What do you think?
Rate this book
Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy: An Agenda for Growth and Shared Prosperity
Inequality is a choice.
The United States bills itself as the land of opportunity, a place where anyone can achieve success and a better life through hard work and determination. But the facts tell a different story—the U.S. today lags behind most other developed nations in measures of inequality and economic mobility. For decades, wages have stagnated for the majority of workers while economic gains have disproportionately gone to the top one percent. Education, housing, and health care—essential ingredients for individual success—are growing ever more expensive. Deeply rooted structural discrimination continues to hold down women and people of color, and more than one-fifth of all American children now live in poverty. These trends are on track to become even worse in the future.
Some economists claim that today’s bleak conditions are inevitable consequences of market outcomes, globalization, and technological progress. If we want greater equality, they argue, we have to sacrifice growth. This is simply not true. American inequality is the result of misguided structural rules that actually constrict economic growth. We have stripped away worker protections and family support systems, created a tax system that rewards short-term gains over long-term investment, offered a de facto public safety net to too-big-to-fail financial institutions, and chosen monetary and fiscal policies that promote wealth over full employment.
The United States bills itself as the land of opportunity, a place where anyone can achieve success and a better life through hard work and determination. But the facts tell a different story—the U.S. today lags behind most other developed nations in measures of inequality and economic mobility. For decades, wages have stagnated for the majority of workers while economic gains have disproportionately gone to the top one percent. Education, housing, and health care—essential ingredients for individual success—are growing ever more expensive. Deeply rooted structural discrimination continues to hold down women and people of color, and more than one-fifth of all American children now live in poverty. These trends are on track to become even worse in the future.
Some economists claim that today’s bleak conditions are inevitable consequences of market outcomes, globalization, and technological progress. If we want greater equality, they argue, we have to sacrifice growth. This is simply not true. American inequality is the result of misguided structural rules that actually constrict economic growth. We have stripped away worker protections and family support systems, created a tax system that rewards short-term gains over long-term investment, offered a de facto public safety net to too-big-to-fail financial institutions, and chosen monetary and fiscal policies that promote wealth over full employment.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published November 2, 2015
48 people are currently reading
868 people want to read
About the author
Joseph E. Stiglitz
247 books1,841 followersJoseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls "free market fundamentalists") and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
In 2000, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001, he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has held the rank of University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Professor Stiglitz is also an honorary professor at Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management. Stiglitz is one of the most frequently cited economists in the world.
In 2000, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001, he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has held the rank of University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Professor Stiglitz is also an honorary professor at Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management. Stiglitz is one of the most frequently cited economists in the world.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews
February 26, 2017
4 Stars - Incredible book.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is a well-known American economist and academic. In one of his most recent pieces he discusses his thesis: inequality is a choice - economic inequality that is. He does not argue, for example, that I as a woman choose to be paid less than a man. No, that would be a ridiculous argument and I would have tossed the book out the window if he had ever even hinted at that idea (or that African Americans choose to be paid less/have less economic advantage than white people). He argues and explains how the rules of the economy have created this inequality.
The book is essentially divided into two sections: The Current Rules and Rewriting the Rules. The section titles are quite straightforward. What drives the current economy and how can we adjust regulations and practices to better suit more people. Quickly I'll mention that I appreciate that Stiglitz acknowledged that not all inequalities are equal. Some people face more economic inequalities than others, mainly: African Americans, people of color, and women.
Economic writing can be very dry but this short book is anything but that. Stiglitz draws the reader in and writes well. He kept my attention through all 200 pages. Of course I've read articles by the author as a student but this was my first book by him. I would absolutely recommend this book to a variety of people: if you have interest in economics, if you're not sure because of how dry/confusing a book on the subject would be, to get a picture of problem with the U.S. economy. This is a nice introduction to those topics.
Joseph E. Stiglitz is a well-known American economist and academic. In one of his most recent pieces he discusses his thesis: inequality is a choice - economic inequality that is. He does not argue, for example, that I as a woman choose to be paid less than a man. No, that would be a ridiculous argument and I would have tossed the book out the window if he had ever even hinted at that idea (or that African Americans choose to be paid less/have less economic advantage than white people). He argues and explains how the rules of the economy have created this inequality.
The book is essentially divided into two sections: The Current Rules and Rewriting the Rules. The section titles are quite straightforward. What drives the current economy and how can we adjust regulations and practices to better suit more people. Quickly I'll mention that I appreciate that Stiglitz acknowledged that not all inequalities are equal. Some people face more economic inequalities than others, mainly: African Americans, people of color, and women.
Economic writing can be very dry but this short book is anything but that. Stiglitz draws the reader in and writes well. He kept my attention through all 200 pages. Of course I've read articles by the author as a student but this was my first book by him. I would absolutely recommend this book to a variety of people: if you have interest in economics, if you're not sure because of how dry/confusing a book on the subject would be, to get a picture of problem with the U.S. economy. This is a nice introduction to those topics.
October 5, 2016
ReWriting the Rules of the American Economy by Joseph Stiglitz
When the 2008 financial crisis struck, Noam Chomsky, influential leftist intellectual extraordinaire (and arguably a dying breed), recommend the United States government enlist Joseph Stiglitz to help drive the recovery as, at the very least, an ideological consultant. Even though the government uncharacteristically ignored the recommendation, the American public should most certainly not. Especially the American left. We should be paying very close attention to what Stiglitz is saying, what he’s doing, and probably what he’ll eventually be screaming.
ReWriting the Rules of the American Economy is by no means the best thing I’ve read by Stiglitz. It lacks the depth found in The Price of Inequality and doesn’t have the bite of any of his Great Divide essays, but it does something far more important than deep exploration or evisceration, something crucial; it better frames the debate.
Essentially, ReWriting the Rules could be seen as a smarter, more concise, but less accessible version of Robert Reich’s Saving Capitalism. Like Reich, it is easy to picture Stiglitz getting exhausted in the endless debate over the free market vs the size of government and, also like Reich, thinking it doesn’t matter. The idea is we need to rewrite the rules so the government works for all Americans, not just some. Once you see the debate this way it is difficult to see it any other way.
