Based upon social class and political power in public policy, the United States has proven to be a nation where the economy, society, and political system do not function in the same way for all of its citizens, and everybody works for the benefit of the few, and against the interest of the many. Professors Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson argued in their book, “Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer – and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class” (2010), that changing tax rates has been a major factor underlying growing inequality. They claim that the globalization and technological changes are not the causes of economic struggles of the middle and working classes in the United States. Instead they blame a long series of policy changes in government that significantly favored the very rich since the late 1970s. Those changes were the result of, well-financed and well-organized efforts by the corporate sector to push government policies to lean in favor of the very wealthy.
So the narrator’s definition of America’s equality begins not be positing a future equality as much as exposing the misunderstanding of it in the past as well as the present. If we run with the idea that the mediocrity depicted in the
The rich are penalized for their contribution to the economy through high tax. Our benefit system has spawned a class of intelligent people who exploit the system! In my view this general state has risen from economic and educational divides. I find that the way that different classes of people react to each other, and how they have different mind-sets a bit weird. I mean “who really cares if you dad is worth £1.5 billion or you live in downtown London?” Unfortunately there are people who will judge you based just on your money which saddens me as many of the happiest and nicest people I know are not vastly rich but balanced all rounded individuals.
Emperors overtaxed the population and overregulated the market place and would often purposely debase their currency by reducing the precious metal content. This in turn led to disastrous inflation(Perry 2013). One needs to look no further than our own Federal Reserve System and its fiat currency to see the similarities. Politicians essentially have a blank check and can spend and print as much money as they want. This influx of cheap money devalues our currency and causes inflation.
Since the low class poor people are not usually educated, they often easily “pushed” into the crimes by the high class people. Usually the upper class people are invisible and at the end the poor is the ones who get blamed. Certainly the rich benefit more than the poor. That has always and will always be the case in every society the world has known. Very often the rich push the poor by removing workers rights, by limiting corporate liability, by instigating war.
It seems that in the metaphor rich nations are playing the role of King while poor nations become paupers that could contribute nothing but only wait for help. This metaphor is so unfair because it totally distorts the relationship and exaggerates the differences between rich nations and poor nations. As we know, in the modern society no single nation could survive without the premise of intercommunication and mutual benefit. Even for the wealthiest and strongest nation the United States, imports and foreign help are quite necessary. For
Economic/Political Analysis -Are the poor and the wealthy equally concerned about the “freedom from fear”? Compare and contrast both speeches to answer this question.- From President Franklins Roosevelts speech and Barack Obamas speech, the poor and wealthy people are fairly concerned about “freedome of fear.” There are quite a few things that a lot of people in this world are in fear of. President also said in his speech that we shouldn’t fear anything, but fear itself. It also, doesnt mean if you are not as rich in this world as others around you, you can not do the things wealthy people do to improve in the world. President Franklin Roosevelt also said in one of his speeches that, you dont have to be rich to be happy in life, happiness in life comes from accomplishment.
In his article, “Keeping the Dream Alive,” Meacham mentions this issue in today’s economy. “The widening gap between the rich and the poor suggests the dream is becoming more elusive for more people than at any other time in our history” (Meacham 6). Income inequality has grown significantly since the 1970’s in America, widening the gap between the rich and the poor, resulting in shrinkage of the middle class. “PARADE surveyed more than 2,200 Americans, 84% describe themselves as belonging to the middle class…by international standards, they live a life of prosperity. Yet behind this prosperity is a growing unease... 39% have had cuts in their overtime, raises or bonuses… 47% say that no matter how hard they work, they cannot get ahead.
The Culture of Poverty Amidst this economic downturn, Patricia Cohen’s article in the New York Times, “’Culture of Poverty’ makes a comeback”, cites a resurgence in an interest, by economist and sociologists, in the mindset of those living poverty here in America. The article reveals a subtly ingrained disdain towards people whose income does not qualify as middle class, and more notably, an association between poverty and race. Although an overlap between poverty and heritage is merely coincidental, the effect of racism and social injustice has a penetrating effect. Patricia Cohen writes, “Today, social scientists are rejecting the notion of a monolithic and unchanging culture of poverty. And they attribute destructive attitudes and behavior not to inherent moral character but to sustained racism and isolation” (Cohen).
Since the days of industry moguls like Carnegie, Morgan, and Rockefeller, money and the achievement of the American Dream have appealed to the American people as indicators of success. The glint of gold, unfortunately, often blinds the greedy from the ill effects of good fortune. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s novel, The Great Gatsby, Jay Gatsby and his peers are affected by their wealth or lack of it in varying ways, but Fitzgerald emphasizes the negative effect money has on his characters. Money and the pursuit of it are corrupting factors in capitalistic American society, as the wealthy can afford to be apathetic and careless. The wealthy are made shallow by their fortune and flit about with no real purpose, and are comforted knowing that they have the means to entertain themselves.