lbrt: governments should take strong action to combat...

LearningLeaders All Rights Reserved - 2/4/18 1

LBRT: Governments should take strong action to combat wealth inequality.

Content:

1. Key Articles 2. Additional Resources


ARTICLE 1 IF YOU THOUGHT INCOME INEQUALITY WAS BAD, GET A LOAD OF WEALTH INEQUALITY May 21, 2015 When we think about and discuss economic inequality in this country, we usually focus on income inequality: The CEO who makes 300 times more than his workers, or the fact that the top 20 percent of earners rake in over 50 percent of the total earnings in any given year. But there's another type of inequality that gets a lot less attention. It arguably contributes far more to the divide between the haves and have-nots in this country, and it's been highlighted in a huge new report from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: wealth inequality. Income is the amount of money you earn from your work or your investments. But wealth is the amount of stuff you own: your house, your car, savings, retirement accounts, etc. The great thing about wealth is that it's self-perpetuating. Your house gains value over time (so you hope). You can take $1,000, invest it in something that yields a 10 percent return, and have $1,100 by the year's end. Cool!


The OECD report finds that the richest 10 percent of American households earns about 28 percent of the overall income pie. This is a lot, but it's roughly consistent with what you see in the world's other rich countries. By contrast, the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. households have captured a whopping 76 percent of all the wealth in America. And that number is considerably higher than in other rich nations, as the chart below shows.

For another angle on these numbers, New York University economist Edward Wolff calculated exactly how the nation's total wealth pie was sliced up among the population. And the figures are staggering. Check out the chart below.


Let's imagine that there are just 100 people in the United States. The richest guy -- and, yes, he's probably a guy -- owns more than one-third of the total wealth in this country. He's got a third of all the property, a third of the stock market and a third of anything else that can be owned. Not bad. The next-richest four people together own 28 percent of all the stuff. Divvied up four ways that's still not too shabby. The next five people together own 14 percent of all the things, and the next 10 own another 12 percent. We've accounted for just 20 percent of the people, but nearly 90 percent of the total wealth. Ninety percent! You can probably tell where this is going. The next 20 percent of people have only nine percent of the wealth to split among them. Not great, but they're still doing a lot better than the 60 percent of people below them. The next 20 percent -- the middle wealth quintile -- only have three percent of the wealth to split 20 ways. Now we've reached the bottom 40 percent of Americans, but guess what? We've run out of stuff. Sorry guys, you get nothing. In fact, Wolff calculates that this bottom 40 percent


actually has an overall negative net worth, which means that they owe more money than they own -- and they probably owe that money to somebody in that top five or 10 percent. You're not necessarily living in squalor if you have a negative net worth. For instance, some student loans and a brand-new mortgage will probably put you in that category. But if you've got a bachelor's degree, a job and a house to show for it, you're probably doing okay. But plenty of folks will be stuck in that bottom 40 percent category forever. And as the OECD report points out, this is a big problem for everyone -- even the top one percent. Their data shows that more inequality equals less economic growth: Between 1985 and 2005, the OECD estimates that increasing inequality has knocked nearly five percentage points off growth in OECD countries. If you're one of the fortunate ones with money in the bank, you can think of this as a five percent smaller return on your investment over that period, simply because the less fortunate aren't able to contribute to the economy as much as they could otherwise. BY: Christopher Ingraham SOURCE: The Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/?utm_term=.78d7818c1d82 .

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/?utm_term=.78d7818c1d82

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/05/21/the-top-10-of-americans-own-76-of-the-stuff-and-its-dragging-our-economy-down/?utm_term=.78d7818c1d82


ARTICLE 2 THE RICH ARE ABOUT TO GET RICHER AS INEQUALITY WILL SOON GET WORSE, EXPERTS SAY January 8, 2018 Economic inequality could soon get much worse than economists originally thought, according to new research on the return rate of everything. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco economist Òscar Jordà, along with four other authors, looked at 16 countries in a first-ever data set to offer a complete analysis on the rate of return on wealth and the growth rate of the economy from 1870 to 2015. They found that the "weighted rate of return on capital was twice as high as the growth rate in the past 150 years." The data set offers insight into rates of return on wealth for the major categories including bonds and stocks. Housing was included for the first time ever. In the study, researchers examined the argument started by French economist Thomas Piketty in his 2014 book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, in which he signaled that a concentration of wealth is likely if the rich get richer at a rate greater than economic growth.