Which is good! Stiglitz offers up some great ideas here and it is particularly important for the left now because he’s puts to rest some debates you can currently see raging between the left and the far left, mostly in the wake of Sanders V Clinton. Trade deals for instance; Stiglitz doesn’t like the TPP because it undercuts labor and the idea of transparency in trade. At the same time, he wants America to engage in trade because you can’t have the sort of wealth distribution policies he wants if America’s wealth accumulation is stymied by aggressive protectionism. His compromise? Get a regulatory body (the FTC?), or make one, to regulate business participation in trade deals; making sure they are following a series of rules on the environment, human rights, and labor rights - both at home and abroad - in order to take advantage of free and protected capital flow between nations. Who on the left would not agree with this? Exactly.
The only very real and very frustrating part of this book is the layout. Broken into two parts (three if you count the introduction) titled “The Current Rules” and “ReWriting the Rules”, Stiglitz fractures his problems and proposed solutions in a such a way that makes ReWriting the Rules a less coherent and engaging read.
Nevertheless, there is a lot of potential in ReWriting the Rules of the American Economy to be an ideological unifier of the left, as though Stiglitz is offering his consultancy and all we need to do is pick up his book and start taking his advice.
When the 2008 financial crisis struck, Noam Chomsky, influential leftist intellectual extraordinaire (and arguably a dying breed), recommend the United States government enlist Joseph Stiglitz to help drive the recovery as, at the very least, an ideological consultant. Even though the government uncharacteristically ignored the recommendation, the American public should most certainly not. Especially the American left. We should be paying very close attention to what Stiglitz is saying, what he’s doing, and probably what he’ll eventually be screaming.
ReWriting the Rules of the American Economy is by no means the best thing I’ve read by Stiglitz. It lacks the depth found in The Price of Inequality and doesn’t have the bite of any of his Great Divide essays, but it does something far more important than deep exploration or evisceration, something crucial; it better frames the debate.
Essentially, ReWriting the Rules could be seen as a smarter, more concise, but less accessible version of Robert Reich’s Saving Capitalism. Like Reich, it is easy to picture Stiglitz getting exhausted in the endless debate over the free market vs the size of government and, also like Reich, thinking it doesn’t matter. The idea is we need to rewrite the rules so the government works for all Americans, not just some. Once you see the debate this way it is difficult to see it any other way.
Which is good! Stiglitz offers up some great ideas here and it is particularly important for the left now because he’s puts to rest some debates you can currently see raging between the left and the far left, mostly in the wake of Sanders V Clinton. Trade deals for instance; Stiglitz doesn’t like the TPP because it undercuts labor and the idea of transparency in trade. At the same time, he wants America to engage in trade because you can’t have the sort of wealth distribution policies he wants if America’s wealth accumulation is stymied by aggressive protectionism. His compromise? Get a regulatory body (the FTC?), or make one, to regulate business participation in trade deals; making sure they are following a series of rules on the environment, human rights, and labor rights - both at home and abroad - in order to take advantage of free and protected capital flow between nations. Who on the left would not agree with this? Exactly.
The only very real and very frustrating part of this book is the layout. Broken into two parts (three if you count the introduction) titled “The Current Rules” and “ReWriting the Rules”, Stiglitz fractures his problems and proposed solutions in a such a way that makes ReWriting the Rules a less coherent and engaging read.
Nevertheless, there is a lot of potential in ReWriting the Rules of the American Economy to be an ideological unifier of the left, as though Stiglitz is offering his consultancy and all we need to do is pick up his book and start taking his advice.
February 19, 2016
I read this book because I think there are problems with the US economy which need to be addressed. Specifically, I think the divide between middle class and CEO pay, the ratio of which has expanded exponentially over the years. I feel that the work of middle class needs to be valued and their pay needs to be raised, though as shown throughout history, taxation of the rich does not make the poor more wealthy. I read this book with the hopes on some fresh ideas on how to rebalance the earnings of all Americans.
This however was not the case.
My enthusiasm for the book started declining early with some of the authors claims. Specifically, he made the comparison that the switching costs for the digital economy and the manufacturing sector were similar. Having marketed and sold products to industrial customers for over a decade, I found this assertion ludicrous. There was a reference to this claim; however, it was from a paper titled “Information Rules” written in 1999, about the same time Myspace was dominating the social platforms.
This cased me to question the sincerity and accuracy of the book, and to examine more of the authors claims and (even the ones with which I agreed) more closely.
What I found was the book would identify legitimate problems, but the solutions were either incomplete, inaccurate or incomprehensible. I was disappointed, too, as there were several problems he identified in which I completely agree (such as corporate short term thinking and problems with the US tax code).
Overall I found the book disappointing at best.
Incomplete claims:
The book begins with a lot of claims, many of which will cause anger and indignation. I felt that way, too, when I read passages; however, I noticed the indignation would cause me not too look critically at the text, or the substance behind these claims at first. But on further examination, there were mistakes. Some examples I noted are below.
He sites several examples to highlight the struggles of the working class. On page 37, he notes that globalization has caused a “tilt [in] the balance against workers.” The author has looked at this problem totally in terms of top line wages. Missing from this analysis is the reduced costs of goods and increases to disposable income. This may, or may not offset the lack of wage growth, but it is certainly a benefit to be considered which is ignored throughout the book.
I agreed with his assessment of Intellectual Property rules: they do not work or serve their purposes as well as it should. Some of his claims, however, make me not want to agree with his overall assessment. On page 104 he writes:“Rather, the real intent of these provisions [Intellectual Property] is to impede health, environmental, consumer safety and even financial regulations meant to protect the public interest…”. No footnote is given nor are there any cases provided to support such a claim. To make such a damning statement with no evidence to support it makes me question its validity and his intentions.
Inaccurate solutions:
The author writes about the importance of growth, but his only answers are to unionize workers and increase taxes.
His section on Capital Gains taxes I found interesting and illuminating, but at the end of the day, his only rule was to increase them. Taxes do not produce growth. This would be his pat answer to every problem. This and unionization.
