Feb
23
Jessica: Class 8
February 23, 2015 | Leave a Comment
One thing I can recall about trickle down economics is that sometimes the bucket isn’t filled enough yet to trickle down. I forget which episode and who the guest was, but this is from The Colbert Report. Stephen Colbert, in his character as Stephen Colbert, stated that the people below him can not get any thing from him because he didn’t have enough himself for any to trickle down. Of course, this was way more humorous in his tone and delivery, but the theme still stands. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work cause it’s not about the wealth that’s being brought down that’s the problem, the bucket just keeps getting bigger. How do you expect any wealth to trickle down when the wealth of those above us aren’t satiating the wealthy themselves? I agree with Stiglitz in his stance that the American people are misinformed and that corporations should pay their fair share in taxes, but we signed up for this. Who in a capitalistic society is going to claim that private companies should pay taxes? Aren’t they the ones in charge? No one is above them to tell them no. In the rules of capitalism, they’re not breaking any.
Furthermore, the rich keep getting richer cause they can get richer. Anyone can become rich, living the American Dream, but it’s difficult, unless you have a savings to back you up. The charts in the CNN article do not surprise me at all. Historically, whites have always been the dominant race in America, and they still remain to be. From the New Yorker article it is evident how diverse New York City actually is. The stories the numbers tell do not surprise me but the numbers themselves cause quite an alarm. I never realized the disparity was so high. Additionally, I think the way the data was presented was interesting and insightful.
While the three articles mentioned above were kind to my perspective, the City Journal article displeased me. The fact that super wealthy people are philanthropic is not surprising to me. These people have so much wealth that they do not know what to do with so they give back. I would love to be a philanthropic person, but currently lack the funds, so I guess I will just have to support myself until I get there. It’s not the “city’s private wealth” that the city is benefitting from, its the philanthropy that the city”s private wealth can afford. They aren’t the only ones giving back to the community and donating. Other people, who probably budget extremely well, are also donating and volunteering and giving back to their community as well. The city’s private wealth may be the reason why the institutions are still in place, but it is not exclusively because of them. I understand the article is stating that by the wealth giving back these programs are offered at the frequency and rate they are. However, I believe that if you are extremely wealthy, you do have a social responsibility to give back to your community. In my opinion it is a practical decision and a futuristic one as well, improving the life of those after them.
The article also mentions crime for brief moments, but I am unsure of how that portrays with income inequality. The train of thought I see in the author’s stance is if I am afraid to take the subway, then I do not take the subway. The city loses a customer and therefore loses money. I am quite unsure of how this way of thinking affects income inequality, it just affects the city and the stigma surrounding it. Generally, if I’m not taking the subway because I am afraid, I’m pretty sure no one will miss me.
Overall, I believe that if New York City’s income inequality is going to be fixed, the rules of capitalism cannot apply. Similar to all the things that flourished after the government’s intervention, income inequality is going to have to let the private entities back down for a bit while the government tries to regulate the greed and wealth improperly spread around the population.
