America’s Greatest Hoax – Supply-Side or Trickle-Down Economics
American Political Issues by Tech Resist (@TecSiGuy), 2016 Dem! - was independent – used to lean “right”
(Each post is well-researched, cited, reliable and accurate political commentary. Our blogs are good sources for debate. If you find anything incorrect or lacking, please let us know. Please like us and comment on Facebook or below. We continue to improve each post based on new input.)
Please check out the memes & graphs near the end of this article.
→ Please, use this and my other blogs as references to prove points; they’re well cited.
Everyone
and every organization make mistakes. No government entity, business,
individual or group is beyond reproach. My research, however, suggests one U.S.
political party favors policies, based on lies at their core, that only benefit their oligarchs and not those
significantly below the one percent.
Please check out the memes & graphs near the end of this article.
Please also see the included "MUST READ" article: "Meet the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America"
→ Please, use this and my other blogs as references to prove points; they’re well cited.
(Citations may include footnotes with asterisks or superscripts, or links.)
Why would anyone but the top wealthy one percent of
Americans vote Republican/Gop, considering their economic platform? Are many people
confused about the reality of economics or possibly misguided? Anger of wealth
disparity has been misplaced by brainwashing done by the
“right,” accusing government rather than republican policy.
“Supply-side economics”, alias vast repeated upward
wealth redistribution – coined "Trickle-down
economics"1 by American comedian Will Rogers1
who asserted during the Great Depression, "Money was all appropriated for
the top in hopes that it would trickle down to the needy." Rogers stated
this because “Supply-side economics” was tried and failed miserably in
the 1920s1. George H.W. Bush called Reagan’s Supply-side concept
“voodoo economics” and then tried it out himself, finding he had to raise taxes
to support the trickery. Supply-side was promoted by economist Arthur Laffer and
would be laughable except for how it’s destroying the American dream. The
Laffer curve2 he drew is purely hypothetical with no basis in
reality. The Laffer curve further does
not consider progressive tax rates, which are logical and have worked well in
the U.S., especially prior to trickle down.
Laffer with Republican assistance, probably paid heavily by
our billionaire oligarch aristocrats, changed the “The Law of supply and
demand”3 to two separate laws “The Law of Supply” and “The Law of
Demand.” Demand actually determines what will be manufactured, but Laffer and
others serving the ultra-wealthy for over thirty years have pretended the wealthy
elite are “job creators.” Our billionaire oligarchs have even gotten an
economist to even pen a book on supply-side economics, so it can be considered
a credible theory. (I don’t want to cite it to give it any credence.) Hence
it’s being included in at least some college economics courses, for those who
are able to swallow it.
Reagan’s economic successes were the result of huge government
spending on military buildup, adding several departments to the government –
both causing vast deficits and debt – and the Federal Reserve lowering interest
rates from a high of 21.5% down to 6% during Reagan’s time in office. (Those
who want to believe Reagan was into small government are supported by the
facts.) All of these factors are Keynesian stimuli. During this time span, businesses
didn't refrain from building up their payrolls to further stimulate the economy
as they've done so far during President Obama’s terms.
Billionaires have zero need to spend tax breaks when they’re
given to them. Billionaires are not “job creators”, but "job absorbers". They
move jobs to other countries or from state-to-state to get the lowest wages and
tax advantages. The Republican Party pretends they and their oligarchs are “job
creators” to promote their party and more tax cuts for their owners. The claim
is billionaires will invest more and expand businesses, but why should they
expand anything if there’s not demand? Demand creates the need for supply;
oversupply or unneeded product causes price cuts – not desirable for the
business-minded or greedy. A good business will not produce products for which
there’s no demand.
“Supply-side economics” was labeled “Reaganomics”4
by the press. I believe Reagan was duped into believing it’s a viable strategy.
The reality was that much esteemed (by Republicans) Reagan had to raise taxes and
ran huge deficits having actually increased the size of our federal government5,6,7,8,9.