He bemoans the lack of unionized employees, and he waxes nostalgically over the glory days in the 1950s and 60s. Only mentioned once, in passing, is the racist and sexist history of these organizations during the same time frame, as they reserved jobs for only white men. Despite their history of discrimination, he believes they will be the cure to all our ills (though no evidence is provided they will). Ironically, he notes the unprecedented growth in US productivity between 1990-2011 (page 91), a period that corresponds to the rapid decline of union membership (page 71). The positive impacts of the decline of unions is ignored through the book. One particularly poignant example was with the teachers union in New Orleans, which were all fired post Katrina. The results and improvements since then have been impressive.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-...
Even when there were parts I agreed with, such as his assessment on banks Too Big to Fail, his solutions were often off and would result in greater problems. Dodd-Frank he felt was the right direction, but as any observer to the finance industry is well aware, there are many conflicting parts of Dodd-Frank, making it impossible for any institution to be in compliance with all parts (see article below). He proposed adding a “risk surcharge” to financial institutions, but based on the challenges just to get bank's operations in order, how and who could reasonably be expected to monitor and assess the proper surcharges?
http://www.economist.com/node/21547784
Incomprehensible:
“Congress should pass a financial transaction tax designed to encourage productive investment”, page 123. No further explanation is given. I am still trying to figure out how a tax, which prevents or delays a transaction, could be used to encourage investment.
Executive compensation: yes, I agree it is too high, and can promote short term thinking. He writes, “And there needs to be better, more transparent reporting of the full value of the the executive compensation for each corporation”. It is already part of the SEC filings. It is required for publicly listed companies in their 10-K.
He argues for the need of a “Fair Tax” [his quotes]. He writes on page 127, “those at the top pay less than ordinary Americans”. No data is provided for this claim and for a very good reason: It is not true. Outside of the top 0.1%, which pay less than the top 1% but more than all other Americans,that is not the case at all.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general...
In all the all the talk of tax reform, no discussion given on consumption taxes which are shown to place higher burdens on higher incomes and do not have loophole provisions. As shown in Europe, a higher VAT has the effect of being less burdensome on the poor, and more difficult to avoid for the rich. This however, was not part of the discussion.
Page 165 he finally mentions Social Security, however, only to express his view it needs to be expanded. No mention was given to when it was created the average lifespan was only 62, with benefits coming at age 65. He discussed the financial shortfalls brewing for the program; although it was not mentioned, I am assuming his reasoning for the shortfall would be that workers are no longer unionized, not that people are living longer.
Naiveté:
There were parts of the book which really made me question his qualifications. Some items of note include:
He proposes a Global Corporate Tax on all US companies overseas operations, of 10-15%. As we have already seen with Medtronic and others, raising the US tax rate will encourage more companies to leave, shrinking the tax base, and the higher taxes will cause new companies to incorporate somewhere else, outside the realm of the US taxman. His proposal will tax innovation out of the country.
Infrastructure investment leads to innovation (page 137). Infrastructure is critical for growth and a functioning economy, and its absence can seriously undermine activity. The US infrastructure is in bad shape and needs improvement, though we have had our economic boom due to infrastructure. Investing in new sewer lines does not spur technical innovations.
On page 65, the author sarcastically refers to the “monetary policy set by the nation’s ‘independent’ [author’s quotes] central bank”. Such juvenile insults, with no supporting claims, and no point, other than to smear congressmen he believes are beholden to the banks have no place in a book with supposedly noble goals.
On page 70 he claims “the right to freely associate and bargain collectively is universally recognized as a basic human right”. As a current case before the Supreme Court might decide, individuals have the right to say who can, and can not, speak or negotiate on their behalf. http://www.economist.com/news/united-...
On page 145 he claims“We must dismantle legal structures that explicitly prevent people of color from equally competing in the workforce”. No example or footnote is given. To impugn the US justice system, one would hope they would have evidence.
On page 77, in his defense of labor, he claims that changes to the labor standards have resulted in workers being “excluded from coverage under worker’s compensation laws, Social Security, Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, and the National Labor Relations Act”. Unlike other areas, he does provide a footnote; however, it was for an entire book, David Weil’s “The Fissured Workplace” a 424 page work. While the claims may be true, I feel it is unprofessional and sloppy writing to cite an entire book, and not specific portions that substantiate his claims.
Conclusion
I had higher hopes for this book, and that it would take a fresh look at the very real problems facing the US economy. While at time the author identify problems, the evidence to support I found lacking or incomplete. Instead of dynamic new ideas, the author waxes nostalgically about labor unions and high taxes. In my opinion, those are naive panaceas for the problems facing our economy today.
My enthusiasm for the book started declining early with some of the authors claims. Specifically, he made the comparison that the switching costs for the digital economy and the manufacturing sector were similar. Having marketed and sold products to industrial customers for over a decade, I found this assertion ludicrous. There was a reference to this claim; however, it was from a paper titled “Information Rules” written in 1999, about the same time Myspace was dominating the social platforms.
This cased me to question the sincerity and accuracy of the book, and to examine more of the authors claims and (even the ones with which I agreed) more closely.
What I found was the book would identify legitimate problems, but the solutions were either incomplete, inaccurate or incomprehensible. I was disappointed, too, as there were several problems he identified in which I completely agree (such as corporate short term thinking and problems with the US tax code).
Overall I found the book disappointing at best.
Incomplete claims:
The book begins with a lot of claims, many of which will cause anger and indignation. I felt that way, too, when I read passages; however, I noticed the indignation would cause me not too look critically at the text, or the substance behind these claims at first. But on further examination, there were mistakes. Some examples I noted are below.
He sites several examples to highlight the struggles of the working class. On page 37, he notes that globalization has caused a “tilt [in] the balance against workers.” The author has looked at this problem totally in terms of top line wages. Missing from this analysis is the reduced costs of goods and increases to disposable income. This may, or may not offset the lack of wage growth, but it is certainly a benefit to be considered which is ignored throughout the book.
I agreed with his assessment of Intellectual Property rules: they do not work or serve their purposes as well as it should. Some of his claims, however, make me not want to agree with his overall assessment. On page 104 he writes:“Rather, the real intent of these provisions [Intellectual Property] is to impede health, environmental, consumer safety and even financial regulations meant to protect the public interest…”. No footnote is given nor are there any cases provided to support such a claim. To make such a damning statement with no evidence to support it makes me question its validity and his intentions.
Inaccurate solutions:
The author writes about the importance of growth, but his only answers are to unionize workers and increase taxes.
