Reminds me of Ireland exporting food to England during the Great Famine. The perversity of market economies when it involves trade between greatly unequal nations.
Showing posts tagged inequality
The Hill reports tough words from Oakland Rep. Barbara Lee Wednesday in Washington.
Lee pointed her finger deep into the chests of corporations and banks she argues unduly targeted blacks and minorities with fraudulent financial schemes.
She said these statistics showed that people on Wall Street “focused their efforts on stripping communities of color of the little wealth that they have managed to accumulate over the last few decades.”
“The facts speak for themselves: Wall Street targeted minority homeowners and minority communities, and we must respond accordingly,” she said.
I’m going to call this one “Least Surprising Headline of the Day.”
“Who gives a crap about some imbecile? Are you kidding me?” Bernard Marcus, co-founder, Home Depot
“Acting like everyone who’s been successful is bad and because you’re rich you’re bad, I don’t understand it.” Jamie Dimon, CEO, JP Morgan Chase
“Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let’s call it an attack on the very productive.” John A. Allison IV, BB&T
“If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit.” Tom Golisano, founder, Paychex Inc.
My taxes are “more than a medieval lord would have taken from a serf.” Peter Schiff, CEO, Euro Pacific Capital
“I am a fat cat, I’m not ashamed.” Ken Langone, co-founder, Home Depot
“You’ll get more out of me if you treat me with respect.” Leon Cooperman, chair, Omega Advisors
When President Ford went on national television to explain to an angry, skeptical citizenry why the most powerful political actor would be fully immunized for the felonies he got caught committing, Ford expressly rejected the rule of law. He paid lip service to its core principle—the “law is no respecter of persons”—but then tacked on a newly concocted amendment designed to gut that principle: “but the law is a respecter of reality.”
In other words, if—in the judgment of political leaders—it’s sufficiently disruptive, divisive, or distracting to hold powerful political officials accountable under the law on equal terms with ordinary Americans, then they should be exempt and the rule of law suspended, all in the name of political harmony, of “moving on.” But of course, it will always be divisive and distracting, by definition, to prosecute the most powerful political leaders, so Ford’s rationale, predictably, created a template for elite immunity.
But a scientific revolution that has taken place in the last decade or so illuminates a different way to address the dysfunctions associated with childhood hardship. This science suggests that many of these problems have roots earlier than is commonly understood—especially during the first two years of life. Researchers, including those of the Bucharest project, have shown how adversity during this period affects the brain, down to the level of DNA—establishing for the first time a causal connection between trouble in very early childhood and later in life. And they have also shown a way to prevent some of these problems—if action is taken during those crucial first two years.
The first two years, however, happen to be the period of a child’s life in which we invest the least. According to research by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, children get about half as many taxpayer resources, per person, as do the elderly. And among children, the youngest get the least. The annual federal investment in elementary school kids approaches $11,000 per child. For infants and toddlers up to age two, it is just over $4,000. When it comes to early childhood, public policy is lagging far behind science—with disastrous consequences.