Why We’re in a New Gilded Age by Paul Krugman Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty, translated from the French by Arthur Goldhammer Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 685 pp., $39.95 Thomas Piketty, professor at the Paris School of Economics, isn’t a household name, although that may change with the English-language publication of his magnificent, sweeping meditation on inequality, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. The result has been a revolution in our understanding of long-term trends in inequality. It therefore came as a revelation when Piketty and his colleagues showed that incomes of the now famous “one percent,” and of even narrower groups, are actually the big story in rising inequality. Still, today’s economic elite is very different from that of the nineteenth century, isn’t it? It’s a remarkable claim—and precisely because it’s so remarkable, it needs to be examined carefully and critically. What do we know about economic inequality, and about when do we know it? Why? Piketty is unconvinced.
Meritocracy Definitions[edit] Early definitions[edit] Supporters of meritocracies do not necessarily agree on the nature of "merit", however, they do tend to agree that "merit" itself should be a primary consideration during evaluation. In a more general sense, meritocracy can refer to any form of government based on achievement. Like "utilitarian" and "pragmatic", the word "meritocratic" has also developed a broader definition, and may be used to refer to any government run by "a ruling or influential class of educated or able people." [4] This is in contrast to the term originally coined by Michael Young in 1958, who critically defined it as a system where "merit is equated with intelligence-plus-effort, its possessors are identified at an early age and selected for appropriate intensive education, and there is an obsession with quantification, test-scoring, and qualifications." [5] More recent definitions[edit] The most common form of meritocratic screening found today is the college degree.
Why the Worst Get on Top -- in Economics and as CEOs FDR On American Facism(image by JoeInSouthernCA) Reprinted from neweconomicperspectives.org Libertarians are profoundly anti-democratic. The folks at Cato that I debate make no bones about their disdain for and fear of democracy. Friedrich von Hayek is so popular among libertarians because of his denial of the legitimacy of democratic government and his claims that it is inherently monstrous and murderous to its own citizens. Here's an example from a libertarian professor based in Maryland. "[W]hen government uses its legal monopoly on coercion to confiscate one person's property and give it to another, it is engaging in what would normally be called theft. But von Hayek's critique of democratic government has proven to be the most monstrous blood libel of the post-World War II era -- falsely declaring that democratic government must end in tyranny and the mass murder of its own people. Why the Worst Get on Top -- in Economics
Putting empathy into economics | New Economics Foundation June 24, 2014 // By: Susan Steed On Saturday, 50,000 people marched in protest against austerity. But if you look at the mainstream press the most important thing that happened was that Russell Brand took his top off. This is a shame, not least because the protest wasn’t given the attention it deserved in the media. But what does this actually mean? About 20 years ago an Italian neurophysiologist made a surprise discovery. This helps explain empathy - why you may feel happy around positive people, or wince when someone else gets punched. Why is this important for economics? A bigger challenge is that traditional economics doesn’t include empathy and focuses on individuals. Very few economists working today have tried to look at this. The issue isn’t just in economics, often environmentalists and other campaigners take on its language to advance their cause. So, how would we go about creating an economy built on empathy? It is also easy not to think about what we are eating. Issues Close
Monsanto Hides Toxicity RoundUp Results, Calls them Secret Talking about Monsanto’s latest attempt to obstruct justice, halt transparency, and prevent people from stopping their seed and herbicide businesses from spreading is starting to seem redundant, but the company just keeps acting in increasingly objectionable ways. Now, the company is refusing to release to the public lab tests conducted in St. Louis, Missouri, which gave them authority to use glyphosate in China. Just months ago, Chinese food safety volunteers tendered a request to China’s Ministry of Agriculture to release the study that justified issuing the safety certificate for the import into China of Monsanto’s glyphosate-based herbicide RoundUp. The test was meant to be an acute exposure toxicity test in which rats were given RoundUp by mouth for several days, and rabbits were exposed to RoundUp by skin. The study results have never been disclosed anywhere in the world, and Monsanto refuses to disclose the results now.
