Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: You can't have economic justice without redistribution. Free trade has helped hundreds of millions [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)84. I think FDR was correct.
Free trade is a completely different animal. It is Somalia level deregulation for international corporations and it does little except serve as a means of wealth transfer to those on the far right of that graph.
As Bernie says - Fair Trade, not Free Trade.
We need to start by revamping the regulatory framework to return the goal of corporate management to one focused on building their company's long term prospects.
The Pay of Corporate Executives and Financial Professionals as Evidence of Rents in Top 1 Percent Incomes
The debate over the extent and causes of rising inequality of American incomes and wages has now raged for at least two decades. In this paper, we will make four arguments. First, the increase in the incomes and wages of the top 1 percent over in the last three decades should largely be interpreted as driven by the creation and/or redistribution of economic rents, and not simply as the outcome of well-functioning competitive markets rewarding skills or productivity based on marginal differences. This rise in rents accruing to the top 1 percent could be the result of increased opportunities for rent-shifting, increased incentives for rent-shifting, or a combination of both. Second, this rise in incomes at the very top has been the primary impediment to living standards growth for low and moderate-income households approaching the growth rate of economy-wide productivity. Third, because this rise in top incomes is largely driven by rents, there is the potential for checking (or even reversing) this rise through policy measures with little to no adverse impact on overall economic growth. Lastly, this analysis suggests two complementary approaches for policymakers wishing to reverse the rise in the top 1 percents share of income: dismantling the institutional sources of their increased ability to channel rents their way and/or reducing the return to this rent-seeking by significantly increasing marginal rates of taxation on high incomes.
The debate over the extent and causes of rising inequality of American incomes and wages has now raged for at least two decades. In this paper, we will make four arguments. First, the increase in the incomes and wages of the top 1 percent over in the last three decades should largely be interpreted as driven by the creation and/or redistribution of economic rents, and not simply as the outcome of well-functioning competitive markets rewarding skills or productivity based on marginal differences. This rise in rents accruing to the top 1 percent could be the result of increased opportunities for rent-shifting, increased incentives for rent-shifting, or a combination of both. Second, this rise in incomes at the very top has been the primary impediment to living standards growth for low and moderate-income households approaching the growth rate of economy-wide productivity. Third, because this rise in top incomes is largely driven by rents, there is the potential for checking (or even reversing) this rise through policy measures with little to no adverse impact on overall economic growth. Lastly, this analysis suggests two complementary approaches for policymakers wishing to reverse the rise in the top 1 percents share of income: dismantling the institutional sources of their increased ability to channel rents their way and/or reducing the return to this rent-seeking by significantly increasing marginal rates of taxation on high incomes.
http://www.epi.org/publication/pay-corporate-executives-financial-professionals/
For reference:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-22/american-airlines-ceo-forgos-cash-with-shift-to-stock-only-pay
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
118 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You can't have economic justice without redistribution. Free trade has helped hundreds of millions [View all]
hill2016
Mar 2016
OP
Gist of OP: Sanders=American Socialist; Clinton=Global Socialist, sacrificing Americans for world!
TheBlackAdder
Mar 2016
#114
Clinton should definitely campaign on all those jobs she wants to keep sending to other countries.
phantom power
Mar 2016
#117
Sadly, the proven "bottom up" model for redistribution that the left has always endorsed ...
1StrongBlackMan
Mar 2016
#29
Protectionism will kill our exports and raise consumer prices. The trading world is now global.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#16
Nonsense. Digitalization and large container ships have shrunk the world. Protectionism has
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#31
Thank you. I enjoyed reading your link. It is as I expected. A much larger issue was involved.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#111
The actual researched numbers on how many jobs NAFTA really cost the US has debunked much
Jitter65
Mar 2016
#109
But i thought Bernie was all about "redistribution." Even when Hillary supports same ideas as BS
Jitter65
Mar 2016
#41
All the "dems" rushing agree and endorse your RW economic talking points reveal themselves
whatchamacallit
Mar 2016
#50
Thanks to NAFTA, Conditions for Mexican Factory Workers Like Rosa Moreno Are Getting Worse
polly7
Mar 2016
#51
Provided jobs my ASS. Provided slave labor that feeds America's obsession with consumerism.
phleshdef
Mar 2016
#63
LOL, looks like the globalists are trotting out the old "protectionism is racist" BS.
Odin2005
Mar 2016
#65
The poorest 70% of the world's population has seen impressive income gains but
pampango
Mar 2016
#74
"The poorest 70% of the world's population has seen impressive income gains"
kristopher
Mar 2016
#75
This graph from Krugman shows the extent to which the poorest 70% have benefitted.
pampango
Mar 2016
#83
What is 'fair trade' and what is 'free trade'? Do we get to 'fair trade' through negotiated
pampango
Mar 2016
#86
Fair trade prioritizes domestic workers' rights and the health of the middle class.
kristopher
Mar 2016
#88
If FDR has 'seen it differently', he would have acted differently and not proposed the ITO which was
pampango
Mar 2016
#96
"... if it's win-lose something needs to guide the decision making." That's the difference.
pampango
Mar 2016
#99
I "injected" Trump because he is the antithesis of FDR: a unilateralist vs an internationalist.
pampango
Mar 2016
#116
My definition of free trade is like that between American states or France and Germany.
pampango
Mar 2016
#115
Free trade is bullshit, doesn't exist, kinda like self regulating capitalism LOL
Jackie Wilson Said
Mar 2016
#76
And you need income taxes around the world so that the profits of all that trade go
applegrove
Mar 2016
#89
"provided jobs where previously the best jobs were in rural subsistence farming"?
Cheese Sandwich
Mar 2016
#94
Haha! Another Anti-Protectionist, wanting to devalue the US to help other countries. How American?
TheBlackAdder
Mar 2016
#95
NO ONE is against trade. Trade is a good thing and has happened since the beginning of civilization
glowing
Mar 2016
#106
OP what are you using for reference or source for that statement? What I have read is the gains
Todays_Illusion
Mar 2016
#118