“If, in 1970, you invested $100 in a fund tracking the S&P index, then by 2023 the investment would have grown to $22,000, far more than it would have in other assets such as real estate or government and corporate bonds. Case closed, right? Put your money into an index fund and simply leave it there.”
How much of national income goes to the richest 1%?
“You might expect these numbers to be strongly correlated to a country’s level of economic development. But this isn’t always the case. In the United States, for example, 1% of its population takes home 21% of national income. This is relatively high globally.”
How much of national income goes to the richest 1%?
“You might expect these numbers to be strongly correlated to a country’s level of economic development. But this isn’t always the case. In the United States, for example, 1% of its population takes home 21% of national income. This is relatively high globally.”
I see that Penguin are reissuing Karl Polanyi's Great Transformation as a Penguin Classic.
About time; for many critical political economists Polanyi has been one of the key figures underpinning work on social forces in economics.
The last re-release (the 'third edition') had a high profile forward by Joseph Stiglitz, this edition has a forward by well known Polanyi scholar Gareth Dale.
If you only read on book on economics this year, make it the Great Transformation.
Indeed, that was prompted my post - I didn't link to it as the author seemed to think Poianyi was a lot more obscure & under-published than he actually is....
Kicking around an idea for "fixing" US complex/abuse-prone partnership tax regime:
one Trade or Business tax that applies to all businesses, in whatever form incl. self-employment
C corporation law applies EXCEPT dividends not taxable
Rate equal to highest individual income tax rate
Everybody gets one layer of tax. Self-employed can get benefit of lower individual rates by paying compensation (deemed in case of sole prop) No basis moving or other shenanigans.
Downsides, which are sort of the flip side of the "shenanigans":
no tax-free way to take appreciated property back out of a business once contributed. But maybe a provision allows distribution tax-free to the owner who contributed property. Let people mulligan but don't let them move stuff around.
no way to get losses out from, e.g. real estate businesses. But maybe let people flexibly group businesses. Can't offset your wages but can offset your other business.
@bibliolater@economics Thats hilarious, coming from a country which exported all its industry to China and is now unable to produce paper masks and rubber gloves during a pandemic.
(Some) ignorant leftbros: "Class first! No idpol!"
Scholars of right wing politics/economics: "All these right-wing thinkers are much more comfortable thinking about the blurred lines between sexual and economic politics than many thinkers on the left. And they understand that Keynesianism rests on a certain kind of sexual contract. Any challenge to this order—whether it be an escalation of wage or benefit claims, or the flight from sexual normativity, or unmarried women claiming welfare benefits—disrupts the fiscal and monetary calculus on which Keynesianism rests."
Above remark from "The Extravagances of Neoliberalism", an interview of Melinda Cooper (author of "Counterrevolution: Extravagance and Austerity in Public Finance") by Benjamin Kunkel, in The Baffler.
@SallyStrange@bookstodon I always feel that those on the Left aho wish to reduce everything to class to the exclusion of all else care more for what is usually a very superficial dogma than manifesting actual change
Without recognition and due value for the experiences of different communities, there can be no intersectionality and without intersectionality there will be no change. As you say..the Right gets this only too well
“ One look at this chart should be sufficient to understand why the Great Crash of 1929 was both great, and a major cause of the Great Depression which followed it, and why levered speculation, rather than rational calculation, dominates the behaviour of asset markets.”
“ Finance, and banking, and macroeconomics, are therefore integrated topics: they cannot be treated as separate domains, as Neoclassical treats them. My focus in this book is on how macroeconomics and the theory of banking need to be overhauled, and a similar overhaul is needed of finance theory.”
“ I won't attempt that here, but fortunately, that process has been started by a group of mathematicians in the London Mathematical Laboratory. They are developing what they call "Ergodicity Economics" to replace the existing theory of finance.”
.... now can you further expand on what you mean by 'prosperity'?
Prosperity in what sense? Just financial prosperity? Prosperity ALL or for a select few? Is there a time limit on that, or is this intended to be "prosperity for said nation's future generations in perpetuity"?
“Topics include functions of capital markets and financial intermediaries, asset valuation, fixed-income securities, common stocks, capital budgeting, diversification and portfolio selection, equilibrium pricing of risky assets, the theory of efficient markets, and an introduction to derivatives and options.”
“Topics include functions of capital markets and financial intermediaries, asset valuation, fixed-income securities, common stocks, capital budgeting, diversification and portfolio selection, equilibrium pricing of risky assets, the theory of efficient markets, and an introduction to derivatives and options.”