Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Update on Inequality

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Update on Inequality

    From Deloitte, a broad-brush view on the continuing growth in inequality, with emphasis on the UK.
    ----------------
    * Inequality has moved to the top of the political agenda across much of the industrial world in recent years.
    * In his State of The Union address last week, President Obama announced a raft of measures to fight inequality, declaring - "After four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled".
    * In the UK, the Labour Party has pledged to raise the top rate of income tax to 50p and to freeze utility prices. Labour's focus on the "cost of living crisis" is at the heart of its electoral strategy.
    * Yet inequality has been on the rise across much of the West since well before the financial crisis and, in the case of the UK and the US, since the late 1970s. So, why has the issue only now reached the top of the political agenda?
    * Before the crisis, rising inequality was accompanied by growth in real incomes for most of the population. The majority of people were benefiting from the system, even if some were getting rich much quicker than others.
    * The global financial crisis has caused a major squeeze on consumer incomes. In a number of countries, including the UK, a large chunk of the population are worse off today than they were at the start of the crisis. The greatest squeeze has occurred in the periphery of the euro area. In Greece, the worst affected nation, real disposable incomes dropped a staggering 25% between 2008 and 2011 alone.
    * In the UK, real incomes actually rose during the recession, in 2008-09. The puzzle is that the big income squeeze kicked in with the recovery. Since 2010, as the UK economy moved back to growth, consumers have had to contend with low or no pay rises, above average inflation, rising taxes and a squeeze on state benefit. Real incomes have been falling consistently since 2010, the longest period for 50 years.
    * Real incomes have fallen in a job-rich recovery. Since 2010, the UK economy has created more than a million new jobs, a 3% increase in the size of the workforce, but the real value of incomes has dropped by 7%. More people are in work, but on average they earn less. The unusually weak productivity, or output per person, of recent years, helps explain the weakness of wage growth.
    * Inflation has hit low income groups especially hard. Increases in the prices of food, energy and rents in social housing – items which account for a large share of the spending of those on low incomes - have far outstripped general inflation in the last five years.
    * But how can we explain the much longer term rise in inequality? A series of powerful forces seem to be at work. Technological progress, globalisation, the expansion of financial markets and the decline of unions have reduced the relative value of unskilled labour and bolstered the returns to high level skills and to capital. Indeed, the wage squeeze is part of a bigger story which has played out across the world for the last three decades in which labour's share of GDP has shrunk and the share going in profits have risen.
    * In this sort of a world, expertise, education and experience are at a premium. The most conspicuous examples are in the financial sector but this process has been at work across the economy. Since 1978, real incomes for UK doctors have risen 153%, for lawyers 114% and for quantity surveyors by 65%. Over the same period, incomes for fork lift truck drivers have fallen 5% and pay for unskilled production line workers has dropped 3%.
    * Such inequalities reflect, in part, widely differing levels of educational and training achievement not just across social groups but across generations. Recent OECD research came up with the alarming finding that that England is the only country in the developed world in which adults aged 55-to-65 outperform those aged 16-to-24 in literacy and numeracy tests. This fact may help explain why, since 2007, the number of under-24s in work has shrunk by almost half a million even as the number of over 55s in work has increased.
    * The good news is that the worse of the squeeze on incomes in the UK is probably past. The UK's official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, believes that stronger growth in earnings, and lower inflation, will deliver increases in real incomes over the next five years. The OBR's forecasts, do, however, assume a continued squeeze on benefits which is likely to bear particularly hard on lower income groups.
    * Given the powerful long term forces at work it seems quite possible that income inequalities will continue to widen over coming years, even if average earnings growth reassume their upward trajectory.
    * But what could actually reduce inequality?
    * Aggressively redistributive tax and benefits policies, the like of which have not been seen in the UK since the 1970s, would make a big difference. But in a world of increasingly freely-flowing capital and labour the long term economic consequences could be ruinous. The alternative is the long haul of boosting the productivity of low income earners through improvements in education and training. In a world where expertise commands a premium, this hardly revolutionary path seems to offer the surest way of improving the prospects of those at the bottom of the income distribution.
    MARKETS & NEWS

