Analysis of the Article 1% by Joseph Stiglitz

Stiglitz identifies dwindling opportunity, monopoly power and tax treatment, and the investments of the government as the effects from manipulating the economy to exclusively benefit the top 1%. The societal impact becomes clear when the author states that the ultimate price is the “erosion of our sense of identity,” which includes “fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community” because a majority of people realize the importance of these topics related to the success of themselves and their country (Stiglitz, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%”). The article concludes with the significance of paying attention to common welfare as a “precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being” that the top 1% have a history of failing to grasp before meeting their

As we move closer to the 2016 national elections in the United States, claims of a growing wealth gap between the supposed “haves” and “have-nots” becomes more pronounced. Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton even went so far as to caution us that we are advancing towards a repeat of the “Gilded Age of the robber barons”. The insinuation in this claim creates a perception that there are a growing number of individuals within American society using questionable methods to increase their wealth, all at the expense of the not so fortunate. So-called culprits of these activities are often referred to as the “top 1 percent”; a term gaining a strong foothold in our current vernacular. Although the existence of an income inequality gap is evident, subjectively misinterpreted data is the primary culprit driving the perception that the income inequality gap is expanding.

We can look back in time and see that around the 1920s, before the stock market crash, there was a similar pattern in which the top 1% is taking all of the benefits of the country while the rest had to suffer. In other words the gap grew due to the misdistribution of wealth. Although, in the 1920s it was the robber barons such as Rockefeller and Carnegie. In the 2000s we find our robber barons to be no more than the economy itself. Our middle class citizens cannot afford life as their wages drop because of their own lack of spending.

We Americans continue to live in a country that has been skewed in an unfair way that is only in favor of the top 1%. However, we the people fail to realize government officials play a role in the economy. This leads us to realize the reality of our country is not at all what we think is if the Rich continues to get Richer while the poor continue to get poorer. According to the New York Times Article, “The Rich Get Richer Through the Recovery”, by Annie Lowrey’s, Lowrey addresses different ideas on how wealth will always be in favor of the rich because they get they have always been given the greater share of the economy and government officials have set policies which support them to stay on top. In the year of 2012, the highest amount of

It can be said that money is power in the United States, and this is brought out in the essay, “Class in America---2012” written by Gregory Mantsios. He says that even though many Americans do not like to discuss class, “it can determine where people live, who their friends are, how well they are educated, and what they do for a living” (Mantsios). Many Americans do not speak about class type, and most find it unacceptable (Mantsios). Unfortunately, we can see that there are laws that are built to help and better the wealthy, while it cripples the rest of us. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “The richest twenty percent of Americans hold nearly ninety percent of the total household wealth in this county” (Institute) Gregory Mantsios without reserve describes the majority of people are at a disadvantage in their social class, while the upper class is compensated.

It is a fact that in the US, 50 percent of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. But is it really such an unfortunate reality that we would need a system other capitalism to stem the tide of upward movement of wealth distribution. In my view, what is wrong is not the 1 percent's hold on 50 percent of wealth but the resulting decline in middle class that is now a major problem for the US.

There is no doubt that wealth inequality in America has been escalating quickly; the portion of total income earned by the top one percent has doubled since the beginning of the 1970’s. The wealthy are the main beneficiaries

America is one of the world’s largest and prosperous developed countries in the world, but take a closer look and you realize that the great United States of America has an alarmingly large amount of poverty. Where there once used to be an “American Dream” there now lies the cold hard truth, there is less and less opportunity every day and growing inequality every second. Joseph E. Stiglitz how America has turned into a country that would be unrecognizable to any of the founding fathers. In The Price of InequalityStiglitz visits this problem and searches for the source of the economic inequality that the United States is faced with today. Stiglitz came to the conclusion that America is declining and turning into a society like the one

In the essay, “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Stiglitz criticizes the wealthy, and how the economy protects them. The government has reduced taxes for those wealthy people, but not working Americans that are poor. The government is giving more money to the wealthy, while taking opportunities from the less-educated. Everyone in America is not equal in society. America has went from a society that everyone worked hard to earn money to an economy that is predictable. The rich know they will stay rich and their legacy will continue. The poor knows their hard working and still struggling legacy will continue. Many people that aren’t rich depend on the government for certain things, but rich people have the money to pay

Capitalism has been the central force behind the growth of the United States’ progressive economy. Within such advanced economic system the chances of economic disparity are significantly high. In fact, over the past three decades there has being a steady increase in unequal wealth distribution among the economic classes. To sustain the current unequal wealth distribution among the classes of the American population, there are numerous factors that influence and shape this trend. For some members of the population it is alarmingly disturbing to know that recent statistics have shown that, “In the US [alone] the wealthiest 1% of its population owns more than the bottom 95 %” (Gutman). As for the difference in economic wealth, it resulted

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” by economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, the increasing gap in wealth and power between America’s richest and the lower classes is explained by analyzing the policies that allow the upper class to control the distribution of wealth and the consequences of this control. Stiglitz creates an effective argument by logically refuting opposing claims, using his expertise as an economist, and appealing to the American spirit.

Wealth in america is only reserved for the top 1%. Even out of those who live in the

In today’s capitalist economy, where economic transactions and business in general is centered on self-interest, there is a natural tendency for some people to make more than others. That is the basis for the “American Dream,” where people, if they worked hard, could make money proportional to their effort. However, what happens when this natural occurrence grows disproportional in its allocation of wealth within a society? The resulting issue becomes income inequality. Where a small portion of the population, own the majority of the wealth and the majority of the population own only a fraction of what the rich own. This prominent issue has always been the subject of social tension

Everywhere you look at the United States you can find economic stratification. From the kind of vehicle you drive, to the kind of house you live in, to the kind of restaurants you eat at the most you will find economic stratification. Some might ask, does any of that truly matter today? Yes, unfortunately, it does. An important goal for most people is what’s referred to as The American Dream. Whether it is to attend a good college, get a respectable job, purchase the perfect house, and have a small family or maybe just to start your own business; that dream starts with wealth. People with more money will have an easier time with achieving the dream than a lower income person would. With wealth comes power and prestige as well. People with more money have better life chances because they can afford better healthcare, education, healthier food, and safer neighborhoods just to name a few things.

Stiglitz paints a very dark and hated picture of the top 1 percent or wealthy elite right off the bat. Stiglitz is clearly against the 1 percent in almost every way. The 1 percent is stingy, useless, and does nothing to provide benefits for the middle class or any body outside of the 1 percent. The deeper into the article I found myself, the more questions came to mind. Are these facts or opinions? Does the authors argument hold any statistical value? The more I questioned the more specific my research became. The research developed into reasons how the marginal-productivity theory is in fact a vital part in the 1 percents role in the economy. That piece of information led to two other important pieces of evidence. How much did the 1 percent actually contribute to society? How many job and educational opportunities came from the wealthy elite? The research and statistics go on to speak for themselves by stating how exactly the top 1 percent contribute to society specifically outside of their income class and how many economic opportunities are provided from just the 1 percent alone.