10
How can a government actually stimulate growth? There are three
ways and they’re all Keynesian. Tax cuts, lower interest rates and government
stimulus for lower income and middle class causes more purchasing. These groups
need to spend money they receive; they can’t just set it aside for their
progeny, artwork, or for mergers and acquisitions. This money leads directly to
spending, which in turn increases demand and adds jobs to meet the increased
demand. As the economy improves, it’s also Keynesian to then gradually raise
taxes and interest rates, and cut the stimulus that helped get us out of
recession/depression. (This part has been largely missing from the equation,
except in the 1950s to pay back our WWII debt.) Gradual is the key to
adjustments.
We need to raise taxes on the wealthy elite. They are paying
almost nothing compared to 94%, top rate, in the 1940s. JFK cut taxes on
everyone, which was a Keynesian economic stimulus. Cutting taxes at the top
only causes the top to gain more wealth, rather than our economy growing –
which benefits everyone.11
12
Look at this chart, which makes blatantly obvious the effect
of Reagan’s great hoax, further followed by the Bushes. Where is all the growth
going and why?
CBO 13
These effects
need to be undone by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporation, while
closing loopholes that allow them to avoid paying their share. Leading
Democrats, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, understand what's economically
wrong with our country. Most politicians do not, based on their speeches. 14, 15
Republicans/Gops
(Grand Out-dated Partiers), in contrast, want more donations to the ultra-rich – which has
proven to do nothing positive for our middle class. Gops claim entitlements are wealth
redistribution, while they've been robbing from the middle class and poor and
giving to the rich with the tax breaks they've already instituted. Gops also
want smaller government with less regulation; this allows their oligarchs to
control everyone’s wealth even more. Gops want to do away with the Fed, which
assists our economy by practicing Keynesian principles or factual economics –
keeping it out of free fall.
Even sadder than having Gop economics just
impacting the U.S. with this false ideology, Maggie Thatcher16, 17 introduced supply-side economics concurrently in Britain. GDP
did not benefit from her policies.18 So
this is a greed trumps caring philosophy.
Trickle down has also been shown to not work at the state level. Full blown "supply-side" economics was tried in Kansas. It failed miserably with huge deficits. Comprehensive Gop State Economics in action: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/19/1517485/-GOP-turns-its-back-on-Brownback
Trickle down has also been shown to not work at the state level. Full blown "supply-side" economics was tried in Kansas. It failed miserably with huge deficits. Comprehensive Gop State Economics in action: http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/4/19/1517485/-GOP-turns-its-back-on-Brownback
Footnotes are simply indicated with superscript numbers:
11.
Reinforced by Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel Prize winning economist), The
Great Divide, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz
14. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-time-raise-incomes-hard-working-americans-hillary-clinton
I am still an independent voter, but now lean
heavily left. In the past, I voted for Ford, Reagan (2nd term),
G.H.W. Bush, Dole and even McCain. The only one of those votes I’m now proud of
was for Ford.
After the Koch brothers sponsored the tea party
to exert excessive influence over the Republican (Gop) party, I’ve been
debating politics on Facebook and with family members, along with doing an
incredible amount of research. This might seem incredibly one-sided, but every
Gop position I’ve researched is based on at least one lie from what I can
determine. I’m quite willing to debate this phenomenon.
Meet
the Economist Behind the One Percent’s Stealth Takeover of America
Nobel laureate James Buchanan is the intellectual linchpin of the
Koch-funded attack on democratic institutions, argues Duke historian Nancy
MacLean
Ask people to name the key minds that have
shaped America’s burst of radical right-wing attacks on working conditions,
consumer rights and public services, and they will typically mention figures
like free market-champion Milton Friedman, libertarian guru Ayn Rand, and
laissez-faire economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises.
James McGill Buchanan is a name you will
rarely hear unless you’ve taken several classes in economics. And if the
Tennessee-born Nobel laureate were alive today, it would suit him just fine
that most well-informed journalists, liberal politicians, and even many
economics students have little understanding of his work.
The reason? Duke historian Nancy MacLean
contends that his philosophy is so stark that even young libertarian acolytes
are only introduced to it after they have accepted the relatively sunny
perspective of Ayn Rand. (Yes, you read that correctly). If Americans really
knew what Buchanan thought and promoted, and how destructively his vision is
manifesting under their noses, it would dawn on them how close the country is
to a transformation most would not even want to imagine, much less accept.