    UK's FTSE 100 ended the week down -2.3%, on continued fears about growth in emerging markets.
    Here are some recent news stories that caught our eye as reflecting key economic themes:
    KEY THEMES

    * The US economy grew at an annual rate of 3.2% in the last quarter of 2013, with exports up by 11.4%
    * German business confidence rose in January to its highest level since July 2011
    * Japanese inflation benchmark inflation rate rose by 1.3% in December, moving closer to the Bank of Japan's 2% target rate
    * Investors withdrew money from emerging market equities at the fastest rate since 2011 according to data by EPFR Global
    * The Financial Times reported that US purchases of European shares rose to levels last seen in the run-up to the launch of the euro in 1999
    * Two French executives who had been held for 18 hours as part of an escalating dispute over severance pay were released by striking workers
    * The International Energy Agency said high European energy prices mean Europe will lose a third of its global market share of energy-intensive exports over the next two decades
    * Investor brothers Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss called for a sheriff to police the "wild, wild west" of virtual currencies
    * Cocoa prices rose to two and a half year highs as worries about global inventory levels of cocoa hit markets
    * Stoke council sold the first "£1 homes" under a £3m scheme enabling local residents to buy derelict properties in exchange for paying £30,000 for their restoration
    * Yakult, the Japanese maker of probiotic drinks, said net income for the nine months to December was up 30%, with overseas revenues up 37% per cent
    * Blue Bottle, a coffee chain with a devout following amongst San Francisco's startup community, received a $25.75m of venture capital investment
    * The growth in worldwide tablet shipments slowed in 2013, with the International Data Corporation (IDC) warning that "markets such as the US are reaching high levels of consumer saturation"
    * Treasury Wine Estates, maker of wines including Lindeman's and Penfolds, lowered its earnings estimates, saying that government austerity measures in China were impacting consumer demand for premium wine
    * The Chinese Year of the Horse, which began on 31st January, may bring strong gains in stocks linked to wood, one of the year's dominant elements, according to Hong Kong's practitioners of the ancient art of feng shui – horse trading
    ----------------
    Link here:
    http://www.mondaq.com/x/290542/Econo...mail_access=on


  • #2
    Re: Update on Inequality


    Robert J. Samuelson

    Opinion Writer

    Myth-making about economic inequality




    By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: February 2


    Unless you are exceptionally coldblooded, it’s hard not to be disturbed by today’s huge economic inequality. The gap between the rich and the poor is enormous, wider than most Americans would (almost certainly) wish. But this incontestable reality has made economic inequality a misleading intellectual fad, blamed for many of our problems. Actually, the reverse is true: Economic inequality is usually a consequence of our problems and not a cause.

    For starters, the poor are not poor because the rich are rich. The two conditions are generally unrelated. Mostly, the rich got rich by running profitable small businesses (car dealerships, builders), creating big enterprises (Google, Microsoft), being at the top of lucrative occupations (bankers, lawyers, doctors, actors, athletes), managing major companies or inheriting fortunes. By contrast, the very poor often face circumstances that make their lives desperate. In an interview with the New Yorker, President Obama recently put it this way:



    “[The] ‘pathologies’ that used to be attributed to the African-American community in particular — single-parent households, and drug abuse, and men dropping out of the labor force, and an underground economy — [are now seen] in
    larger numbers in white working-class communities.”


    Solutions elude us. Though some low-income workers would benefit from a higher minimum wage, most of the very poor would not. They’re not in the labor force; they either can’t work — too young, old, disabled or unskilled — or won’t. Of the 46 million people below the government’s poverty line in 2012, only 6 percent had year-round full-time jobs. Among men 25 to 55 with a high school diploma or less, the share with jobs fell from more than 90 percent in 1970 to less than 75 percent in 2010, reports Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution . For African American men ages 20 to 24, less than half were working.


    It’s also not true that, as widely asserted, the wealthiest Americans (the notorious top 1 percent) have captured all the gains in productivity and living standards of recent decades. The Congressional Budget Office examined income trends for the past three decades. It found sizable gains for all income groups.


