Is Capitalism Really That Bad?

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Why-Inequality-Matters-Capital-in-21st-Century-Review

After our recent class discussion regarding inequality, most of us left the classroom with the idea that capitalism is the root of all evil and most certainly the absolute cause of all income inequality. After all, that is Piketty’s point. He argues that those with capital can see significant returns which creates a separation from themselves and those who do not possess any capital. Much like someone else we’ve covered, Karl Marx.  A couple years ago, Bill Gates contacted Piketty to discuss his theory and wrote a blog to voice his own opinions on inequality. While he acknowledges that the subject of inequality is extremely important he had quite a few criticisms about Piketty’s views.

First, Piketty supports his claims by giving examples of how generational wealth has caused a major rift in income equality.  Piketty argues that those receiving capital from their families continue to reap the benefits due to “rentier income”, the income earned from allowing others to use their money, land, or other forms of capital. Conversely, Gates points out that many of the wealthiest Americans became wealthy due to hard work and innovative ideas. The Forbes 400 list, which consists of all the wealthiest Americans in the United States, names about fifty percent of entrepreneurs.  This means that some are passing down wealth from generation to generation, but capitalistic ideas have still reward those who work hard and possess unique ideas. He adds, “In America, that old money is long gone—through instability, inflation, taxes, philanthropy, and spending”, furthering his point that Piketty is overstating the power of generation wealth today.

Data is Gates’s next concern. Income inequality can say a lot about the life a person lives, but consumption tells a more accurate narrative. Piketty ignores consumption altogether which doesn’t give us the whole picture to how poor are the poor and how rich are the rich. There will always be differences in wages and earnings, but it only becomes an extreme problem when those making less cannot afford the life they deserve to live. For instance, everyone should have the right to earn enough to cover every single basic need such as food, shelter, toiletries, clothing, etc.… People should also have the right to earn enough to consume things that give them pleasure, but aren’t basic needs. For example, being able to buy movie tickets, a television, or go bowling with friends. Consumption portrays the detailed narrative to whether those making less can live a good life. If those who earning less are able to consume all types of things that give them pleasure along with their most basic needs, then it does it really matter if they earn a couple thousand less than someone else?

Lastly, Bill Gates is a “big believer” that taxes could play a major role in fixing income inequality. Gates stated that he would like to see a progressive tax on consumption rather than income. This means taxing those who spend on things that fail to benefit society much more than those who give donations or invest I businesses. Obviously, shifting away from income taxes would be great, but is it fair to punish people for spending their earnings the way they want to? This seems unconstitutional to me how about you all? 

Feminist Theory in International Relations

https://samuelbhfauredotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/s7-jones-1996.pd

The article above discusses how IR is "one of the most gender-blind" perspectives, when it comes to contemporary social and political analysis. J. Ann Tickner, who we discussed in class, thinks that IR has a connotation to "maleness." This connotation leads women to be less valued in the work place. The goal with the feminist theory is to recognize gender in IR and move past gendered ideas.

One of Tickner arguments focuses around a marxist perspective. Marxism is the most compatible with a feminist perspective. The reading focuses on how women do not have the same opportunities as men in the workplace. Marxism rejects the idea of women's role in the family. However, this aspect of a womens life cannot be placed to the side. Being a mother and the caretaker of the family is essentially a second job. Tickner says that feminist argue that ignoring women in their reproductive and childrearing roles is a problem. This could led to intimidation in the workplace and taking time off to take care of their kids, which would just impede their opportunities for promotions and advancements. Ignoring a women's place at home, leaves all the unpaid labor that they perform in the family outside the economic analysis. This is something men do not have to worry about. Marxist neglects women in their domestic roles, which just creates a bigger issue for women regardless of their class. Marxist needs to pay more attention to women in their private role at home, because when women walk into the workforce they are still responsible for the housework and childcare. Change will only occur when women are finally equal to men in both the public and private realm. Moving past gendered ideas is the only hope.