That is a dangerous blind spot, MacLean
argues in a meticulously researched book, Democracy in Chains, a finalist for the
National Book Award in Nonfiction. While Americans grapple with Donald Trump’s
chaotic presidency, we may be missing the key to changes that are taking place
far beyond the level of mere politics. Once these changes are locked into
place, there may be no going back.
An Unlocked Door in Virginia
MacLean’s book reads like an intellectual
detective story. In 2010, she moved to North Carolina, where a Tea
Party-dominated Republican Party got control of both houses of the state
legislature and began pushing through a radical program to suppress voter rights, decimate
public services, and slash taxes on the wealthy that shocked a state
long a beacon of southern moderation. Up to this point, the figure of James
Buchanan flickered in her peripheral vision, but as she began to study his work
closely, the events in North Carolina and also Wisconsin, where Governor Scott
Walker was leading assaults on collective bargaining rights, shifted her focus.
Could it be that this relatively obscure
economist’s distinctive thought was being put forcefully into action in real
time?
MacLean could not gain access to Buchanan’s
papers to test her hypothesis until after his death in January 2013. That year,
just as the government was being shut down by Ted Cruz & Co., she traveled
to George Mason University in Virginia, where the economist’s papers lay
willy-nilly across the offices of a building now abandoned by the Koch-funded
faculty to a new, fancier center in Arlington.
MacLean was stunned. The archive of the man
who had sought to stay under the radar had been left totally unsorted and
unguarded. The historian plunged in, and she read through boxes and drawers
full of papers that included personal correspondence between Buchanan and
billionaire industrialist Charles Koch. That’s when she had an amazing
realization: here was the intellectual linchpin of a stealth revolution currently
in progress.
A Theory of Property Supremacy
Buchanan, a 1940 graduate of Middle
Tennessee State University who later attended the University of Chicago for
graduate study, started out as a conventional public finance economist. But he
grew frustrated by the way in which economic theorists ignored the political
process.
Buchanan began working on a description of
power that started out as a critique of how institutions functioned in the
relatively liberal 1950s and ‘60s, a time when economist John Maynard Keynes’s
ideas about the need for government intervention in markets to protect people
from flaws so clearly demonstrated in the Great Depression held sway. Buchanan,
MacLean notes, was incensed at what he saw as a move toward socialism and
deeply suspicious of any form of state action that channels resources to the
public. Why should the
increasingly powerful federal government be able to force the wealthy to pay
for goods and programs that served ordinary citizens and the poor?
In thinking about how people make political
decisions and choices, Buchanan concluded that you could only understand them
as individuals seeking personal advantage. In an interview cited by
MacLean, the economist observed that in the 1950s Americans commonly assumed
that elected officials wanted to act in the public interest. Buchanan
vehemently disagreed — that was a belief he wanted, as he put it, to “tear
down.” His ideas developed into a theory that came to be known as “public choice.”
Buchanan’s view of human nature was distinctly
dismal. Adam Smith saw human beings as self-interested and hungry for personal
power and material comfort, but he also acknowledged social instincts like
compassion and fairness. Buchanan,
in contrast, insisted that people were primarily driven by venal self-interest.
Crediting people with altruism or a desire to serve others was “romantic”
fantasy: politicians and government workers were out for themselves, and so,
for that matter, were teachers, doctors, and civil rights activists. They
wanted to control others and wrest away their resources: “Each person seeks mastery over a
world of slaves,” he wrote in his 1975 book, The Limits of
Liberty.
Does that sound like your kindergarten
teacher? It did to Buchanan.
The people who needed protection were property
owners, and their rights could only be secured though constitutional limits to
prevent the majority of voters from encroaching on them, an idea Buchanan lays
out in works like Property as a Guarantor of Liberty (1993).
MacLean observes that Buchanan saw society as a cutthroat realm of makers (entrepreneurs)
constantly under siege by takers
(everybody else) His own language was often more stark, warning the
alleged “prey” of “parasites” and “predators” out to fleece them.
In 1965 the economist launched a center
dedicated to his theories at the University of Virginia, which later relocated
to George Mason University. MacLean describes how he trained thinkers to push
back against the Brown v. Board of Education decision to
desegregate America’s public schools and to challenge the constitutional
perspectives and federal policy that enabled it. She notes that he took care to
use economic and political precepts, rather than overtly racial arguments, to
make his case, which nonetheless gave cover to racists who knew that spelling
out their prejudices would alienate the country.
