Summary Of ' Rent Seeking And The Making Of An Unequal Society ' By Robert Thurman

In 1879 Henry George wrote an article titled “Progress and Poverty”. In this article he discussed the ongoing industry and he stated that “the wealthy class is becoming more wealthy; but the poorer class is becoming more dependent.

Modern Americans always appeal for freedom, as it is stated in the national pledge that the U.S. is “one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”. Many civilians are chasing freedom for freedom, yet most of them need constraints and guides. In “Rent Seeking and the Marking of an Unequal Society”, Joseph E. Stiglitz discusses the inequality created by monopolistic businessmen and suggests that American government need to regulate the economy and trading system. He defines some of those monopolists as rent-seekers who do not create new profits into the society, but take advantage over others to acquire wealth. Tim Wu, the author of “Father and Son”, talks about the monopolies within information world – the competition between Apple and Google. Apple first “opened” personal computing to individuals under the inspiration of Steve Woznaik, but turned into an exclusive company when Steve Jobs introduced “closed” Macintosh. Then Jobs consolidated this enclosure through iPod, iPhone, and iPad. Google, as the “son” who focuses on Web directing, keeps the openness of Internet information by building a “searching” web system. However, Google does not open its searching engine program to the public. Apple and Google are creators and rent-seekers of information world at the same time, because they do not really produce entirely new technology. Instead, they build their companies on the premise of the previous innovations and improve these innovations by adding

In Horatio Alger’s Ragged Dick, Alger writes about a rag-to-riches story and points out valid and key messages that tell of things like hard work and determination can take anyone from the bottom to the top, despite one’s economic class. I do realize that in real life that although these messages hold key to making it in the world, everyone does not have the equal opportunity to succeed or move up in class rankings like Alger says.

Supposedly, both the individuals with ascribed statuses with hereditary wealth and the poor and homeless have equal chances to become successful although, Orestes Bronwnson in The Laboring Classes, pointed out that this is not true. “Do the young man inheriting ten thousand pounds and the one whose inheritance is merely the gutter, start even?” (219). As a result, the harsh separation of the rich and the poor, where capitalism thrives and,” the division of the community into two classes, one which owns the funds…the other provides the labor” (216). The inhumane apprehension of a capitalist society that keeps its workers “in a permanent system, [has] given preference to the slave system” (214) says a lot about the evils of capitalism corresponding with the false American Dream. An outcome of capitalism is the frustrating rivalry between the poor. “There’s more people! That’s what’s ruining the country. The competition is maddening”

Ever since a young age, the youth of the United States are taught that they must strive to be the best they can be. This would ultimately result in one possessing a competitive edge, once one enters the selection process of joining one of many higher institutions of education or the job market. In the essays “Project Classroom Makeover,” “Biographies of Hegemony,” and “Rent Seeking and the Making of an Unequal Society,” respectfully by, Cathy Davidson, Karen Ho, and Joseph Stiglitz, the topic of competitive behaviors and practices is widely addressed and heavily criticized. Education is competitive, yet bias. Institutions of higher education value students based irrelevant factors, something which is unacceptable in the modern, digital age. This heavily impacts the selection process of candidates, leading the system to favor unqualified individuals. Prevalent business superpowers, many residing in Wall Street, pick low hanging fruit. In other words, these firms take very minimal effort to choose candidates in positions that are extremely competitive and valuable. They recruit individuals who graduate from top schools and have no other realistic edge for the company, aside from namesake. Woven into these practices, many examples of uncompetitive behavior arise as well from other factors of the system. In this essay, I argue that competitive and uncompetitive behaviors have molded modern America, with massive organizations and authorities playing into these behaviors from all

The readings examined how classism has negatively affected economics in the United States, how oppression manifests in taking financial advantage of groups of people who cannot advance financially, and systemic issues contributing to low wage and inability to move out of one’s social class. I was struck by the idea that most people in the United States are disadvantaged financially based on the way the country has set up its economic policies. From the beginning, black people have been oppressed by the inability to attain wealth, which continued through the end of WWII. I unnecessarily read a chapter speaking about financial companies targeting poor people, particularly people of color, with money schemes so they are losing their hard-earned money to fees and interest rates. This scheme continues to keep people in debt and living paycheck to paycheck. I related to the reading about college loans creating a paradox that students with degrees enter the workforce unable to find a job in their their field of study. Then the added paradox of not being able to find work making

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.

Imagine living in a world that consistently devalues your existence and is heavily populated with individuals who are quick to use and abuse your resources, but are slow to share the wealth that is accumulated from those resources. How would you feel? Unfortunately, certain populations do not have to visualize the disparity that is pictured above. This is because inequity is one of the most demoralizing social issues that plague America today. The worst thing about inequity is the fact that it continues to disproportionately burden individuals who are categorize as being minority in today’s society.