By calculating housing wealth, researchers were able to prove that the return rates on real

suggesting that that the rich who own real estate are largely benefitting. The World Inequality Lab run under Piketty released its 2018 World Inequality Report in

would then drop to below 9 percent. The report found that income inequality varies around the world but since 1980, North America, China, India and Russia have seen a considerable increase in inequality.

-inequality trajectory observed in the United States is largely due to massive

found. One way to start tackling inequality is by focusing on land ownership. In a separate paper, economist Matt Rognlie discovered that land ownership has created the majority of the wealth inequality.

-

Some have argued that the Republican tax bill signed by President Donald Trump will only make income inequality worse.


"The bill is investing heavily in the wealthy and their children by boosting the value of their stock portfolios, creating new loopholes for them to avoid tax on their labor income,

told Vox. "At the same time, it leaves low- and middle-income workers with even fewer resources to invest in their children, and increases the number of Americans without health

BY: Beatrice Dupuy SOURCE: Newsweek http://www.newsweek.com/inequality-could-soon-get-much-worse-774034

http://www.newsweek.com/inequality-could-soon-get-much-worse-774034


ARTICLE 3 THE REPUBLICAN TAX BILL WILL EXACERBATE INCOME INEQUALITY IN AMERICA

December 4, 2017

meager gains. Since the mid-20th century, the top 1 percent have more than doubled their t.

Donald Trump said he was going to fix it that he would represent the forgotten men and women, the people who had been left behind in this widening of income inequality. But the tax overhaul his Republican Party passed through the Senate early Saturday

by boosting the value of their stock portfolios, creating new loopholes for them to avoid tax on their labor income,

leaves low- and middle-income workers with even fewer resources to invest in their

The centerpiece of the Republican tax plan is a massive corporate tax cut, from 35 percent to 20 percent, which is expected to disproportionately benefit the wealthy. Shares of stock in the businesses that pay corporate income are mostly owned by the wealthy, and the top executives whose compensation packages are linked to stock market performance are also

s cut in the corporate tax rate is going to help them the most. It would also overhaul the individual tax code in a way that almost every independent analysis has shown would direct most of the benefits to the wealthy. In 2019, a person in the bottom 10 percent gets a $50 tax cut and a person in the top 1 percent gets a $34,000 tax cut. Other provisions, like rolling back the estate tax, are unambiguous giveaways to the richest Americans.

-director of the Tax Policy Center who served as a senior economist under President George H.W. Bush, said. At the same time, millions of poor and middle-class people are expected to see their taxes either stay the same or actually increase in the long run. Right away, the groups getting the biggest cuts are toward the top of the scale, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center:


If you fast-forward to 2027, the picture is much grimmer. Senate Republicans are allowing many of the individual tax breaks to expire in 2026 to meet the Senate budget rules, banking on a future Congress extending them. But that leaves the more regressive corporate tax cuts


And by repare expected to have insurance and federal spending on Medicaid and other subsidies would drop.


The clear story of the Republican tax plan is that it takes the -dramatic income inequality and presses the accelerator.

be even

Income inequality was already growing in the United States

But in the past half-century, more and more of that income has gone to the top. From 1979 to 2013, the share of after-tax income held by the top fifth of earners has grown by 6.5 percentage points, while the share held by the bottom fifth has dropped by 1.2 percentage points:

If we home in on just the top 1 percent, this group has seen an especially large growth in their income share since the 1980s.


This is a group that will benefit greatly from the Republican tax bill because it slashes the

- businesses, lowers the top individual tax rate, and includes other provisions like rolling back the estate tax on large inheritances. The corporate tax cut in particular, the nonnegotiable centerpiece of the bill, will benefit the wealthy, who earn far more of their income from business and investments than other Americans.

