most raging global banking 1% naked capitalist media outlet THE ECONOMIST is introducing PIKETTY and his MARXISM just as REAL NEWS and THE NATION. This is the solution to wealth inequity and NOT GIVING PEOPLE JUSTICE FROM MASSIVE FRAUDS.
DAS CAPITAL being rewritten to fit ONE WORLD ONE GOVERNANCE US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
The Economist explains
Thomas Piketty’s “Capital”, summarised in four paragraphs
A very brief summary of "Capital in the Twenty-First Century"
The Economist explainsMay 5th 2014by R.A.
It is the economics book that took the world by storm. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, written by the French economist Thomas Piketty, was published in French in 2013 and in English in March 2014. The English version quickly became an unlikely bestseller, and it prompted a broad and energetic debate on the book’s subject: the outlook for global inequality. Some reckon it heralds or may itself cause a pronounced shift in the focus of economic policy, toward distributional questions. The Economist hailed Professor Piketty as "the modern Marx" (Karl, that is). But what is his book all about?
Capital draws on more than a decade of research by Piketty and a handful of other economists, detailing historical changes in the concentration of income and wealth. This pile of data allows Piketty to sketch out the evolution of inequality since the beginning of the industrial revolution. In the 18th and 19th centuries western European society was highly unequal. Private wealth dwarfed national income and was concentrated in the hands of the rich families who sat atop a relatively rigid class structure. This system persisted even as industrialisation slowly contributed to rising wages for workers. Only the chaos of the first and second world wars and the Depression disrupted this pattern. High taxes, inflation, bankruptcies and the growth of sprawling welfare states caused wealth to shrink dramatically, and ushered in a period in which both income and wealth were distributed in relatively egalitarian fashion.
NOT ONE MENTION OF GLOBAL BANKING 1% ROBBER BARON MASSIVE AND SYSTEMIC FRAUDS AS CAUSE FOR WEALTH INEQUITY---HMMM, WE CAN BE SURE THIS IS FAKE 'LEFT' MARXISM.
But the shocks of the early 20th century have faded and wealth is now reasserting itself. On many measures, Piketty reckons, the importance of wealth in modern economies is approaching levels last seen before the first world war.
From this history, Piketty derives a grand theory of capital and inequality. As a general rule wealth grows faster than economic output, he explains, a concept he captures in the expression r > g (where r is the rate of return to wealth and g is the economic growth rate). Other things being equal, faster economic growth will diminish the importance of wealth in a society, whereas slower growth will increase it (and demographic change that slows global growth will make capital more dominant). But there are no natural forces pushing against the steady concentration of wealth. Only a burst of rapid growth (from technological progress or rising population) or government intervention can be counted on to keep economies from returning to the “patrimonial capitalism” that worried Karl Marx. Piketty closes the book by recommending that governments step in now, by adopting a global tax on wealth, to prevent soaring inequality contributing to economic or political instability down the road.
The book has unsurprisingly attracted plenty of criticism. Some wonder whether Piketty is right to think that the future will look like the past. Theory argues that it should become ever harder to earn a good return on wealth the more there is of it. And today’s super-rich (think of Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg) mostly come by their wealth through work, rather than via inheritance. Others argue that Piketty’s policy recommendations are more ideologically than economically driven and could do more harm than good. But many of the sceptics nonetheless have kind words for the book’s contributions, in terms of data and analysis. Whether or not Professor Piketty succeeds in changing policy, he will have influenced the way thousands of readers and plenty of economists think about these issues.
WELL, GATES AND ZUCKERBERG CAME BY WEALTH BY HAVING FAMILY BUY PATENTS ON TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED BY OUR PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEES----THAT IS INHERITANCE OF WEALTH.
If we look back at last century's economic crash from the same massive and systemic global banking 1% frauds leading to GREAT DEPRESSION we saw President FDR state that a 90% tax on corporations AND THE RICH were needed to CLAW BACK THAT FRAUD. Today, global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are being paid to PRETEND the problem is the poverty created by massive fraud and the solution is global corporate campus MARXISM. Rather than recover the fraud through a taxation redistribution of wealth-----CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA and international inequity industries want to enslave us and expose us to predatory and profiteering industries....you know, those INTENTIONAL LIVING WORKER CO-OPS AND DORMITORIES....
There is no wealth inequity in US----we have yet to have massive and systemic corporate frauds of tens of trillions of dollars RECOVERED and returned to our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE.
Gangsters Out Blog
Your alternate news source. Connecting the dots between politics and organized crime.
"Let the Ghetto Gospel go forward into every hood possible." Ja Rule
Sunday, October 9, 2011 Wallstreet Protests Expand
The US Wall Street protest is expanding across the United States as well as Canada. It started in New York where 700 peaceful protesters were arrested for walking on the street not the sidewalk. A rather disturbing scene in a nation where the Constitution guaranteeing the right to lawful Assembly is the highest law of the land.
I heard news of them planning one for Vancouver and I said what sock exchange? Vancouver doesn't have a stock exchange any more. They disband it because of corruption. It was full of fake pump and dump stocks so they got rid of it. I understand they are planning to occupy the Vancouver Art Gallery instead. Since that occupation won't affect the financial district there's no doubt that occupation could very well last through winter.
There is one point I'd like to make. Although I most certainly don't speak for everyone showing up to protest, this isn't about poor people being jealous of rich people and wanting to share the wealth. This is about the various financial crisis' which has been the result of investment fraud that has required huge tax payer bailouts.