“Nature is rich; but everywhere man, the heir of nature, is poor.” Lloyd begins his work by complaining about how the rich remain rich and the poor remain poor; however, as the essay progresses, one can see the accuracy of his views. He references the creation of Adam and Eve, stating that, “Never since time began have all the sons and daughters of men been all warm, and filled, and all shod and roofed.” It’s been true throughout history that because of monopolies that a very small percentage of men control a majority of land and resources. Lloyd states that individuals holding a majority of resources and land believe that that there is a scarcity; that there is not enough. And in order to survive, in order to be happy, in order to be prosperous, they must contain and constrain. Men must hold on to any and everything they can get their hands on. The minority has an opposing viewpoint. It feels that there is an abundance of resources, but because of unequal distribution, there is never enough to go around: “There is too much iron, too much lumber, too much flour―for this or that syndicate. The majority have never been able to buy enough of anything; but this minority have too much of everything to sell.” Lloyd concludes by expressing that we have become a “mutual deglutition.” He states that we have advanced too quickly and implicates that we are beginning to reverse

In his article "Confronting Inequality" Paul Krugman is asserting the fact of high socioeconomic inequality in the United States, while demonstrating its consequences and the variety of statistic evidences upon it. He is depicting modern American society where we have a huge gap between economic elite and lower-and middle-income classes. There is a time for ''a Great Moderation" reforms that will bring a socioeconomic equality.

Andre Carnegie was a poor immigrant who came to the United States in a quest for the realization of the American Dream. A self-started entrepreneur who through hard work and by taking advantage of the right opportunities was able to develop an enormous wealth, signifying with it, the definite possibility of social mobility. In his essay “Wealth” of 1989 Carnegie refers to the importance of the distribution of wealth and how such fortune was there to be used by the rich for the benefit and well-being of all individuals of society. Throughout this essay I will be explaining the arguments for the redistribution of wealth made by Carnegie, while analyzing as well the factors that may have motivated him to write his famous essay “Wealth.”

Here, in the United States, the “American Dream,” is a popular belief. There is a strong relationship between hard work and success. In this perfect scenario, those who put in multiple hours are on the road to success and can move up the social ladder. Thus stating, one could be thrust into the lowest of the social status, and with some hard work, one can elevate into the world of the social elite. As a demonstration to this global view of the United States, immigrants from all over the globe have made the excursion to the “land of opportunity” in beliefs of better education, employment, government, communities, religious freedom, and lives for not only themselves but the generations that come pursuing behind them. All of this survives based on a game of social stratification – a diagram on how to successfully obtain the American dream. This observation of social class is based on many mechanisms, some of which is bestowed to people at birth, and not rewarded for hard work and dedication. The class system at play in the United States has become incredibly complex – it no longer has the fundamental class values of our forefathers. Those trying to move up in the social ladder of America are often caught replication the actions of the rich and famous, but this alone cannot make them part of the higher social class. Some think that there are simple rules to follow to climb higher into another social class ladder, but there is more to being upper class than just talking the talk or having the right identity.One way to look at class is the model developed by Janny Scott and David Leonhardt's article, “Shadowy Lines That Still Divide,” in The New York Times. They assert that “one way to think of a person’s position in society is to imagine a hand of cards. Everyone is dealt four cards, one from each suit: education, income, occupation and wealth, the four commonly used criteria for gauging class” (Scott and Leonhardt 27). While being sure on these four criteria, a basic understanding of a person’s predicted class can be made. While this model works fine for providing an elementary level of perception, it must be recognized that a person could rate well on this scale and still be in a different class than those

Stewart Lansley, author of ‘The Cost of Inequality: Why Economic Equality is Essential for Recovery’ speaks very seriously in “The Hourglass Society” article about inequality.

They come to realize that a system of welfare that makes no moral judgments in allocating economic rewards promotes antisocial egotism. The spiritual impoverishment of the population seems to them worse than anything they have ever known in their own countries. And what they see is all the worse, of course, because it should be so much better. The wealth that enables everyone effortlessly to have enough food should be liberating, not imprisoning. Instead, it has created a large caste of people for whom life is, in effect, a limbo in which they have nothing to hope for and nothing to fear, nothing to gain and nothing to lose. It is a life emptied of meaning (Dalrymple, 6).

In the article “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Joseph Stiglitz, a noble prize winning economist, argues that the upper 1% controls about 40% of all wealth in America. This top 1% has taken about a quarter of all income in America, and has seen their income rise about 18% in the past decade. This has made the inequality between classes in the US expand. Eventually, this inequality gap will even hurt the top 1%, because the other 99% will either fight for a bigger piece or just stop working all together. The top 1% can buy anything they need, but their fate realizes on the other 99% to work hard and not fight back. If the 99% stopped working, there would be a simple way to gain back money… that would be to raise taxes on the rich. However, the rich get rich by capital gains, which have a low tax policy. So overall, the upper percent can eventually learn, but a majority of the time it is too little too late.