-increasingly used by the wealthiest Americans to lighten their tax burden. These pass-through businesses earn more than traditional corporations.


And the top 1 percent earned more and more money through pass-through businesses, which helped them earn a bigger share of the pie.

This is why most of the money earned through -percent, including the Trump Organization. Those businesses would also see their taxes cut under the Republican tax bills.

Americans know income inequality is getting worse, and they want it fixed The Americaaccumulating with the richest people. Democrats and Republicans agree on this.


Most of them think it needs to be addressed imminently. A 2015 New York Times poll found 65 percent thought the growing gap between the rich and the poor needed to be addressed

A majority of Americans think that taxes should be raised on corporations and a plurality support raising taxes on people with higher incomes.

Instead, it would dramatically reduce taxes on corporations and pass-through businesses, where individual tax cuts would largely benefit the wealthiest people, while the poorest Americans could actually see a tax increase eventually under the GOP plan. The Republican tax bill will make pre-tax income inequality worse, too


income group by 2019:


The Republican counter to these arguments would be that a big corporate tax cut would benefit everybody, because businesses would then invest more money in the economy, increasing wages and employment for all of us. But our already-worsening inequality belies this argument. As Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economics professors at the University of California Berkeley, wrote: Republicans will noisily claim that cutting taxes on wealthy business owners will boost economic growth and end up benefitting workers down the income ladder. The idea is that if the government taxes the rich less, the wealthy will save more, grow U.S. capital stock and investment, and make workers more productive. The evolution of growth and inequality over the past three decades makes such a claim ludicrous. Since 1980, taxes paid by the wealthy have fallen dramatically and income at the top of the distribution has boomed, but gains for the rest of the population have been paltry. Average national income per adult has grown by only 1.4 percent per year a poor performance by both historical and international standards. As a result, the share of national income going to the top 1 percent has doubled from 10 percent to more than 20 percent, while income accrued by the bottom 50 percent has been almost halved, from 20 percent to 12.5 percent. There has been no growth at all in the average pretax income of the bottom half of the population over the past 40 years during which trickle-down enthusiasts

And if you step back and look at the ways the Republican tax bills could reshape American society and the world, the risks for deepening inequality rise. It starts, as always, with the massive corporate tax cut at the heart of the bill. The global implications are profound, Saez said in an email.

ultinationals

multinational shareholders instead of the public. This is the reverse of what we need at a time of populist backlash against inequitable gains from globalization in advanced

noted is the potentially growing effect that the legislation could have on pre-tax income

Economic Advisers under Obama, told Vox. Republicans want to end tax breaks for students and universities. The bill will increase the federal deficit, which will put pressure on future Congresses to cut spending on programs that benefit the poor and middle class. States and cities, with the end of the federal tax deduction for their taxes, could cut also programs and hike their taxes in such a way that they hit people with lower incomes. Republicans are also rolling back the estate tax, which will help the wealthiest families remain permanently at the top. Furman summarized five ways the Republican tax bill could, beyond the obvious, deepen inequality:


1. Raising taxes on students, universities and training would have a disproportionate impact on access to more moderate-income students, reducing their upward mobility. 2. At the same time, estate tax cuts or repeal would further expand the opportunities of the most affluent. 3. Reducing or eliminating the state and local tax deduction would lead many states to cut taxes and with them cut services like education, training and the like that help to boost incomes and reduce inequality. States and localities could also shift more of their tax base to more regressive sales taxes. 4. The larger federal deficit will come at the expense of other government transfers for middle/bottom households and/or programs like education, nutrition assistance and Medicaid that have all demonstrated a tremendous impact on upward mobility. 5. More speculatively, cutting the tax rate on monopoly profits could help reduce competition with further consequences for inequality and growth. As BY: Dylan Scott and Alvin Chang SOURCE: Vox https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/senate-tax-bill-inequality

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/2/16720952/senate-tax-bill-inequality