His section on Capital Gains taxes I found interesting and illuminating, but at the end of the day, his only rule was to increase them. Taxes do not produce growth. This would be his pat answer to every problem. This and unionization.
He bemoans the lack of unionized employees, and he waxes nostalgically over the glory days in the 1950s and 60s. Only mentioned once, in passing, is the racist and sexist history of these organizations during the same time frame, as they reserved jobs for only white men. Despite their history of discrimination, he believes they will be the cure to all our ills (though no evidence is provided they will). Ironically, he notes the unprecedented growth in US productivity between 1990-2011 (page 91), a period that corresponds to the rapid decline of union membership (page 71). The positive impacts of the decline of unions is ignored through the book. One particularly poignant example was with the teachers union in New Orleans, which were all fired post Katrina. The results and improvements since then have been impressive.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-...
Even when there were parts I agreed with, such as his assessment on banks Too Big to Fail, his solutions were often off and would result in greater problems. Dodd-Frank he felt was the right direction, but as any observer to the finance industry is well aware, there are many conflicting parts of Dodd-Frank, making it impossible for any institution to be in compliance with all parts (see article below). He proposed adding a “risk surcharge” to financial institutions, but based on the challenges just to get bank's operations in order, how and who could reasonably be expected to monitor and assess the proper surcharges?
http://www.economist.com/node/21547784
Incomprehensible:
“Congress should pass a financial transaction tax designed to encourage productive investment”, page 123. No further explanation is given. I am still trying to figure out how a tax, which prevents or delays a transaction, could be used to encourage investment.
Executive compensation: yes, I agree it is too high, and can promote short term thinking. He writes, “And there needs to be better, more transparent reporting of the full value of the the executive compensation for each corporation”. It is already part of the SEC filings. It is required for publicly listed companies in their 10-K.
He argues for the need of a “Fair Tax” [his quotes]. He writes on page 127, “those at the top pay less than ordinary Americans”. No data is provided for this claim and for a very good reason: It is not true. Outside of the top 0.1%, which pay less than the top 1% but more than all other Americans,that is not the case at all.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general...
In all the all the talk of tax reform, no discussion given on consumption taxes which are shown to place higher burdens on higher incomes and do not have loophole provisions. As shown in Europe, a higher VAT has the effect of being less burdensome on the poor, and more difficult to avoid for the rich. This however, was not part of the discussion.
Page 165 he finally mentions Social Security, however, only to express his view it needs to be expanded. No mention was given to when it was created the average lifespan was only 62, with benefits coming at age 65. He discussed the financial shortfalls brewing for the program; although it was not mentioned, I am assuming his reasoning for the shortfall would be that workers are no longer unionized, not that people are living longer.
Naiveté:
There were parts of the book which really made me question his qualifications. Some items of note include:
He proposes a Global Corporate Tax on all US companies overseas operations, of 10-15%. As we have already seen with Medtronic and others, raising the US tax rate will encourage more companies to leave, shrinking the tax base, and the higher taxes will cause new companies to incorporate somewhere else, outside the realm of the US taxman. His proposal will tax innovation out of the country.
Infrastructure investment leads to innovation (page 137). Infrastructure is critical for growth and a functioning economy, and its absence can seriously undermine activity. The US infrastructure is in bad shape and needs improvement, though we have had our economic boom due to infrastructure. Investing in new sewer lines does not spur technical innovations.
On page 65, the author sarcastically refers to the “monetary policy set by the nation’s ‘independent’ [author’s quotes] central bank”. Such juvenile insults, with no supporting claims, and no point, other than to smear congressmen he believes are beholden to the banks have no place in a book with supposedly noble goals.
On page 70 he claims “the right to freely associate and bargain collectively is universally recognized as a basic human right”. As a current case before the Supreme Court might decide, individuals have the right to say who can, and can not, speak or negotiate on their behalf. http://www.economist.com/news/united-...
On page 145 he claims“We must dismantle legal structures that explicitly prevent people of color from equally competing in the workforce”. No example or footnote is given. To impugn the US justice system, one would hope they would have evidence.
On page 77, in his defense of labor, he claims that changes to the labor standards have resulted in workers being “excluded from coverage under worker’s compensation laws, Social Security, Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, and the National Labor Relations Act”. Unlike other areas, he does provide a footnote; however, it was for an entire book, David Weil’s “The Fissured Workplace” a 424 page work. While the claims may be true, I feel it is unprofessional and sloppy writing to cite an entire book, and not specific portions that substantiate his claims.
Conclusion
I had higher hopes for this book, and that it would take a fresh look at the very real problems facing the US economy. While at time the author identify problems, the evidence to support I found lacking or incomplete. Instead of dynamic new ideas, the author waxes nostalgically about labor unions and high taxes. In my opinion, those are naive panaceas for the problems facing our economy today.
November 1, 2022
I didn’t expect to agree with much from this book, and I didn’t. That said, it had some topics that made me think, especially regarding IP and general redistributive policy. But it did do what most of these books tend to do, it seemed like it started with a policy agenda then searched for ideas as to why that agenda makes sense. I don’t like it when anyone does that
April 16, 2017
Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate, with his colleagues
Nell Abernathy, Adam Hersh, Susan Holmberg and Mike
Konczal, have written a book to explain what is wrong
with the American economy with an agenda to change it.
The message is simple and clear: Inequality is choice.
The runaway flow of wealth to the top one percent is
governed by rules which need to be rewritten to restore
security and opportunity for the middle class and to
ensure strong growth and shared prosperity for all.
The United States has long regarded itself as the land
of opportunity, where anyone can achieve success
through hard work and determination. But the fact is
the U.S. today lags behind most other developed industrial
nations in measures of inequality and economic mobility.
It has already been decades since wages have stagnated
for the most workers while economic gains have
disproportionately gone to the top one percent. The
basic needs of individuals for life: education, housing, and
health care are growing ever more expensive and
unaffordable. Deeply rooted institutional discrimination
continues to keep women and members of minority groups
from achieving security and success. More than one-fifth
of all American children now live in poverty. These are
trends which are now only expected to become worse
in the future.