Solutions of the 2008 Financial Crisis

http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

The article above, talks about the effects of the financial crisis and how it happened. Many of the most powerful financial institutions collapsed. The financial crisis had many causes that contributed to the massive collapse of the world's financial system. One of those simply being greed. Homeowners wanted to become rich, so they started flipping real estate. Most of them didn't have enough equity on their homes, so they needed up owing more on their mortgage than they could pay off. Bankers were benefiting by paying subprime mortgages, so they didn't regulate it as much as they should have. The burning of defaults, led to major hedge funds collapsing. This led many people to proclaim an end to credit risk, which allowed banks to insure against loan defaults. Most financial institutions couldn't account for or even cover these liabilities. 

It was the risky, irresponsible lending and financial practices that resulted in the biggest crisis since the Great Depression. All economies require safeguards to avoid heavy amount of risk, yet bankers and financial sectors all missed these. Regulators mishandled the crisis, failed to keep economic imbalances in check and failed to exercise proper oversight of financial institutions. One solution should have been the way banks lend out money. Regulators and central banks need to ensure that banks are borrowing less and need to regulate how they obtain their money. For this to happen, banks must raise capital and clear up their balance sheets. Another solution is having a legal authority system to regulate financial firms from becoming too big and too interconnected. One of the biggest issues of the financial crisis in 2008, was not having a system in place that dealt with the fall out and the troubled institutions. Organized exchanges must be in place and transparency in the market must be met. 

Can We Overcome Inequality?

http://www.aauw.org/research/the-simple-truth-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

In Tuesday’s class, we discussed the many moving arguments that lie within the article written by J. Ann Ticker. Her feminist critique poked holes in the liberalist, nationalist, and Marxist approaches to International Political Economy which have all been created through the eyes of men.  Ticker states that the reason women face inequality is because the economic and political systems have both been constructed through the lenses of men. These masculine creations naturally have been born to favor masculinity because they are simply the ones who put these systems in place. Ticker argues that we must have gender at the forefront when changing the goals and ideals we have in society. For example, we should be working to achieve economic justice for all rather than waging war with another country. That said, it may seem like ticker is ignoring the progress we have made from then until now, but an article written by the AAUW proves she is very correct.   

What do the numbers say? Overall, the gender income discrepancy has gotten better over time which can be expected as the role of a women in society has evolved too. Women are no longer just child-bearers. They are educators, CEOs, inventors, writers, and many other unique additions to the world we live in. From the years 1960 to 2015, the pay gap has shrunk by 25%.  This may sound like a huge decrease in gender wage inequality, but it is not. At this rate, women and men would be projected to earn equal wages in the year 2059.  If the rate from 2001 to 2015 was used, the same gender wage equity would be forecasted to occur in the year 2152! On average, women in the United States make about 80% of what men earn in the labor force.  Most economists and other well qualified scholars often link wage disparities with education. After all, the more educated a person is the more likely they will have upward economic mobility. However, the numbers presented by the article above contradicts that argument when focusing in on women. Women who possess some college or an associate degree and women who earn a bachelor degree both earn 75% of what men with the exact same credentials earn. In fact, women who go on to achieve an advanced degree earn 74% of what men earn.  Will statistics such as these discourage women from pursuing roles that are dominated by masculinity? If education is not rewarding hardworking women, will women still want to pursue the higher economic and political positions which can create change. We all go to college and take on debt to gain economically later in life. However, if there is no reward at the finish line will women still attempt to place themselves in positions that can potentially balance out masculinity? Of course, some will still fight to have justice, but how will the rest of women respond?

Ticker believes the economic and political systems are dominated by masculinity. How will we be able to balance out the dominance with femininity if the incentive to do so is simply not there? Is the existence of inequality enough to motivate people to change? It would be foolish to think that men who benefit from a masculine favored world would simply change their ways to create justice. People are selfish and often do what is best for themselves. This means most men will continue to enjoy the world we live in while only some will help to achieve gender equity. What do you guys think?