Dr. John Psarouthakis, Executive Editor.www.BusinessThinker.com.
Founder and Managing Director, www.jpmcenter.com
We all know that if we confiscate the entire 2017 earnings of the highest earners and sent it to Washington, you would solve almost nothing in Washington. Most of us, I hope, understand furthermore that pulling the One Percent’s wealth away from the capitalist funnel that feeds our economy would be worse than solving nothing; it would be a serious problem. This plan would, on the other hand, goad the very top layer of American wealth to do everything in its power to grow the economic pie.
I first thought of the plan applying to any person or entity with taxable income of $1 million a year or more. That was partly because a million dollars is certainly a nice income—but also because it’s an easy figure with which to work in sorting out numerical concepts. A $1-million cutoff would apply to an army of CEOs and business owners, but also to several battalions of quarterbacks, pitchers, power forwards, rock guitar players, actors, and media performers or executives. Applying the plan to the entire One Percent would cover any household making roughly $506,000 and up. Maybe the plan could be modified and applied effectively to affluent but somewhat lower pay grades. I don’t know. Economists and tax experts and actuaries and mathematicians who are whizzes with algorithms—lots of people need to have a go at fine-tuning and improving what I will call here “Economic Growth Corporations.”
These Economic Growth Corporations (EGCs) would not be think tanks, or advisory panels, or bureaucracies whose public benefit can be measured only via the most imaginative statistics. EGCs would be chartered to grow the economy in fact, not in theory and not as mere demonstration projects. EGCs would jumpstart our economic engine in ways numerous schemes, from “enterprise zones” to your town’s tax-abated industrial park, have never done.
Continue reading Instead of soaking the rich, create some new riches: an update
BY Timothy Garton Ash a British historian, author and commentator. He is Professor of European Studies at Oxford University.
What is populism? Where does it come from; where is it going? What does it mean for the world’s institutions and what can be done about? asks Dani Rodrik in introducing the inaugural talk by the Weatherhead Center Cluster on Global Populism with Tim Garton Ash, Professor of European Studies at St Antony’s College, Oxford, speaking at the Minda de Gunzburg Center for European Studies at Harvard last month.
This lecture has been published in the Social Europe Journal on
October 27, 2017. To listen to it please visit:
Does European Populism Exist?
By John Weeks. He is an economist and Professor Emeritus at SOAS, University of London. John received his PhD in economics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in 1969. He is author of a new book entitled ‘Economics of the 1%: How mainstream economics serves the rich, obscures reality and distorts policy’ (Anthem).
I and many others have argued that the basic EU treaties have flexibility to accommodate most social democratic policies such as those in the 2017 Manifesto of the UK Labour Party. Our argument may soon suffer a decisive blow from the EU parliament.
In March 2012 twenty-five EU national governments signed the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance (TSCG), the “fiscal pact”. By signing national governments “contracted” (the treaty term) to obey its detailed fiscal rules. The TSCG did not achieve unanimous approval, thus could not become part of the de facto EU constitution; i.e., contrary to the intention of the fiscally reactionary governments, it was not incorporated into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
Continue reading National Fiscal Flexibility: EU Parliament Plans A Big Step Backwards