The claim that present-day economic conditions are the
inevitable consequences of market outcomes, globalization,
and technological progress is simply not true. Greater
equality does not need to be sacrificed for growth. American
inequality is the result of misguided rules that actually
constrict economic growth. This 'supply-side' view
of economics has taken away worker protection and
family support, created a tax system that rewards
short-term gains over long-term investment, put in place
a de facto public safety net for too-big-to-fail financial
institutions, and implemented monetary and fiscal policies
that promote wealth over full employment.
The principal changes proposed here are twofold: restore
full employment and curtail rent-seeking activities. Many
proposals are eloquently listed: government contracts going
only to living wage employers; raising the minimum wage;
overtime pay; the introduction of sick pay and family leave;
and the elimination of racist and sexist legislation. The
suggestion is made that if the one per cent saw their
marginal taxes raised by just 5 per cent, then all US public
college education could be made available for free, along
with preschool childcare.
Raising taxes curtails rent-seeking. Laws have been
introduced during the past four decades that encourage
the richest Americans to exploit their fellow citizens,
and these need to be repealed or rewritten. They affect
intellectual property rights and international trade
agreements that favor only a few elite Americans. But
much more is required, including the ability
to declare yourself bankrupt and thus unable to
repay student and home loans; a surcharge on banking;
the regulation of shadow banks; and reductions in credit
card fees. As Stiglitz says, “The easiest way to begin
addressing executive pay is to adjust the tax code, which
privileges compensation of executives.” In other words,
the trickle-down' theory of economic development has
never worked.
Since 1960, high marginal taxes have been reduced further
in the US than in any other affluent nation, hence not simply
reducing the overall tax rate from those less off who become
worse paid (as the rich gain more), but also creating “a new
incentive to rent-seek that is a more worrying effect of the
changing tax rules”. Compared with the average citizen, the
wealthiest 0.003 per cent of Americans have each benefited
4,000 times more from changes to capital tax rates. Even
more astonishing, the richest Americans plan to avoid
paying any taxes by passing on their wealth by $644 billion
during the next 20 years, circumventing estate and other
taxes.
This is a beautifully written book, short and to the point,
clear, concise and up-to-date (2016). Rewriting the
Rules of the American Economy ends by stating that what
is most needed is a reform of the political system that has
been hijacked by those in America with the most wealth.
some changes to the electoral system are suggested to make
the US a democracy again.
Nell Abernathy, Adam Hersh, Susan Holmberg and Mike
Konczal, have written a book to explain what is wrong
with the American economy with an agenda to change it.
The message is simple and clear: Inequality is choice.
The runaway flow of wealth to the top one percent is
governed by rules which need to be rewritten to restore
security and opportunity for the middle class and to
ensure strong growth and shared prosperity for all.
The United States has long regarded itself as the land
of opportunity, where anyone can achieve success
through hard work and determination. But the fact is
the U.S. today lags behind most other developed industrial
nations in measures of inequality and economic mobility.
It has already been decades since wages have stagnated
for the most workers while economic gains have
disproportionately gone to the top one percent. The
basic needs of individuals for life: education, housing, and
health care are growing ever more expensive and
unaffordable. Deeply rooted institutional discrimination
continues to keep women and members of minority groups
from achieving security and success. More than one-fifth
of all American children now live in poverty. These are
trends which are now only expected to become worse
in the future.
The claim that present-day economic conditions are the
inevitable consequences of market outcomes, globalization,
and technological progress is simply not true. Greater
equality does not need to be sacrificed for growth. American
inequality is the result of misguided rules that actually
constrict economic growth. This 'supply-side' view
of economics has taken away worker protection and
family support, created a tax system that rewards
short-term gains over long-term investment, put in place
a de facto public safety net for too-big-to-fail financial
institutions, and implemented monetary and fiscal policies
that promote wealth over full employment.
The principal changes proposed here are twofold: restore
full employment and curtail rent-seeking activities. Many
proposals are eloquently listed: government contracts going
only to living wage employers; raising the minimum wage;
overtime pay; the introduction of sick pay and family leave;
and the elimination of racist and sexist legislation. The
suggestion is made that if the one per cent saw their
marginal taxes raised by just 5 per cent, then all US public
college education could be made available for free, along
with preschool childcare.
Raising taxes curtails rent-seeking. Laws have been
introduced during the past four decades that encourage
the richest Americans to exploit their fellow citizens,
and these need to be repealed or rewritten. They affect
intellectual property rights and international trade
agreements that favor only a few elite Americans. But
much more is required, including the ability
to declare yourself bankrupt and thus unable to
repay student and home loans; a surcharge on banking;
the regulation of shadow banks; and reductions in credit
card fees. As Stiglitz says, “The easiest way to begin
addressing executive pay is to adjust the tax code, which
privileges compensation of executives.” In other words,
the trickle-down' theory of economic development has
never worked.
Since 1960, high marginal taxes have been reduced further
in the US than in any other affluent nation, hence not simply
reducing the overall tax rate from those less off who become
worse paid (as the rich gain more), but also creating “a new
incentive to rent-seek that is a more worrying effect of the
changing tax rules”. Compared with the average citizen, the
wealthiest 0.003 per cent of Americans have each benefited
4,000 times more from changes to capital tax rates. Even
more astonishing, the richest Americans plan to avoid
paying any taxes by passing on their wealth by $644 billion
during the next 20 years, circumventing estate and other
taxes.
This is a beautifully written book, short and to the point,
clear, concise and up-to-date (2016). Rewriting the
Rules of the American Economy ends by stating that what
is most needed is a reform of the political system that has
been hijacked by those in America with the most wealth.
some changes to the electoral system are suggested to make
the US a democracy again.
December 1, 2017
This was published in 2016 and I'm assuming Stiglitz and his team of researchers presumed they'd be addressing these very sensible policy changes to a Democratic administration. Of course, that's not how things worked out, so while I find these recommendations to be very smart and probably quite workable in some alternate universe--where Trump is not president and where our legislators are not a clown-car full of Ayn Randian government-hating zealots and dopey theocrats--to read it now is sort of like reading a book called THE CARE AND FEEDING OF EXTINCT ANIMALS. Depressing in its delusional hopefulness.