    True, the top 1 percent outdid everyone. From 1980 to 2010, their inflation-adjusted pretax incomes grew a spectacular 190 percent, almost a tripling. But for the poorest fifth of Americans, pretax incomes for these years rose 44 percent. Gains were 31 percent for the second poorest, 29 percent for the middle fifth, 38 percent for the next fifth and 83 percent for the richest fifth, including the top 1 percent. Because our system redistributes income from top to bottom, after-tax gains were larger: 53 percent for the poorest fifth; 41 percent for the second; 41 percent for the middle-fifth; 49 percent for the fourth; and 90 percent for richest.


    Finally, widening economic inequality is sometimes mistakenly blamed for causing the Great Recession and the weak recovery. The argument, as outlined by two economists at Washington University in St. Louis, goes like this: In the 1980s, income growth for the bottom 95 percent of Americans slowed. People compensated by borrowing more. All the extra debt led to a consumption boom that was unsustainable. The housing bubble and crash followed. Now, weak income growth of the bottom 95 percent “helps explain the slow recovery.”


    This theory is half right. An unsustainable debt boom did fuel an unsustainable consumption boom. From 1980 to 2007, household debt rose from 72 percent to 137 percent of disposable income. Consumption spending jumped from 61 percent of gross domestic product (the economy) to 67 percent for the same years, a huge shift. These increases could not continue indefinitely. But growing inequality didn’t cause these twin booms. Just because households wanted to borrow didn’t mean lenders had to lend. They lent, signifying relaxed credit standards, because they thought that the risks had dropped.


    Optimism seemed justified. Beginning in the 1980s, inflation fell, reducing interest rates. Lower interest rates raised stock prices and home values. People felt wealthier and, on paper, they were. Buoyant consumer spending kept the economy advancing and unemployment low. Recessions were mild and infrequent. Economists called this the Great Moderation. Its complacency led directly to the Great Recession. The boom and bust had little to do with economic inequality.

    Americans in the top 1 percent are convenient scapegoats. They don’t naturally command much sympathy, and their rewards sometimes seem outsized or outlandish. When most people are getting ahead, they don’t worry much about this economic inequality. When progress stalls, they do. There’s a backlash and a tendency to see less economic inequality as a solution to all manner of problems. We create simplistic narratives and imagine that punishing the rich will miraculously uplift the poor. This vents popular resentments, even as it encourages self-deception.
    Read more from Robert Samuelson’s archive.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Update on Inequality

      We have a system that creates a relatively small number of extremely wealthy people and lots and lots of poor people.

      It's not the people, it's the system.

      But people do matter.

      Those at the top will do anything to the rest of the people to stay there . . .

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Update on Inequality

        Originally posted by don View Post
        We have a system that creates a relatively small number of extremely wealthy people and lots and lots of poor people.

        It's not the people, it's the system.

        But people do matter.

        Those at the top will do anything to the rest of the people to stay there . . .
        yes, absolutely.

        and 'the top' being defined as the 535+1 et al, that inhabit whats become a festering open sore/sewer over there in the middle of the megalopolis

        they that arrive as 'working class' and leave as millionaires while collecting one of the richest retirement plans of all (that havent quite made it into the ranks of the plutoCrats and other 'lifers' of the beltway) while we get their chin music in the way of 'reforms'

        uh huh... that only resulted in 'reforming' how the bonuses are calculated - meanwhile NOTHING IS BEING ACCOMPLISHED EXCEPT FOR 'positioning for 2016'

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Update on Inequality

          Lek, you give the politicians way too much credit. They're timeservers who don't take a crap without checking in with their benefactors. Did you see that story a while back where we've got a majority of congressmen who are millionaires. What's that blue collar comic guy say, "there's your sign?"

          Sure, they're worthless and they need to go. But hear me, there is NO ONE, not a single person in any of the parties anywhere that will lead us or follow us to where we need to go. I enjoy politics same as some enjoy professional wrestling. I know it's fake, but it entertains me. But if any of us believe we're going to vote our way out of this mess, well fuggetaboutit.

          Let me ask you something personal. Are you voting in the next election? Are you voting for a Democrat or a Republican? Are you voting for an incumbent? I sure hope not, but if it works out that you do, well guess what, you've just contributed your two cents to maintaining the status quo. You've ratified the decisions and given them your OK seal of approval.