All the while, a ghost hovered in the
background — that of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, senator and seventh
vice president of the United States.
Calhoun was an intellectual and political
powerhouse in the South from the 1820s until his death in 1850, expending his
formidable energy to defend slavery. Calhoun, called the “Marx of the Master
Class” by historian Richard Hofstadter, saw himself and his fellow southern
oligarchs as victims of the majority. Therefore, as MacLean explains, he sought
to create “constitutional gadgets” to constrict the operations of government.
Economists Tyler Cowen and Alexander
Tabarrok, both of George Mason University, have noted the two men’s
affinities, heralding Calhoun “a precursor of modern
public choice theory” who “anticipates” Buchanan’s thinking. MacLean observes
that both focused on how democracy constrains property owners and aimed for
ways to restrict the latitude of voters. She argues that unlike even the
most property-friendly founders Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, Buchanan
wanted a private governing elite of corporate power that was wholly released
from public accountability.
Suppressing voting, changing legislative
processes so that a normal majority could no longer prevail, sowing public
distrust of government institutions— all these were tactics toward the goal.
But the Holy Grail was the Constitution: alter it and you could increase and
secure the power of the wealthy in a way that no politician could ever
challenge.
Gravy Train to Oligarchy
MacLean explains that Virginia’s white elite
and the pro-corporate president of the University of Virginia, Colgate Darden,
who had married into the DuPont family, found Buchanan’s ideas to be spot on.
In nurturing a new intelligentsia to commit to his values, Buchanan stated that
he needed a “gravy train,” and with backers like Charles Koch and conservative
foundations like the Scaife Family Charitable Trusts, others hopped aboard.
Money, Buchanan knew, can be a persuasive tool in academia. His circle of
influence began to widen.
MacLean observes that the Virginia school,
as Buchanan’s brand of economic and political thinking is known, is a kind of
cousin to the better-known, market-oriented Chicago and Austrian schools —
proponents of all three were members of the Mont Pelerin Society, an
international neoliberal organization which included Milton Friedman and
Friedrich Hayek. But the Virginia school’s focus and career missions were
distinct. In an interview with the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET),
MacLean described Friedman and Buchanan as yin and yang:
“Friedman was this genial, personable
character who loved to be in the limelight and made a sunny case for the free
market and the freedom to choose and so forth. Buchanan was the dark side of
this: he thought, ok, fine, they can make a case for the free market, but
everybody knows that free markets have externalities and other problems. So he
wanted to keep people from believing that government could be the alternative
to those problems.”
The Virginia school also differs from other
economic schools in a marked reliance on abstract theory rather than
mathematics or empirical evidence. That a Nobel Prize was awarded in 1986 to an
economist who so determinedly bucked the academic trends of his day was nothing
short of stunning, MacLean observes. But, then, it was the peak of the Reagan
era, an administration several Buchanan students joined.
Buchanan’s school focused on public choice
theory, later adding constitutional economics and the new field of law and
economics to its core research and advocacy. The economist saw that his vision
would never come to fruition by focusing on who rules. It was
much better to focus on the rules themselves, and that required a
“constitutional revolution.”
MacLean describes how the economist
developed a grand project to train operatives to staff institutions funded by
like-minded tycoons, most significantly Charles Koch, who became interested in
his work in the ‘70s and sought the economist’s input in promoting “Austrian
economics” in the U.S. and in advising the Cato Institute, a libertarian think
tank.
Koch,
whose mission was to save capitalists like himself from democracy, found the ultimate
theoretical tool in the work of the southern economist. The historian writes
that Koch preferred Buchanan to Milton Friedman and his “Chicago boys” because,
she says, quoting a libertarian insider, they wanted “to make government work
more efficiently when the true libertarian should be tearing it out at the
root.”
With Koch’s money and enthusiasm, Buchanan’s
academic school evolved into something much bigger. By the 1990s, Koch realized
that Buchanan’s ideas — transmitted through stealth and deliberate deception,
as MacLean amply documents — could help take government down through
incremental assaults that the media would hardly notice. The tycoon knew that
the project was extremely radical, even a “revolution” in governance, but he
talked like a conservative to make his plans sound more palatable.