ARTICLE 4 AMERICANS MAY BE WORRIED ABOUT INEQUALITY,

ANYTHING ABOUT IT May 26, 2017 Politicians may be concerned about economic talk about it so much. In the US, inequality has been steadily rising. Since the 1970s, the share of income going to the top one percent of earners doubled, while the share of wealth held by the one percenters appear to lead to support for increased government action. In a recent paper (paywall), Brandeis University political scientist Graham Wright examined the relationship government intervention to do something about it. Using survey data going back to 1966, Wright found that when concern for inequality rises, support for redistributive policies do not follow suit. Although Wright used more complicated analytical techniques to establish this conclusion, the point is essentially made by the chart below spikes in concern about inequality are not generally accompanied by spikes in support for intervention.

intervention when concern about inequality rises perhaps because many people believe the government is responsible for the conditions that led to greater inequity in the first place. Wright is now dubious of the tactics employed by the Occupy Wall Street movement and

to actually help reduce

specific policy interventions can probably achieve more than repeatedly highlighting a fact that most Americans are now all too aware of. BY: Dan Kopf SOURCE: Quartz https://qz.com/991448/inequality-is-a-concern-for-americans-but-they-dont-think-the-government-should-do-anything-about-it/

https://qz.com/991448/inequality-is-a-concern-for-americans-but-they-dont-think-the-government-should-do-anything-about-it/

https://qz.com/991448/inequality-is-a-concern-for-americans-but-they-dont-think-the-government-should-do-anything-about-it/


ARTICLE 5 WANT FAIRNESS. October 22, 2015

in America. Many Americans across the political spectrum claim to be deeply troubled by economic inequality, and many say they support changes that would yield a more equal distribution of income and wealth. But in his just-published book, On Inequality, the philosopher Harry Frankfurt argues that

one: Frankfurt suggests t

People might be troubled by what they see as unjust causes of economic inequality, a perfectly reasonable concern given how much your income and wealth are determined by accidents of birth, including how much money your parents had, your sex, and the color of your skin. We are troubled as well by potential consequences of economic inequality. We may think it corrodes democracy, or increases crime, or diminishes overall happiness. Most of all, people worry about poverty

points out that few worry about inequalities between the very rich and the very well off, even though these might be greater, both absolutely and proportionately, than inequalities between the moderately well-off and the poor. A world in which everyone suffered from horrible poverty would be a perfectly equal one, he says, but few would prefer that to the

mistaken focus on equality makes the world worse. My favorite example here is from the comedian Louis C.K., where he describes how his five-year-

was

Many scholars believe otherwise. The primatologist Frans de Waal sums up a popular view

In support of de Waal, researchers have found that if you ask children to distribute items to strangers, they are strongly biased towards equal divisions, even in extreme situations. The psychologists Alex Shaw and Kristina Olson told children between the ages of six and eight about two boys, Dan and Mark, who had cleaned up their room and were to be rewarded with erasers but there were five of them, so an even split was impossible. Children overwhelmingly reported that the experimenter should throw away the fifth eraser rather than establish an unequal division. They did so even if they could have given the eraser to Dan or Mark without the other one knowing, so theliciting anger or envy.


It might seem as though these responses reflect a burning desire for equality, but more likely they reflect a wish for fairness. It is only because Dan and Mark did the same work that they shou

Mark. In other words, they were fine with inequality, so long as it was fair.

een involved with at Yale, led by then-graduate student Mark Sheskin, we find that younger children actually have an anti-equality bias they prefer distributions where they get a relative advantage over equal distributions where everyone gets the same. For instance, children prefer one for them and zero for another child over an arrangement where everyone gets two. This finding meshes well with what other psychologists have found and which many parents have observed: When treats are being distributed, children will complain bitterly if they get less, but are entirely mellow if they get more. Other primates behave similarly. Monkeys enjoy cucumbers and will normally be happy getting one, but if they are handed one after having just seen another monkey getting a grape which monkeys love they freak out. The monkey with the grape, on the other hand, is perfectly comfortable with its relative advantage. A different sort of argument in favor of a natural bias toward equality comes from observations of small-scale groups, which really do seem to be egalitarian. In small groups, goods are distributed roughly equally, the weak are taken care of, and the power of leaders is limited. It looks a lot like Occupy Wall Street.