          The best thing that could happen electorally in this country is if no one left their home on election day. Barring that, the second best alternative would be for everyone one to write in their father's name or their dog's name. Then the politicians you and I despise would really start to sweat. You know who I've voted for in the last six presidential elections? The last two cycles I voted for Robert F. Kennedy as a write in. The two before I wrote in John Kennedy. The two before that one, I voted for my mom and dad. And I feel great about it because I didn't waste my vote on any of the syphilitic whores in Washington.

          And you're mistaken when you say "nothing is being accomplished." There's a ton of stuff being accomplished legislatively and administratively, but practically all of it benefits the top 1% and the rest of us are pounding sand. Even the "working rich" represented by some of our more accomplished iTulipers are scrambling for crumbs. Nice fat crumbs because they're close to the table, but crumbs compared to the windfall of the 1%centers.

          Now we can argue endlessly on any number of topics, but so long as we're arguing the premises put forward to us by said syphilitic whores, well we're just chasing out tails. Left wing, right wing, chicken wing. It don't matter.
          Last edited by Woodsman; February 04, 2014, 07:08 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Update on Inequality

            Woodsman: I think you are taking it too far. Calling out chicken wings? What have chicken wings ever done to you except be buffalo, plain, honey BBQ, fried, etc?

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Update on Inequality

              Originally posted by BadJuju View Post
              Woodsman: I think you are taking it too far. Calling out chicken wings? What have chicken wings ever done to you except be buffalo, plain, honey BBQ, fried, etc?
              "Lord, I apologize, and be with the starvin' Pygmies down there in New Guinea. Amen."

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Update on Inequality

                Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                Lek, you give the politicians way too much credit. They're timeservers who don't take a crap without checking in with their benefactors...there is NO ONE, not a single person in any of the parties anywhere that will lead us or follow us to where we need to go.
                This, alas, becomes more apparent each day. What is worse however, is that one cannot trust the data, or the media letting it out...it makes it harder to work around the fools in office.

                Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                Are you voting in the next election?
                I always vote. I think everyone should vote. I think everyone should vote for whom would be the best person for that office. In most cases, any cartoon character would be acceptable...you don't want to vote for a real person...if they win, it will ruin their character. Dead Presidents and Congressmen got dead because they were good choices, and we don't want anymore zombies in office.

                Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                The best thing that could happen electorally in this country is if no one left their home on election day.
                A nice idea, but this gives too much room for voter fraud. Everyone has a civic duty to give their vote, or lose their right to be a citizen for lack of common sense. No one has to vote for anyone running officially, and indeed, would be far better off with a write in vote. Again, with the current government in place, any person that can add and subtract, and reason from a to c would be a good candidate. If they understand how to play chess as well, all the better.

                Originally posted by Woodsman View Post
                Barring that, the second best alternative would be for everyone one to write in their father's name or their dog's name.
                Definately a good idea, but to my mind a cartoon character is best. It allows anyone reading the voter rolls of write-in votes to be aware of just how much contempt there is for the current election bullsh*t.

                As for arguing about any incumbent or party, that is all irrelevant until and unless the candidate of choice has character, conviction of principle, and an absolute ideation of good and evil, truth and lies, we might as well keep the situation as it is. It slows down the depredation of the masses by The Powers That Be as everyone continues to fight to cover their own assets, power base, and list of favors owed.

                Which may have been the original intention of the Founders of America.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Update on Inequality

                  Gawd!

                  One article that entirely misses the mark from the left followed by another, equally off the mark, missive from the right.

                  This ain't that hard fellows, it really isn't. As a matter of fact the answer as to why it happened are as easy as looking at the power relationship between labor and capital. Mass immigration, "free trade" agreements that decimate the national industrial base to garner giveaways to other sectors like finance and pharmaceuticals, erasing capital controls to ensure unruly nations are punished when they fight back... well it is all right there. No mystery to it.

                  For decades we have been taking the previous power balance between capital and labor and setting it on its ear. Now why in the hell would we expect anything other than exactly what has happened?