MacLean details how partnered with Koch,
Buchanan’s outpost at George Mason University was able to connect libertarian
economists with right-wing political actors and supporters of corporations like
Shell Oil, Exxon, Ford, IBM, Chase Manhattan Bank, and General Motors. Together
they could push economic ideas to public through media, promote new curricula
for economics education, and court politicians in nearby Washington, D.C.
At the 1997 fiftieth anniversary of the Mont
Pelerin Society, MacLean recounts that Buchanan and his associate Henry Manne,
a founding theorist of libertarian economic approaches to law, focused on such
affronts to capitalists as environmentalism and public health and welfare,
expressing eagerness to dismantle Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare as
well as kill public education because it tended to foster community values.
Feminism had to go, too: the scholars considered it a socialist project.
The Oligarchic Revolution Unfolds
Buchanan’s ideas began to have huge impact,
especially in America and in Britain. In his home country, the economist was
deeply involved in efforts to cut taxes on the wealthy in 1970s and 1980s
and he advised proponents of Reagan Revolution in their quest to unleash
markets and posit government as the “problem” rather than the “solution.” The Koch-funded Virginia school
coached scholars, lawyers,
politicians, and business people to apply stark right-wing perspectives on
everything from deficits to taxes to school privatization. In Britain,
Buchanan’s work helped to inspire the public sector reforms of Margaret
Thatcher and her political progeny.
To put the success into perspective, MacLean
points to the fact that Henry Manne, whom Buchanan was instrumental in hiring,
created legal programs for law professors and federal judges which could boast
that by 1990 two of every
five sitting federal judges had participated. “40 percent of the U.S. federal
judiciary,” writes MacLean, “had been treated to a Koch-backed curriculum.”
MacLean illustrates that in South America, Buchanan was able to first truly
set his ideas in motion by helping a bare-knuckles dictatorship ensure the
permanence of much of the radical transformation it inflicted on a country
that had been a beacon of social progress. The historian emphasizes that
Buchanan’s role in the disastrous Pinochet government of Chile has been underestimated partly
because unlike Milton Friedman, who advertised his activities, Buchanan had the
shrewdness to keep his involvement quiet. With his guidance, the military junta deployed public
choice economics in the creation of a new constitution, which required balanced budgets and
thereby prevented the government from spending to meet public needs.
Supermajorities would be required for any changes of substance, leaving the
public little recourse to challenge programs like the privatization of social security.
The dictator’s human rights abuses and pillage of the
country’s resources did not seem to bother Buchanan, MacLean argues, so long as the wealthy got their
way. “Despotism may be the only
organizational alternative to the political structure that we observe,” the economist had written
in The Limits of Liberty. If you have been wondering about the end
result of the Virginia school philosophy, well, the economist helpfully spelled
it out.
A World of Slaves
Most Americans haven’t seen what’s coming.
MacLean notes that when the Kochs’ control
of the GOP kicked into high gear after the financial crisis of 2007-08, many
were so stunned by the “shock-and-awe” tactics of shutting down
government, destroying labor unions, and rolling back services that meet
citizens’ basic necessities that few realized that many leading the charge had
been trained in economics at Virginia institutions, especially George Mason
University. Wasn’t it just a new, particularly vicious wave of partisan
politics?
It wasn’t. MacLean convincingly illustrates
that it was something far more disturbing.
MacLean is not the only scholar to sound the
alarm that the country is experiencing a hostile takeover that is well on its
way to radically, and perhaps permanently, altering the society. Peter Temin,
former head of the MIT economics department, INET grantee, and author of The Vanishing Middle Class, as
well as economist Gordon Lafer of the University of Oregon and author of The One Percent Solution, have provided
eye-opening analyses of where America is headed and why. MacLean adds another
dimension to this dystopian big picture, acquainting us with what has been
overlooked in the capitalist right wing’s playbook.
She observes, for example, that many
liberals have missed the point of strategies like privatization. Efforts to
“reform” public education and Social Security are not just about a preference
for the private sector over the public sector, she argues. You can wrap your
head around those, even if you don’t agree. Instead, MacLean contends, the goal
of these strategies is to radically alter power relations, weakening pro-public
forces and enhancing the lobbying power and commitment of the corporations that
take over public services and resources, thus advancing the plans to dismantle
democracy and make way for a return to oligarchy. The majority will be held
captive so that the wealthy can finally be free to do as they please, no matter
how destructive.