-group behaviors as reflecting some natural preference for equal treatment, but the anthropologist Christopher Boehm, who has extensively studied these groups, tells a different story. He argues that these egalitarian structures emerge because nobody wants to get screwed. Individuals in these societies end up roughly equal because

-hand egalitarianism at work in these groclever enough to form a large and united political coalition. ... Because the united subordinates are constantly putting down the more assertive alpha types in their midst, egalitarianism is in effect a bizarre type of political hierarchy: The weak combine forces to

This analysis helps us explain why such huge power differentials exist in the world right

to dominate the strong. As Boehm tells it, in a small society, a wannabe dictator can be ignored or ridiculed by everyone else, and if he

harder trick to pull in a society of millions where interactions are no longer face-to-face and where the powerful have guns and gulags. What we see from studies of children and studies of small-scale societies is an early-emerging desire for fairness, and a particularly strong motivation not to get less than

naturally value equality for its sake. Behavioral economists Michael Norton and Dan Ariely recently showed sample distributions of wealth to Americans, in which the people in the bottom fifth have X percentage of the wealth, those in the next fifth have Y percentage of the wealth, and so on. They found that


Americans are very wrong about just how unequal their country is they think that the bottom 40 percent has 9 percent of the wealth and the top 20 percent has 59 percent, while the actual proportions are 0.3 percent and 84 percent. They also find that when asked about what distribution would be ideal, Americans, regardless of political party, want a far more equal society than they actually live in or

majority of Americans prefer a distribution of wealth more equal than what exists in Sweden, which is often placed rhetorically at the extreme far left in terms of political ideology embraced by liberals as an ideal society and disparaged by conservatives as an

nalysis motivates us to question what they really mean. Ariely emphasizes that Americans want a far more equal society than they have,

to create a perfect society, respondents choose one in which those in the top fifth have about three times more wealth than those in the bottom fifth. This hardly settles the issue,

want and his concern that we worry too much about relative differences, and not enough about fairness and, above all, the suffering of the poor. BY: Paul Bloom SOURCE: The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-dont-actually-want-equality/411784/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-dont-actually-want-equality/411784/

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/people-dont-actually-want-equality/411784/


ARTICLE 6 GROWTH, NOT FORCED EQUALITY, SAVES THE POOR December 23, 2016 Anger about economic inequality in the United States dominated the presidential election. But while polemics about the issue have flourished across the political spectrum, clarity has not. Lack of clarity about inequality has been around for a long time. Look, for example, at the Illinois

both of them? But think it through. Eliminating poverty is obviously good. And, happily, it is already happening on a global scale. The World Bank reports that the basics of a dignified life are more available to the poorest among us than at any time in history, by a big margin. Shanghai, a place of misery not very long ago, now looks like the most modern parts of the United States, though with better roads and bridges. The real income of India is doubling every 10 years. Sub-Saharan Africa is at last growing. Even in the rich countries, the poor are better off than they were in 1970, with better food and health care and, often, amenities like air-conditioning. We need to finish the job. But will we really help the poor by focusing on inequality?

7. His

lifting up those below

Economic growth has been accomplishing exactly that since 1800. Equality in the most important matters has increased steadily, through lifting up the wretched of the earth. The enrichment in fundamentals for the poor matters far more in the scheme of things than the acquisition of more Rolexes by the rich. What matters ethically is that the poor have a roof over their heads and enough to eat, and the opportunity to read and vote and get equal treatment by the police and courts. Enforcing the Voting Rights Act matters. Restraining police violence matters. Equalizing possession of Rolexes does not.

quality is not, as

enough for people to function in a democratic society and to have full human lives. Another eminent philosopher, John Rawls of Harvard, articulated what he called the Difference Principle: If the entrepreneurship of a rich person made the poorest better off, then the higher income of the entrepreneur was justified. It works for me.