Salaire d'efficience Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Le salaire d'efficience, en économie du travail, est une hypothèse expliquant la fixation d'un niveau de salaire supérieur à ce qu'expliquerait la seule loi de l'offre et la demande dans un marché en concurrence pure et parfaite, expliquant ainsi une partie du chômage des économies de marché contemporaines. L'hypothèse de ce modèle veut qu'il y ait une liaison positive entre le niveau du salaire et l'effort productif du salarié. Le salaire d'efficience est un concept développé dans le cadre du nouveau keynésianisme (notamment par les économistes Carl Shapiro et Joseph Stiglitz en 1984[1]) pour expliquer une partie du chômage. L'idée n'est pas nouvelle. Dans le modèle du salaire d'efficience, l'origine du déséquilibre se trouve dans un problème d'accès à l'information : les employeurs ne pouvant pas connaître parfaitement l'effort fourni par les salariés dans leur travail et notamment s'ils fournissent l'effort maximal. Portail de l’économie
Interne Kommunikation: Wie der BND die “Weitergabe von Rohdaten in großem Umfang” an die NSA verheimlicht Rechtsfreier Raum: Abhörstation in Bad Aibling. Als der Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte den BND fragte, wie viele Daten er an die NSA übermittelt, war die Antwort: „580 Meldungen“ im Jahr 2012. Tatsächlich werden aber 1,3 Milliarden Metadaten übermittelt – jeden Monat. Das geht aus interner Kommunikation des Geheimdiensts hervor, die wir veröffentlichen. Die BND-Datenschutzbeauftragte kritisierte diese Antwort als „Falschauskunft“ – wurde aber von BND-Leitung und Bundeskanzleramt überstimmt. Letzte Woche berichtete Kai Biermann auf Zeit Online: BND-Spionageaffäre: BND liefert NSA 1,3 Milliarden Metadaten – jeden Monat. Seit dem Sommer von Snowden versuchen vielerlei Institutionen, etwas Licht ins Geheimdienst-Dunkel zu bekommen, darunter auch der/die Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragte. Aber auch schriftliche Anfragen an den BND hat die Datenschutzbehörde gestellt, so beispielsweise zwei im Juli und eine Anfang August 2013. Bundesdatenschutzbeauftragter: „Wie viele Daten an USA übermittelt? Prof.
Disadvantages of Proportional Representation Proportional representation requires the use of multiple-member voting districts (also called super-districts[3]). Proportional representation is not possible using single-member districts alone.[2] Three types of voting systems are usually associated with PR:[4][5] Party-list PR systems where political parties define candidate lists and voters vote for a list; that is, they vote for a party rather than for specific candidates (a "closed list"). A majority of countries use some form of PR in national lower house elections, party-list PR being the most widely used system (35%) followed by mixed systems at 15%, including both MMP and Mixed Member Majoritarian systems (MMM)).[2] STV, despite long being admired by political scientists,[2] is used in only two national lower houses: Ireland (since 1921) and Malta (since 1921).[11] Political interests generally oppose its use because it so effectively transfers power from politicians to the electorate.[12] Fairness[edit] Coalitions[edit]
Rauchen ist gesund! | Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft - IPG Die Vereinigten Staaten und die Welt führen derzeit eine große Debatte über neue Handelsvereinbarungen. Derartige Verträge wurden früher als „Freihandelsabkommen“ bezeichnet; tatsächlich waren es gelenkte Handelsvereinbarungen, die auf die Interessen der Konzerne vor allem in den USA und der Europäischen Union zugeschnitten waren. Heute werden derartige Vereinbarungen häufig als „Partnerschaften“ bezeichnet – wie etwa im Falle der Trans-Pazifischen Partnerschaft (TPP). Doch es sind keine gleichberechtigten Partnerschaften: Faktisch diktieren die USA die Bedingungen. Zum Glück leisten Amerikas „Partner“ zunehmend Widerstand. Es ist unschwer erkennbar, warum. Der vielleicht unfairste – und unehrlichste – Bestandteil derartiger Übereinkommen betrifft den Investorenschutz. Die wahre Absicht dieser Bestimmungen besteht darin, Gesundheits-, Umwelt-, Sicherheits- und sogar Finanzaufsichtsregeln auszuhebeln, die Amerikas eigene Volkswirtschaft und Bürger schützen sollen. (c) Project Syndicate
Loi de Walras Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. Pour les articles homonymes, voir Walras. La loi de Walras est le point central de la théorie de l'équilibre général. Elle peut se formuler de la façon suivante : Loi de Walras — Sur l'ensemble des marchés, la somme des demandes nettes pondérées par les prix est égale à zéro. On se sert souvent d'une conséquence de la loi de Walras : Corollaire de la loi de Walras — Dans une économie à N marchés, si N-1 marchés sont en équilibre, alors le N-ième marché est également en équilibre. Autrement dit, si un marché n'est pas équilibré, alors il y a au moins un autre marché qui n'est pas en équilibre. Portail de l’économie
Sitemap for One Community :: Complete Overview of the One Community Site One Community Terms and Conditions Homepage: This is a great place to startOur Team: This is our amazing team of world-change peopleOverview Page: An overview of One Community and our goalsThe One Community Pledge: Our commitment to making a differenceFor The Highest Good of All: This is our #1 value and the foundation for all we doOpen Source Project Launch-blueprinting: This is how we are changing the worldPurpose, Mission, Vision, and Values: Our Purpose, Mission, and Vision statementsSolutions that Create Solutions: This is the point of why we are doing what we are doing4-Phase Strategy: This is the overview of how we will accomplish solutions that create solutionsMethodology: This is the details page covering how we will accomplish solutions that create solutionsWho We Are and Who We Are Looking For: This is the kind of people we are and are looking forFulfilled Living Page: This is the environment we are purposed to create and create from
Public Banking Institute - Banking in the Public Interest