                  The economics profession needs to be disbanded. It has devolved into nothing more than raw politics masquerading as a scientific discipline in its pursuit of money. From top to bottom from east to west the profession is filled with garrulous clowns with no sense of decency let alone academic integrity. Disband it I say, and put all of these imbeciles to work in unskilled blue collar trade for a while... maybe they could actually contribute something to society with a broom or spatula in their hands because they contribute less than nothing now. As it stands they are a big part of the problem.

                  Will

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Update on Inequality

                    Originally posted by Penguin View Post
                    Gawd!

                    One article that entirely misses the mark from the left followed by another, equally off the mark, missive from the right.

                    This ain't that hard fellows, it really isn't. As a matter of fact the answer as to why it happened are as easy as looking at the power relationship between labor and capital. Mass immigration, "free trade" agreements that decimate the national industrial base to garner giveaways to other sectors like finance and pharmaceuticals, erasing capital controls to ensure unruly nations are punished when they fight back... well it is all right there. No mystery to it.

                    For decades we have been taking the previous power balance between capital and labor and setting it on its ear. Now why in the hell would we expect anything other than exactly what has happened?

                    The economics profession needs to be disbanded. It has devolved into nothing more than raw politics masquerading as a scientific discipline in its pursuit of money. From top to bottom from east to west the profession is filled with garrulous clowns with no sense of decency let alone academic integrity. Disband it I say, and put all of these imbeciles to work in unskilled blue collar trade for a while... maybe they could actually contribute something to society with a broom or spatula in their hands because they contribute less than nothing now. As it stands they are a big part of the problem.

                    Will
                    You know, Will, I was thinking about economics as a field the other day. I was having a discussion about China coming up in the world - as common a cocktail discussion as any among strangers in the feckless 21st United States - and what gets trotted out but economic theory masquerading as fact.

                    Beta-convergence, Solow growth models, these things are just asserted like they are as useful an assumption as electrons or gravity. Of course, most people don't know the names for the theoretical mumbo jumbo in economics...thank heaven for small favors...but people do buy the convergence idea - that somehow in the natural course of growth all nations will converge on a common income.

                    The way it came up in conversation was something along the lines of, "Well, but we should expect China to grow faster than the US or Europe because it started out with a smaller economy."

                    It doesn't make friends and influence people to say, no, let's think about this, why isn't Bangladesh growing faster than Communist China, then? Or why aren't The Congo and Chad mopping the floor with everyone? Why isn't Haiti the fastest growing economy in the Western Hemisphere?

                    Then there's the big question: Why do you believe a theoretical model that does not describe the real world at all in any practical way whatsoever?

                    But I think that people need to believe it. The easiest noble lie to sell the city is the one that goes, "What goes wrong is never your fault, sit back, relax, it's only natural that the wolves slaughter the lambs...no need to tend the flock."

                    And so, neo-classical economics has become a religion all its own. Just listen to how people use the word "natural" around it. It's only "natural" that China should grow so fast. It's only "natural" that "free markets" are better than (insert alternative to whatever here). The economy wants (insert nonsense against your best interest here).

                    It's a funny thing, but you can see it in every headline. "The Economy" is trotted out like a volcano we worship. And replacing "The Economy" with "The Volcano" in the articles will make it obvious what is happening.

                    To continue Will's blue collar analogy, imagine if a plumber deeply believed in "The Drain." He might decide that "The Drain" simply wants you to move out of your house when you have a plumbing problem. Or he might insist you can fix "The Drain" with a vacuum cleaner, even though it has only ever solved 2 clogs in history. He might hate drain snakes and say "They're for dirty Snakists!" and demand that nobody use them ever and start a cult against them. He might also despise plungers and say, "They worked in the 1930s, but they don't work on the PVC we have today! Everything's different! Plungers just. don't. work!"

                    This is what economists do all the time. And I think, you'd find, if you did put them all in blue collar jobs, the number of houses burned down by faulty wiring would go up exponentially.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Update on Inequality

                      That is a great post dcarrigg. So many well made points.

                      The way these economic "theories" are produced and validated never ceases to amaze me. I sometimes cannot believe that the rest of the academic world allows it to continue. God knows that there are complications and connections that make it very difficult to isolate and test different variables. But if it is too much for the profession to handle then just make them 'fess up and we can take what they say as an educated guess and move on.