March 17, 2017
I really enjoyed this book as a brief and yet deep perspective on how the American economy has been structured to enable inequality. Stiglitz presents both the historical relevant policy modes and associated actions by corporations, governments, and citizens. He balances this with recommendations on how we can move forward to overhaul our economic structure and financial structure towards something that will promote greater equality and inclusion.
This book left me wanting to revisit all of my economics courses.
This book left me wanting to revisit all of my economics courses.
May 2, 2017
Excellent analysis. It spells out in great detail why the poverty and inequality has risen in America. Bottom-line: it's greed, it's the failures capitalism, it's exploitation. Solution: rewriting the rules, including a full-on "attack" on the 1%.
However, one disappointment I have with the solutions proposed is that they do not mention at all an UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME proposal and a cap to maximum personal income.
However, one disappointment I have with the solutions proposed is that they do not mention at all an UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME proposal and a cap to maximum personal income.
July 28, 2016
Economic and social change with a heart and a brain
Here is the plan I've been looking for. Real ideas not just platitudes. Deep research and targeted plans for a future I can live with.
Here is the plan I've been looking for. Real ideas not just platitudes. Deep research and targeted plans for a future I can live with.
March 4, 2020
This was a thorough and important report on the economic structures that created and continually reinforce inequality, short-termism, and slowed economic growth; and how we can reshape regulations and policies to mitigate these factors. Learned a lot from this book, and highly recommend it.
December 3, 2015
Rent-seeking is a real bummer! Read this for free online and find out what to do about it.
November 5, 2015
If only ... well written and thought thru
March 28, 2016
Just read this. The man has a Nobel Prize for a reason.
April 13, 2017
Good ideas about concrete prescriptions for reforming the American economy. A little longer than it needed to be, I thought.
April 13, 2017
Good description on what has been done to increase the gap in wealth and what can be done about it. Short read on suggestions and why what has been done in the past has not worked.
May 1, 2018
Excellent explanation of our current situation, how we got here, and what we have to do to fix it.
August 4, 2024
This book works as a corrective for people who think that government policy has little impact on wealth equality, but who also care about wealth inequality as morally bad. I'm not sure exactly what audience that is. Some elected democrats, I suppose, and some of their more dedicated but privileged voters. And that is, of course, who this book is addressed to. (Stiglitz wrote this report in 2016, presumably imagining a Clinton administration. In 2024, his discussion of recession recovery, inflation rates, etc, seems already somewhat dated.)
There are many entirely reasonable policies presented here. Capital gains rates should indeed be taxed at a higher rate. Worker bargaining needs to be strengthened. Patent laws are stifling innovation and hurting the general public, who cannot afford life-saving medications, or who have to pay exorbitant costs for it due to laws that block the public sector bargaining for a discount. Addressing these issues would indeed lead to a better economy for the majority of Americans. Though (perhaps because of this work and works like it) there is nothing particularly novel about these recommendations nor the way in which they are advocated.
There is very little role for the State to play in Stiglitz's path forward, other than simply tweaking the rules here or there. I, for example, would argue that if a business is too big to fail, it should be a state owned enterprise, while Stiglitz thinks such banks merely need to have better wills, and maybe be held to a higher level of scrutiny. I also think there should be a public retirement savings plan and many other such public programs, subsidized and well-governed, while Stiglitz believes the main responsibility of a public program is to encourage better market competition and that they should not be subsidized or otherwise given "unfair" advantages.
The analysis is overall flawed for three reasons, one economic, one political, and one philosophical. First, Stiglitz believes that "The American economy is not out of balance because of the natural laws of economics. Today's inequality is not the result of the inevitable evolution of capitalism." This is stated without further justification, as an axiom on which the rest of the book rests. Capitalism necessitates inequality, and sharpens inequality. If everyone has equal wealth and opportunity, there would be no workers for capitalists to hire, or no capitalists for workers to sell their labour to. Because owning capital means you can make money by having money, and without working, inequality naturally rises. Stiglitz takes aim primarily at the financial sector for not doing its job of providing liquidity for investing in production. This is, of course, not the job of the financial sector. The financial sector, like the manufacturing sector and every other private sector, has as its task the goal of accumulating capital. That is what it means to live under capitalism. The finance sector has done a fantastic job of accumulating capital. Stiglitz's proposals, such as implementing a tax on all financial trades, are no more than a game of whack-a-mole of trying to curb the less useful innovations in accumulation of capital.
Second, Stiglitz appears to be uninterested in how policy changes. There is, of course, a hand-waving towards how the government is primarily composed of the wealth, and how the private sector has captured the bodies that regulate them. These issues are to be solved with, for example, easier voter registration and holidays on election days (which are, I agree, policies worth fighting for!). But why would people with political power fight to disprivilege themselves? There is little evidence presented that they would, and Stiglitz seems convinced that simply reasoning with his audience and presenting them a few statistics would be enough for them to willingly sign over a few extra million dollars of their own wealth each year.
Finally, Stiglitz's analysis is ahistorical. In his telling, past efforts were all simply misguided policy decisions. "We now know" that "[supply-side economics] is incorrect and outdated", that "developed economies can rise without lifting all boats," that by "giving into such threats" that businesses would move elsewhere if we did not deregulate we "lost doubly" by hurting the economy and worsening income inequality, and that "the arguments put forward by advocates for capital tax breaks--that they spur investment--is wrong." But these were known before. Each of these policy changes were sharply criticized and opposed at the time. These critics have been proven correct, to little fanfare or reward. But Stiglitz seems uninterested in pursuing why we made these erroneous policy changes. And without asking that question (is it because of who had political power? is it due to fundamental assumptions about economics that must be revised, such as whether capitalism inherently breeds inequality?) how do we know we are not making incorrect policy decisions once more?
There are many entirely reasonable policies presented here. Capital gains rates should indeed be taxed at a higher rate. Worker bargaining needs to be strengthened. Patent laws are stifling innovation and hurting the general public, who cannot afford life-saving medications, or who have to pay exorbitant costs for it due to laws that block the public sector bargaining for a discount. Addressing these issues would indeed lead to a better economy for the majority of Americans. Though (perhaps because of this work and works like it) there is nothing particularly novel about these recommendations nor the way in which they are advocated.