In England there have been massive protests because the money spent on wars of aggression and financial bailouts has created huge deficits just like it has in the United States. They are now on a slash and burn campaign to destroy all public services that took years to build as a result. The primary cause of this chaos is investment fraud. White Collar crime going unpunished. Al Martin discussed it at great lengths in his book the Conspirators.
Michael Moore recently discussed the control and conflict of interest the banking industry has in the government. Henry Paulson was the former CEO of Goldman Sachs and became the US treasury secretary under George W. Bush. Many felt issuing the bank bail out was a huge conflict of interest.
It is clear that the various financial crises are artificially created and are the result of investment fraud as well as money laundering, drug smuggling and arms dealing. That is what was behind the BCCI collapse. If a free market is free, it doesn't require tax payers bailouts. Investment fraud is a serious crime because it wipes out pensions, destabilizes the market and adversely affects the economy.
The solution for those ROARING 20S global banking 1% ROBBER BARON frauds bringing the GREAT DEPRESSION was using taxation to RECOVER AND REDISTRIBUTE the loot in the hands of ROBBERS. We know CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA made clear there would be no REDISTRIBUTION of loot this time around -----what we are getting is a society filled with more and more POVERTY PIMPING-------businesses and global corporations pretending policies are HELPING our growing US 99% of WE THE IMPOVERISHED PEOPLE.
We understand FDR was that ONE WORLD global banking 1% back then ---but FDR did keep the solutions LEFT SOCIAL PROGRESSIVE indeed helping our US citizens until CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA made corrupting and criminalizing our US government agencies a goal.
THERE IS NOTHING GOOD MOVING FORWARD WITH INTERNATIONAL INEQUITY INDUSTRY NGOS OR POLICIES.
NO MORE POVERTY PIMPING!
When Income Was Taxed at 94%: How FDR Tackled Debt and Reckless Republicans
FlaglerLive | August 14, 2011
How much can a U.S. president committed to greater equality hope to accomplish when lawmakers devoted to helping the rich hold the upper hand?
Advocacy for equality must take a backseat, Obama administration insiders insist, when fanatical friends of the fortunate in Congress recklessly endanger our nation.
But in 1943, a U.S. president confronted a debt ceiling crisis just like Obama’s — and came up with a different answer. Facing rabid lawmakers every bit as opposed to taxing the rich as ours today, Franklin D. Roosevelt didn’t let up on the struggle for a more equal America. He doubled down.
Roosevelt’s debt ceiling battle actually began right after Pearl Harbor. The nation needed a revenue boost to wage and win the war.
FDR and his New Dealers wanted to finance the war equitably, with stiff tax rates on high incomes. How stiff? FDR proposed a 100 percent top tax rate. At a time of “grave national danger,” Roosevelt told Congress in April 1942, “no American citizen ought to have a net income, after he has paid his taxes, of more than $25,000 a year.” That would be about $350,000 in today’s dollars.
The year before, steel exec Eugene Grace had grabbed $522,537, over $8 million today, in 1941 salary.
But conservative lawmakers would quickly reject FDR’s plan. Four months later, Roosevelt tried again. He repeated his $25,000 “supertax” income cap call in his Labor Day message.
Congress shrugged that request off, too. FDR still didn’t back down. In early October, he issued an executive order that limited top corporate salaries to $25,000 after taxes. The move would “provide for greater equality in contributing to the war effort,” Roosevelt declared.
Infuriated conservatives saw red, literally. The “only logical stopping place for this movement,” fumed Princeton economist Harley Lutz, would be “a completely communistic equalization of incomes.”
Rich-people-friendly lawmakers vowed to kill FDR’s executive order by any legislative means necessary. They ended up attaching a rider repealing the order to a bill that would give the wartime debt ceiling a desperately needed lift. FDR tried and failed to get that rider axed, then let the bill with it become law without his signature. He had no choice. Our troops needed financing.
Roosevelt had definitely lost the debt ceiling battle over the salary cap, as he no doubt knew he would. But sometimes a leader can win by “losing.” FDR didn’t prevail on the cap. He did prevail in his far broader struggle to shape the wartime finance debate.
Roosevelt’s relentless campaign to cap top incomes kept that debate focused on taxing the rich. Conservatives didn’t want to do that taxing. They wanted a national sales tax, as do many conservatives today. But FDR’s aggressive advocacy for equity never let that regressive sales tax notion get traction.
The war revenue debate would be fought on Roosevelt’s terms — not on whether to tax the rich, but on how much. And, in the end, that “how much” would turn out to be quite a great deal. By the war’s end, America’s wealthy would be paying taxes on income over $200,000 at a 94 percent statutory rate.
Americans making over $250,000 in 1944 — over $3.2 million today — paid 69 percent of their total incomes in federal income taxes, after exploiting every loophole they could find. In 2007, by contrast, America’s 400 highest earners paid just 18.1 percent of their total incomes, after loopholes, in federal taxes.
The debt ceiling “solution” that White House and congressional leaders bargained does not ask these top 400 — or any other rich Americans — to pay a penny more in taxes than they do now. In the 2011 debt ceiling struggle, inequality has clearly triumphed.
So what does FDR’s debt ceiling battle teach us? Maybe this: We really can have a more equal America. We just need to fight for it.