MacLean argues that despite the rhetoric of
Virginia school acolytes, shrinking big government is not really the point. The
oligarchs require a government with tremendous new powers so that they can
bypass the will of the people. This, as MacLean points out, requires greatly
expanding police powers “to control the resultant popular anger.” The
spreading use of pre-emption by GOP-controlled state legislatures to suppress
local progressive victories such as living wage ordinances is another example
of the right’s aggressive use of state power.
Could these right-wing capitalists allow
private companies to fill prisons with helpless citizens—or, more profitable
still, right-less undocumented immigrants? They could, and have.
Might they engineer a retirement crisis by moving Americans to inadequate
401(k)s? Done. Take away the rights of consumers and workers
to bring grievances to court by making them sign forced arbitration
agreements? Check. Gut public education to the point where
ordinary people have such bleak prospects that they have no energy to fight
back? Getting it done.
Would they even refuse children clean
water? Actually, yes.
MacLean notes that in Flint, Michigan,
Americans got a taste of what the emerging oligarchy will look like — it
tastes like poisoned water. There, the Koch-funded Mackinac Center pushed for
legislation that would allow the governor to take control of communities facing
emergency and put unelected managers in charge. In Flint, one such manager
switched the city’s water supply to a polluted river, but the Mackinac Center’s
lobbyists ensured that the law was fortified by protections against lawsuits
that poisoned inhabitants might bring. Tens of thousands of children were
exposed to lead, a substance known to cause serious health problems including
brain damage.
Tyler Cowen has provided an economic justification for this kind of
brutality, stating that where it is difficult to get clean water, private
companies should take over and make people pay for it. “This includes giving
them the right to cut off people who don’t—or can’t—pay their bills,” the
economist explains.
To many this sounds grotesquely inhumane,
but it is a way of thinking that has deep roots in America. In Why I,
Too, Am Not a Conservative (2005), Buchanan considers the charge of
heartlessness made against the kind of classic liberal that he took himself to
be. MacLean interprets his discussion to mean that people who “failed to
foresee and save money for their future needs” are to be treated, as Buchanan
put it, “as subordinate members of the species, akin to…animals who are
dependent.’”
Do you have your education, health care, and
retirement personally funded against all possible exigencies? Then that means
you.
Buchanan was not a dystopian novelist. He
was a Nobel Laureate whose sinister logic exerts vast influence over America’s
trajectory. It is no wonder that Cowen, on his popular blog Marginal
Revolution, does not mention Buchanan on a list of underrated
influential libertarian thinkers, though elsewhere on the blog, he expresses admiration
for several of Buchanan’s contributions and acknowledges that the southern economist
“thought more consistently in terms of ‘rules of the games’ than perhaps any
other economist.”
The rules of the game are now clear.
Research like MacLean’s provides hope that
toxic ideas like Buchanan’s may finally begin to face public scrutiny. Yet at
this very moment, the Kochs’ State Policy Network and the American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that connects corporate agents to conservative
lawmakers to produce legislation, are involved in projects that the
Trump-obsessed media hardly notices, like pumping money into state judicial
races. Their aim is to stack the legal deck against Americans in ways that
MacLean argues may have even bigger effects than Citizens United, the 2010
Supreme Court ruling which unleashed unlimited corporate spending on American
politics. The goal is to create a judiciary that will interpret the
Constitution in favor of corporations and the wealthy in ways that Buchanan
would have heartily approved.
“The United States is now at one
of those historic forks in the road whose outcome will prove as fateful as
those of the 1860s, the 1930s, and the 1960s,” writes MacLean. “To value
liberty for the wealthy minority above all else and enshrine it in the nation’s
governing rules, as Calhoun and Buchanan both called for and the Koch network
is achieving, play by play, is to consent to an oligarchy in all but the outer
husk of representative form.”
Nobody can say we weren’t warned.
Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst
https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/meet-the-economist-behind-the-one-percents-stealth-takeover-of-america#
Last updated:
5/31/2016
_(alt).png){kind=link}