                      One of the ones that drives me mad is the theory of Comparative Advantage. Seemingly the backbone of US trade policy for decades now. The justification for outsourcing, offshoring, deindustrialization, the "service economy" and a heck of a lot of other platitudes that mean putting our folks out of work in favor of other folks.

                      A rounding error.

                      In a world that actually fits the assumptions underlying this theory, comparative advantage amounts to a rounding error. In a world without full employment but with chronic trade deficits, vastly different labor, environmental, and tariff policies? It is anything but a rounding error. It is extremely harmful.

                      For better than 30 years we've been waiting for the economics profession to admit that all of those rosy pictures they painted of a "free trade" world are a complete fantasy. Their version of globalization has been an unmitigated disaster. One nation after another indebted and on the abyss. Hot and cold capital flows ruining one economy and then another. All of their fanciful theories helping the process along and giving intellectual cover for those who know better but benefit from the process.

                      You could do better with a Haitian witch doctor reading goat entrails.

                      Will

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Update on Inequality

                        Originally posted by Penguin View Post
                        For better than 30 years we've been waiting for the economics profession to admit that all of those rosy pictures they painted of a "free trade" world are a complete fantasy. Their version of globalization has been an unmitigated disaster. One nation after another indebted and on the abyss. Hot and cold capital flows ruining one economy and then another. All of their fanciful theories helping the process along and giving intellectual cover for those who know better but benefit from the process.
                        Excellent points from both Will and dcarrigg. Some economists are going against the tide, but they are a minority. Pankaj Ghemawat is one, from his 2007 article on Globalisation:

                        The article discusses what the author sees as a misperception that globalization has made national boundaries nearly obsolete. Statistics are cited that over 90% of phone calls, Internet traffic, and investment is local. The author contends global interconnectedness and integration have barely occurred, and globalization's future is fragile. Cross-border mergers are running up against protectionism, and local economic stagnation may lead to a reversal of globalization that may persist for decades.


                        http://www.ghemawat.com/ArticleDetai...5-2030232A9CEF

                        Full article is available from Foreign Policy magazine website, but requires registration for Limited Access. Link here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...orld_isnt_flat).

                        For more latest, see link for his un-TED like speech at TEDGlobal2012 (http://blog.ted.com/2012/06/27/globa...edglobal-2012/)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Update on Inequality

                          This is what economists do all the time. And I think, you'd find, if you did put them all in blue collar jobs, the number of houses burned down by faulty wiring would go up exponentially.
                          My friend who is a PhD economist and teaches at a University on the east coast told me "the reason we don't have as many jobs and wages are lower is because of technological advances, it is a "natural" occurrence in the economy"

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Update on Inequality

                            Originally posted by ProdigyofZen View Post
                            My friend who is a PhD economist and teaches at a University on the east coast told me "the reason we don't have as many jobs and wages are lower is because of technological advances, it is a "natural" occurrence in the economy"
                            Ahahahaha! Of course he did.

                            That's a lot easier than saying "All of these [censored] up economic theories that my colleagues and I championed have crashed the world economy and crippled the labor market."

                            Will

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Update on Inequality

                              Originally posted by Penguin View Post
                              Ahahahaha! Of course he did.

                              That's a lot easier than saying "All of these [censored] up economic theories that my colleagues and I championed have crashed the world economy and crippled the labor market."

                              Will
                              Ah, and this is where we encounter the intricacies and nuances of intellectual capacity, good faith and good will. Let's assume this individual represents the economic profession en masse. Whether or not we can look to success at a reform of conventional economic thought and thus policy vs a complete reset depends on:

                              Does he really believe what he is saying? If so, this is blind and perhaps willful ignorance and reform without severe crisis is impossible.

                              Does he not really believe it and recognize the failure of modern economics? If so, this is bad faith and real reform is not possible without severe crisis.

                              Does he half believe it with a recurrent nagging doubt? This is the best case; reason and evidence may be able to break through the hardened mindset and reform may be possible without severe crisis.

                              I sure hope the profession is like door #3 and I struggle to keep my own cynicism in check by relying on that possibility; although this simply maybe the naivete of a fool, it is a dark place to be when you think leaders and intellectuals are operating in bad faith.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X