It is true that conspicuous displays of wealth are vulgar and irritating. But they are not something that a nonenvious principle of public policy needs to acknowledge. Poverty is never good. Difference, including economic difference, often is. It is why New Yorkers exchange goods with Californians and with people in Shanghai, and why the political railing against foreign trade is childish. It is why we converse, and why today is the great age of the novel and the memoir. It is why we celebrate diversity or should. A practical objection to focusing on economic equality is that we cannot actually achieve it, not in a big society, not in a just and sensible way. Dividing up a pizza among friends can be done equitably, to be sure. But equality beyond the basics in consumption and in political

uses violence for the cut. And you need to know exactly which poppies to cut. Trusting a government of self-interested people to know how to redistribute ethically is naïve. Another problem is that the cutting reduces the size of the crop. We need to allow for rewards that tell the economy to increase the activity earning them. If a brain surgeon and a taxi driver earn the samall-wise central plan could force the right people into the right jobs. But such a solution, like much of the case for a compelled equality, is violent and magical. The magic has been tried, in Many of us share socialism in sentiment, if only because we grew up in loving families with Mom as the central planner. Sharing works just fine in a loving household. But it is not how grown-ups get stuff in a liberal society. Free adults get what they need by working to make

them by slicing up manna from Mother Nature in a zero-sum world. We could use state violence to take wealth from billionaires like Bill Gates and give it to the homeless, achieving more equality. (Mr. Gates is in fact giving away his fortune, to his credit.) Short of expropriation, we can and should join in supporting a safety net, keeping the violence to a minimum. K-12 public education, for example, should be paid for by compelled taxes on all of us. But we should not be doing a lot more. As a matter of arithmetic, expropriating the rich to give to the poor does not uplift the poor very much. If we took every dime from the top 20 percent of the income distribution and gave it to the bottom 80 percent, the bottom folk would be only 25 percent better off. If we took only from the superrich, the bottom would get less than that. And redistribution works

society, they can move to Ireland or the Cayman Islands. And the wretched millionaires can hardly re-earn their millions next year if the state has taken most of the money. It is growth from exchange-tested betterment, not compelled or voluntary charity, that solves the problem of poverty. In South Korea, economic growth has increased the income of the poorest by a factor of 30 times real 1953 income. Which do we want, a small one-time (though envy-and-anger-satisfying) extraction from the rich, or a free society of betterment, one that lifts up the poor by gigantic amounts? We had better focus directly on the equality that we actually want and can achieve, which is equality of social dignity and equality before the law. Liberal equality, as against the socialist equality of enforced redistribution, eliminates the worst of poverty. It has done so spectacularly in Britain and Singapore and Botswana. More needs to be done, yes. Namely,


more growth, which is sensitive to environmental limits and will require a proliferation of rich engineers. Let them have their money from devising carbon-fixing techniques and new sources of energy. It will enrich all of us. To borrow from the heroes of my youth, Marx and Engels: Working people of all countries unite! You have nothing to lose but stagnation! Demand exchange-tested betterment in a liberal society. Some dare call it capitalism. BY: Deirdre N. McCloskey SOURCE: The New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/business/growth-not-forced-equality-saves-the-poor.html?ribbon-ad-idx=8&rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&pgtype=article

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/23/business/growth-not-forced-equality-saves-the-poor.html?ribbon-ad-idx=8&rref=upshot&module=Ribbon&version=origin&region=Header&action=click&contentCollection=The%20Upshot&pgtype=article





ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:

1. Income Inequality in America https://www.thebalance.com/income-inequality-in-america-3306190

2. Five Myths about Economic Inequality in America https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america#full

3. Wealth Inequality: Dimensions, Drivers And Responses https://www.ippr.org/blog/wealth-inequality-dimensions-drivers-and-responses

4. it made inequality worse http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/piketty-democratize-wealth-inequality

5. When Wealth Inequality Arose http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/10/20/wealth-inequality-arose/

6. Is wealth inequality a problem? https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/is-wealth-inequality-a-problem-20171019

https://www.thebalance.com/income-inequality-in-america-3306190

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america#full

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/five-myths-about-economic-inequality-america#full

https://www.ippr.org/blog/wealth-inequality-dimensions-drivers-and-responses

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/piketty-democratize-wealth-inequality

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/10/20/wealth-inequality-arose/

https://www.fin24.com/Opinion/is-wealth-inequality-a-problem-20171019

lbrt: governments should take strong action to combat...

Documents