There is very little role for the State to play in Stiglitz's path forward, other than simply tweaking the rules here or there. I, for example, would argue that if a business is too big to fail, it should be a state owned enterprise, while Stiglitz thinks such banks merely need to have better wills, and maybe be held to a higher level of scrutiny. I also think there should be a public retirement savings plan and many other such public programs, subsidized and well-governed, while Stiglitz believes the main responsibility of a public program is to encourage better market competition and that they should not be subsidized or otherwise given "unfair" advantages.
The analysis is overall flawed for three reasons, one economic, one political, and one philosophical. First, Stiglitz believes that "The American economy is not out of balance because of the natural laws of economics. Today's inequality is not the result of the inevitable evolution of capitalism." This is stated without further justification, as an axiom on which the rest of the book rests. Capitalism necessitates inequality, and sharpens inequality. If everyone has equal wealth and opportunity, there would be no workers for capitalists to hire, or no capitalists for workers to sell their labour to. Because owning capital means you can make money by having money, and without working, inequality naturally rises. Stiglitz takes aim primarily at the financial sector for not doing its job of providing liquidity for investing in production. This is, of course, not the job of the financial sector. The financial sector, like the manufacturing sector and every other private sector, has as its task the goal of accumulating capital. That is what it means to live under capitalism. The finance sector has done a fantastic job of accumulating capital. Stiglitz's proposals, such as implementing a tax on all financial trades, are no more than a game of whack-a-mole of trying to curb the less useful innovations in accumulation of capital.
Second, Stiglitz appears to be uninterested in how policy changes. There is, of course, a hand-waving towards how the government is primarily composed of the wealth, and how the private sector has captured the bodies that regulate them. These issues are to be solved with, for example, easier voter registration and holidays on election days (which are, I agree, policies worth fighting for!). But why would people with political power fight to disprivilege themselves? There is little evidence presented that they would, and Stiglitz seems convinced that simply reasoning with his audience and presenting them a few statistics would be enough for them to willingly sign over a few extra million dollars of their own wealth each year.
Finally, Stiglitz's analysis is ahistorical. In his telling, past efforts were all simply misguided policy decisions. "We now know" that "[supply-side economics] is incorrect and outdated", that "developed economies can rise without lifting all boats," that by "giving into such threats" that businesses would move elsewhere if we did not deregulate we "lost doubly" by hurting the economy and worsening income inequality, and that "the arguments put forward by advocates for capital tax breaks--that they spur investment--is wrong." But these were known before. Each of these policy changes were sharply criticized and opposed at the time. These critics have been proven correct, to little fanfare or reward. But Stiglitz seems uninterested in pursuing why we made these erroneous policy changes. And without asking that question (is it because of who had political power? is it due to fundamental assumptions about economics that must be revised, such as whether capitalism inherently breeds inequality?) how do we know we are not making incorrect policy decisions once more?
November 16, 2020
Inequality is a choice. The growing distance between the middle and upper classes in the US was not inevitable, but the result of policy decisions made by and for the already-rich. Of course other forces have had an effect, too—globalization and the technological revolution, for example—but the government's responses have exacerbated rather than ameliorated them.
This book is short, easy to read, and utterly convicting. It explains in detail how conservatives attempted to use "supply-side" (or "trickle-down") economics* to justify tax breaks and regulation decisions, and how that caused wealth to funnel upward instead of downward for decades. Unlike The Meritocracy Trap, which looks at the same numbers and posits a different cause that I felt couldn't fully explain the result, this book acknowledges and addresses the racism and sexism that have also played a part in worsening the wealth gap.
If it reads a little bit like a progressive's wish list, that's not terribly surprising given that it was commissioned by Democrats to form their policy. To me, the picture it paints is compelling: how much better our society could be if we stopped giving preferential treatment to people who don't need it.
*True story: as my views shifted from conservative to liberal, everyone I read or talked to acted as though everyone had always known that trickle-down economics was a joke meant to convince poor people not to tax rich people too much. This book treats it as a legitimate proposal and evaluates it as such.
This book is short, easy to read, and utterly convicting. It explains in detail how conservatives attempted to use "supply-side" (or "trickle-down") economics* to justify tax breaks and regulation decisions, and how that caused wealth to funnel upward instead of downward for decades. Unlike The Meritocracy Trap, which looks at the same numbers and posits a different cause that I felt couldn't fully explain the result, this book acknowledges and addresses the racism and sexism that have also played a part in worsening the wealth gap.
If it reads a little bit like a progressive's wish list, that's not terribly surprising given that it was commissioned by Democrats to form their policy. To me, the picture it paints is compelling: how much better our society could be if we stopped giving preferential treatment to people who don't need it.
*True story: as my views shifted from conservative to liberal, everyone I read or talked to acted as though everyone had always known that trickle-down economics was a joke meant to convince poor people not to tax rich people too much. This book treats it as a legitimate proposal and evaluates it as such.
January 18, 2021
Rewriting is largely an exercise in the folly of technocratic arrogance. Stiglitz fails to see his same critique of markets applies equally if not more so to his recommendations for reforming them, an exquisite irony. Moreover, some of the facts and claims contained herein are just outrightly outdated or malicious or ignorant prevarications. I understand that this work was more of an economic reform platform than a detailed economic analysis or economic history, but there are portions of this work that lack significant rigor or cite literature inappropriately.
This isn't to dismiss Stiglitz's concerns or claims altogether. Many of the concerns or issues described are legitimate economic challenges, i.e. increased rent seeking behavior in various sectors and/or perverse market incentives. However, much of what is recommended as remedy here are generally unoriginal retreads of failed prior policy efforts.
This isn't to dismiss Stiglitz's concerns or claims altogether. Many of the concerns or issues described are legitimate economic challenges, i.e. increased rent seeking behavior in various sectors and/or perverse market incentives. However, much of what is recommended as remedy here are generally unoriginal retreads of failed prior policy efforts.
September 27, 2020
Interesting look at how the American economy has grown to favor the 1% and how inequality and the gap between the income groups is increasing.
Although the book does point out the many issues that our society/economy faces, it only points out what should be done to begin closing the gap. While the explanations were sound and ideas that I could support, it did little to explain how this could be implemented and the data supporting these claims is a bit on the shorter side.
Overall a good look at what the current issues in the American economy are and some good ideas on how to take steps to close the inequality gap.
