RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Queally reports: "In a direct refutation of the infamous Reagan-era ethos of "trickle-down economics," Warren said that Piketty's invaluable research presented in his book shows that "wealth does not trickle down... it trickles up.""

Elizabeth Warren, Thomas Piketty. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Charles Platiau/Reuters)
Elizabeth Warren, Thomas Piketty. (photo: Joshua Roberts/Charles Platiau/Reuters)


Elizabeth Warren and Thomas Piketty: "Wealth Does Not Trickle Down... It Trickles Up."

By Jon Queally, Common Dreams

04 June 14


Both issues show clearly that 'we have a rigged system, where a handful are able to reap benefits at the cost of everyone else.'

haring a stage with French economist Thomas Piketty on Monday night in Boston, Sen. Elizabeth Warren discussed a range issues related to economic inequality during a joint interview with the Huffington Post, but said that people should be careful not to separate the far-reaching implications that outsized wealth and power in the U.S. can have on vital, planetary issues like climate change.

Piketty, the author of the groundbreaking and bestselling book Capitalism in the 21st Century, offered his perspective on the rise of global wealth disparity as Warren focused on her familiar rhetoric surrounding the politics of inequality by describing the numerous ways in which "the system is rigged" against working people in favor of the financial and political elite.

In a direct refutation of the infamous Reagan-era ethos of "trickle-down economics," Warren said that Piketty's invaluable research presented in his book shows that "wealth does not trickle down... it trickles up."

"It trickles from everyone else," she said, "to those who are rich."

In a striking moment of the discussion, Warren stopped to make a cogent point about the intersection between the inequality that Picketty has so well documented and the overwhelming issue of climate change which she argued should not be treated as something separate from the current political realities created by enormous wealth inequality.

"I think [these two issues] are the same debate," said Warren as she crossed her arms to represent intersection. And continued:

Think of it this way: We have tens of millions of people who live right near coasts, just to pick one example. And so what's happening right now in the debate in the United States? There are giant industries that pollute and the consequence is they make immediate profits and the effects of their pollution will be felt by lots and lots people around this country and ultimately around the globe. Now, it's in their interest to continue to be able to pollute, because they make short term profits and everyone else will bare the costs."

Think about it, they are able to amass the lobbyists to go to Washington, to influence the lawmakers,to influence the regulators, to do everything they can to maintain their opportunities to foul the air and poison the water in order to support short-term profits. Everyone else�who has to pay the price on that�doesn't have that same kind of organized ability to make their voices heard in the same way with lobbyists and lawyers in Washington.

And so for me, this is just one more example of how we have inequality, of how we have a rigged system, where a handful are able to reap benefits at the cost of everyone else. And I think climate change, like economic inequality, are both symptoms of the same problem. The same problem of this with enough power writing the rules too much in their favor, and leaving everyone else behind.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+12 # Activista 2011-06-02 17:40
Kucinich resolution would pass - to stop bombing Libya - even in Banana Republic of USA.
What is the next step down?
 
 
+15 # Saberoff 2011-06-02 23:35
What the hell is the world coming to? A Kucinich bill might pass?! Glory be.
 
 
+3 # rf 2011-06-03 05:04
Woo! Hoo!
 
 
+10 # liberalman 2011-06-03 05:54
Arguments on both sides to continue bombing or not. My ..but..are the forces we are supporting any better or perhaps worse than the Libyan strongman now in power? The USA has meddled in far too many conflicts backing the wrong horse for many a sad year now. The CIA, etc. love a good puppet government, one they can rely on to open doors for major American corporations to move in & begin the process of exploiting cheap labor for their bought & paid for politicians who are without question simply pawns for these industries. Do we still have any business in Iraq? All of our much needed $$$ at home could (probably no though) be better spent here. Bin-Laden is no more, do we still need to sacrifice American lives & major $$$ to continue the hunt for a handful of foes of America? Time to go all Vietnam protestor like & bring ALL of our troops home & save bundles of $$$ at the same time not sacrificing the life of one more American.
 
 
+13 # rm 2011-06-03 06:06
Thanks Dennis Kucinich. Obama's war against Libya is a great crime against humanity. The goal was always regime change and nation building from the very start. Everyone knew that except for American journalists who only know what presidents tell them.
 
 
+11 # phrixus 2011-06-03 06:36
Let's see. If we stop bombing Libya the military/indust rial/government nexus will obviously need to start a replacement war albeit somewhere else. I suggest Andorra. Small enough to test the precision of our smartest weapons and existing at altitude, bombing this independent principality provides a unique military proving ground as well as unusual diplomatic challenges. Of course, we'll need an otherwise transparent lie to convince the gullible (read "Fox News viewers") as to the dire necessity of this operation. Ebola virus-infected sheep should do nicely. With a population of only 70,000 and not a significant consumer of American goods we could quickly exterminate them, add a few notches to the Joint Chief's playbook, and be downing a cold one in the Officer's Club before the July 4th holiday. I say, "go for it." And God Bless America.
 
 
+6 # Snafubar 2011-06-03 08:04
I don't think petroleum is the key reason for the US and allies to go after Lybia.
There's some of it in the equation, sure enough, but how comes the rebels instated months ago a central bank, well before they even have an embryo of something that could one day look like a government?

Sarkozy had tarred Libya a threat to the western world not because of its petroleum or Lockerbie, but because of the non-convertible Lybian Dinar and the controlled economy sustained, yes, by the petroleum resources.
Libyan government lending at 0% of about $50 grand to each young married couple is indeed a crime when western bankers cannot cash on it, and it sets a very unwelcome precedent in particular to the other members of the OAS.
 
 
+4 # Activista 2011-06-03 09:37
Typical neocolonialism - using tribes/civil war for control of Africa.
Push China from Africa ....
 
 
+2 # LeeBlack 2011-06-03 11:29
Postponement? A continuing a trend away from a 'government by the people'.
 
 
+4 # Capn Canard 2011-06-03 11:54
This more of the Republicans being two faced and then blaming those most injured by their complete incompetence.
 
 
+1 # CAProgressives 2011-06-03 13:09
They were right!
 
 
+1 # Activista 2011-06-03 13:25
yahoo: Shortly after adopting the resolution (worse-less Boehmer fake), the House rejected a considerably tougher measure advanced by Rep. Dennis Kucinich that demanded an end to U.S. involvement in the NATO-led operation in Libya. The vote was 265-148.
The GOP leadership hastily pulled together the Boehner resolution amid concerns in both parties that the Kucinich measure was gaining ground.
etc.
Only 148 voted against the invasion/bombin g of Libya -
 
 
+2 # bobby t. 2011-06-04 09:09
ah, dennis is making sure the republicans do not want to come in and block liz warren's nomination during the recess. obama doesn't need their approval if he does it during recess! brilliant!
but, will he have the guts to do so. time will tell. and time will show us if he is really serious about reforming wall street. especially now that they have ten banks too big to fail!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN