* This essay is adapted from a lecture delivered on the occasion of the award of the degree of Doctor Honoris Causa to Bina Agarwal at the Lustrum Ceremony of the 55th Anniversary of the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, The Netherlands, October 18, 2007.
INTRODUCTION: GOING DEEPER THAN STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION
A popular recent meme on liberal social networks and left-leaning blogs summarizes ideological differences as follows:
While the partisan message is clear (only with liberalism's compassionate box-stacking does everyone get to watch baseball), conservative and libertarian critics of liberal equality also helped spread the image, mocking the inherent unfairness of giving some peo
INTRODUCTION
In the three decades after the Second World War, low- and middle-income households enjoyed income gains that grew in tandem with rising GDP levels and actually outpaced the gains enjoyed by the richest households. In short, if you wanted to report how “the U.S. economy was doing” or “how the U.S. economy was working for the vast majority,” you could just recite overall income growth rates.
Our data sets were provided and cleaned by Public Campaign. For the purposes of this report, Public Campaign used federal campaign contribution data made public by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and then refined and augmented by the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP).
Elizabeth Ridlington and Miles Unterreiner of Frontier Group, Robert Hiltonsmith of Demos, and Kurt Walters of Public Campaign helped with data analysis for this report.
How taxpayers are bankrolling the paychecks of already-wealthy executives instead of supporting more livable wages for American workers struggling to get by.
After getting the First Amendment supremely wrong in Citizens United, the Supreme Court now faces its next money in politics case. In McCutcheon v. FEC, the challengers are attacking a law that says that no one person can contribute over $123,000 directly to federal candidates, parties, and committees—that’s over twice the average American’s income.
Fast food companies keep employees at poverty-level wages while reaping billions of dollars in profits. It drives inequality, slows growth, and lowers living standards.
These stories were taken from the thousands of stories submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when they requested comments about private educational loans and struggles with student loan debt.
Just as postsecondary education is becoming increasingly vital to getting a good job and entering the middle class, college costs are rising beyond the reach of many New Yorkers. State policy decisions have played a significant role in this rise by shifting costs onto students and families though declining state support. New York’s investment in higher education has decreased considerably over the past twenty years, and its financial aid programs, though still some of the country’s most expansive, fail to reach many students with financial need.
Three years have passed since David (the American public) defeated Goliath (the big banks) and the Dodd-Frank Act became law. Implementation staggers forward and there have been some recent encouraging developments. But, overall, there is reason for serious concern about the fate of financial reform.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that corporations were free to use money from the corporation’s treasury on political activity.1 Setting aside for a moment the many criticisms of the decision, Citizens United left open a number of questions about who at a corporation should get to decide when a corporation spends money on politics. It has fallen to our system of corporate law to provide an answer.
CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler has often said that weak rules on regulatory jurisdiction across borders could blow a hole in the bottom of financial reform. He is right. In a recent speech on the subject, he said: “All of these common- sense reforms Congress mandated, however, could be undone if the overseas guaranteed affiliates and branches of U.S. persons are allowed to operate outside of these important requirements.”
This is the third of several papers examining the underlying validity of the assertion that regulation of the financial markets is unduly burdensome. These papers assert that the value of the financial markets is often mis-measured. The efficiency of the market in intermediating flows between capital investors and capital users (like manufacturing and service businesses, individuals and governments) is the proper measure. Unregulated markets are found to be chronically inefficient using this standard. This costs the economy enormous amounts each year.