Although the book does point out the many issues that our society/economy faces, it only points out what should be done to begin closing the gap. While the explanations were sound and ideas that I could support, it did little to explain how this could be implemented and the data supporting these claims is a bit on the shorter side.
Overall a good look at what the current issues in the American economy are and some good ideas on how to take steps to close the inequality gap.
February 18, 2017
I picked up the book when I ran into it in the library. Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, the author, has many publications influenced my view on economies. This book covers a timely topic - inequality and growth.
I am convinced that inequality is a choice, and we can effectively address inequality by changing the rules of Economy. The book contains sparse data to support this idea. However, I am not satisfied with the explanation that economy will also grow fast with those new rules. No convincing data to support the claim.
I am convinced that inequality is a choice, and we can effectively address inequality by changing the rules of Economy. The book contains sparse data to support this idea. However, I am not satisfied with the explanation that economy will also grow fast with those new rules. No convincing data to support the claim.
August 11, 2022
Few writers explain the issues this clearly. The root seems to be shareholder power over companies and CEO incentives, but there are other places where changes can be made, and Stieglitz gets around to just about every possible improvement.
July 21, 2020
A decent primer to the problems in US systems that exacerbate inequality.
August 14, 2020
I can't say I agree with all the things this book said but I did enjoy the way it was laid out
May 6, 2021
Essentially a research report about the American economy. Extremely through. Extremely blunt with scope of inequality, yet hopeful that we can change.
March 4, 2023
I’ll need to re-read it to get a full understanding as it is quite dense (and I have no business/Econ background) but still an interesting perspective and structured well.
Read
April 10, 2023DNF
March 17, 2017
Great book if you want to be reinforced in your views about the inequalities that have divided America from the haves and have nots. Pretty good book if you want to get a exhausting list of the things that need to change in order to see that inequality dissipate. Useless book if you want realistic plans for implementing any of the changes Stiglitz believes is required to balance inequality and promote prosperity for all.
How now, brown cow?
How now, brown cow?
April 5, 2021
extremely thorough, very easy to follow explanation: our economy, regulations, tax code, has been structured for the outsized benefit of the super-wealthy, which has drastic (negative) implications for everyone, even the super-wealthy.
January 6, 2016
Two of the left’s leading lights in terms of economic thinking have books that came out recently. I’m not sure what the order was, but Robert Reich blew up my Facebook timeline promoting his new book “Saving Capitalism from the Capitalist”. Stiglitz hits many of the same points here in “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy”.
This book has its roots in a report from the Roosevelt Institute, and its layout and overall tone belie the audience. It was written more towards policy makers and a popular audience than towards students of economics. It was a team effort too – they just slapped his name right up front because he’s the one with the Nobel Prize, and if you forget that they also put that on the cover too.
In terms of content, the stronger part is the first half, where Joe and company look at various issues facing the national economy today like increased monopoly power, and the idea of shareholder value, and low taxes for the rich all while marginalizing the worker and minorities. Structurally, this book is nice and symmetrical, as it is not one of those where 90% is problem and 10% is resolution. Fully half of the book is proposals on what needs to be done.
Basically, what needs to be done is to make the economy more like it was in the golden age of capitalism, but this time with less racism and sexism. The problem with both this book and Reich’s book is that there is no sense of a mechanism of how to do this. Of the people in my generation, we look and see that Capitalism has always been this way, so it doesn’t make sense to roll back some of the bad things when they will creep back when you’re not looking.
Both authors mention Gailbraith’s conception of the “Countervailing Powers” that are absent, and they remain away from the scene and political decisions that are happening right now are trying to make it such that workers lose their separate identities as workers and lose their ability to collectively bargain. The left only has one branch of the federal government, and they re-pick that every four years. What hits me is that Stiglitz doesn’t want anything new, but the economy in terms of what we do to create the GDP is vastly different than it was 70 years ago. At least Reich is looking at how to come to terms with a post scarcity sort of economy in the first world by proposing a basic income, but as much as I like Stiglitz, I was missing any sense of something new.
Even then, so many of the rollbacks would involve large political movements just on their own that they would have to have some sort of mass movement behind them to pull them through as a whole plan, like new New Deal. As it is, the political process is such that you have blood of children running in the street and nothing gets done because of partisan priorities. There’s money involved in stopping any rollbacks. I’m just not sure how we get from here to there, even at the margins.
This book has its roots in a report from the Roosevelt Institute, and its layout and overall tone belie the audience. It was written more towards policy makers and a popular audience than towards students of economics. It was a team effort too – they just slapped his name right up front because he’s the one with the Nobel Prize, and if you forget that they also put that on the cover too.
In terms of content, the stronger part is the first half, where Joe and company look at various issues facing the national economy today like increased monopoly power, and the idea of shareholder value, and low taxes for the rich all while marginalizing the worker and minorities. Structurally, this book is nice and symmetrical, as it is not one of those where 90% is problem and 10% is resolution. Fully half of the book is proposals on what needs to be done.
Basically, what needs to be done is to make the economy more like it was in the golden age of capitalism, but this time with less racism and sexism. The problem with both this book and Reich’s book is that there is no sense of a mechanism of how to do this. Of the people in my generation, we look and see that Capitalism has always been this way, so it doesn’t make sense to roll back some of the bad things when they will creep back when you’re not looking.
Both authors mention Gailbraith’s conception of the “Countervailing Powers” that are absent, and they remain away from the scene and political decisions that are happening right now are trying to make it such that workers lose their separate identities as workers and lose their ability to collectively bargain. The left only has one branch of the federal government, and they re-pick that every four years. What hits me is that Stiglitz doesn’t want anything new, but the economy in terms of what we do to create the GDP is vastly different than it was 70 years ago. At least Reich is looking at how to come to terms with a post scarcity sort of economy in the first world by proposing a basic income, but as much as I like Stiglitz, I was missing any sense of something new.
Even then, so many of the rollbacks would involve large political movements just on their own that they would have to have some sort of mass movement behind them to pull them through as a whole plan, like new New Deal. As it is, the political process is such that you have blood of children running in the street and nothing gets done because of partisan priorities. There’s money involved in stopping any rollbacks. I’m just not sure how we get from here to there, even at the margins.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 35 reviews