Please help me find examples of ECONOMICAL inequality in the novel To Kill a Mockingbird?!?
Jem: "There's four kinds of folks in the world. There's the ordinary kind like us and the neighbors, there's the kind like the Cunninghams out in the woods, the kind like the Ewells down at the dump, and the Negroes." The Ewells - white trash, lived by the garbage dump, etc. They're both poor and uneducated, but that's through the fault of Bob Ewell; he drinks and gambles away the money, and forces the children to stay at home. The Cunninghams - paid back what they owed, but not with money, etc. The Finches - you could mention that they had quite a bit of money (they had a car, a nice house, etc.) and everyone was polite to them, though I think that's more due to his reputation as a lawyer and because of his personality than any economical factors. The black people - in the church they only had one hymn book, and there were coke bottles outside the church, etc., as if for decoration. You could mention how they almost seemed happier, though - their church service (singing, praise, etc.) compared to the white people's church service seemed lighter and happier, showing how neither their economic troubles, nor their skin colour affected them when in church. You could also mention the collection that took place for Tom Robinson's wife, and how the reverend (sorry, I can't remember his name), ensured that everyone donated money. You could talk how there was mass economical failure (this shows background knowledge), because it was set in the 1930s when the Great Depression hit America after the Wall Street Crash, and how, in that one circumstance, there was equality just for once, because EVERYONE was affected by it. Hope this helps.
Has trickle-down economics been discredited?
I'm not aware of any economic papers that advocated trickle-down economics or any that made predictions about how much non-rich people would be helped by various measures designed to reduce taxes or otherwise help the rich get richer. Trickle-down and "a rising tide floats all boats" were more qualitative thought experiments than quantitative economic theories. So there are two different ways for them to be discredited.There's academic discrediting. Lots of academic work has been done to show that economic inequality is increasing, not decreasing. See, for example, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, by Thomas Piketty and Arthur Goldhammer. But I don't think any advocate of trickle-down economic ever promised that economic equality would increase, just that the middle class would wind up better off. Nina Crespi and Nathan Ketsdever already pointed out Trickle-Down Economics Fails to Deliver as Promised, which quotes an academic study: “Increases in inequality lead to more growth,” the paper’s authors wrote. “There appears to be some trickle-down effect in the long run, but since the impact of a change in inequality on economic growth is quite small, it is difficult to be sure from our estimates whether the bottom 90% will really be better off or not.”...The paper’s findings were based on data from 12 developed nations, observed over most of the last century into the current century.And there's popular, political discrediting. As Swagato Barman Roy said, the term is now a pejorative. It's not used as a campaign slogan by Republicans or Conservatives. So I think most poor and middle-class Americans believe they will not be better off if the rich have more money to spend.As with all arguments about economics at the national level, I'm personally skeptical that much really gets proved or disproved. Middle class Americans certainly have better computers, better cars, and better phones now than in 1980, when Reagan was elected. But I have no idea whether those technology advances (and Quora!) occurred because or, or in spite of, the rich getting richer.
What is Occupy Wall Street about?
It is about regular hard working stiffs like me who are mad as hell but too stupid to know what to do about it. This video is apparently of a typical hedge fund trader who wants to see a global depression so that he and his day trading cohorts can level up.In the video he says that Goldman Sachs rules the world. In other words, governments just serve as errand boys sent to collect the bill from tax paying morons like me. Remember when they were broke? (4 years ago)I posted this as an Anon because I believe that he is right. When it becomes official that we are all just serfs living in the Goldman Sachs sandbox we call reality; then I'm sure they will figure out some method of identifying all the dissidents who question their methods. (I say this half-joking)Wall Street is out of control and everyone who knows anything about it should agree. Just look at the 700 (T)rillion dollar derivatives market if you need more proof. This virtual economy was illegal only a few years ago. (Wikipedia: "Bucket Shops" to learn more)The real economy (Producing goods, buying and selling them to humans) is too much work for these derivitaves traders and they make more money, faster by just betting against dumbass borrowers like me. (Wikipedia: "Credit Default Swaps") I didn't want to write this much because I have given up believing that we (the broke and disposed) have any clout or the ability to fight back. But good ole Quora forced me to write more of a descriptive answer. I guess they think knowledge still matters in this upside down world.For that they have my respect and I hope they are right.- Anon (some guy who makes $15/hr. and was foreclosed on last year)So it goes....
How has the financial market and the financialization of the real economy affected economic and social inequality?
If you Google 'annual salaries' for movie stars, CEOs, and top sports figures, you will see only the A list (a very small number) make over $5 million - virtually none of the famous folks make over $75 million per year. But in the last ten years, the top .01% wage earners had a massive increase in income - averaging $21,569,156. So who makes all the mega bucks?Hedge funds. In 2013, one 30 year old hedge fund trader named Jimmy Levin made $130 million. Hedge fund managers make even more. Ray Dalio at Bridgewater Associates makes $600 million. David Tepper at Appaloosa Management makes $3.5 Billion. That's right, billion.Hedge funds borrow or raise money that they then use to speculate; they fall into the unregulated shadow banking area. But where does the money originate? Since 2008 much of it has been fueled by the Federal Reserve as QE as $3 Trillion has flowed to the "too big to fail banks." The banks leverage these 'excess reserves' to speculate for their own accounts (called prop desks), or funnel it to hedge funds. The hedge funds know that interest rates are no longer set by the market but frozen by the Fed so they are safe to leverage, speculate , and pay out salaries and bonuses.The top .01% is doing very well. Statistics show incomes for the rest of us are stagnating or going down. In large part this is because of what you called "financialization of the real economy." Finance as a percentage of GDP has doubled over the last thirty years - most of that increase is due Wall Street, not Main Street financing. I hope this helps.