U.S. billionaires and the pandemic
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
RWER 26,369 subscribers
WEA Books
“a conceivably seminal contribution to this debate on economic systems and their place in human and natural systems.” – Steve Keen

“Some of his insights will no doubt become the key building blocks of the new economics the world needs so desperately today.” – Richard Koo

“This remarkable volume presents the full range of opinions on MMT, from its enthusiastic proponents to its severest critics” – John King

Regular Contributors
follow this blog on Twitter
Top Posts- last 48 hours
- The Collapse of the India’s creative Industries
- Economics Textbooks
- Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Beveridge Curves - Covid edition
- Thinking like an Economist?
- In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Gödel and the limits of mathematics
- Things to consider when reading Mankiw 9th ed. Chapter 1: Ten Principles of Economics
- World population graph: past, present, and future
- Can you think of something snappier than “Understanding the Economy – A Learning System”?
Real World Economics Review
The RWER is a free open-access journal, but with access to the current issue restricted to its 25,952 subscribers (07/12/16). Subscriptions are free. Over one million full-text copies of RWER papers are downloaded per year.
WEA online conference: Trade Wars after Coronavirus
Comments on recent RWER issues
————– WEA Paperbacks ————– ———– available at low prices ———– ————- on most Amazons ————-
WEA Periodicals
----- World Economics Association ----- founded 2011 – today 13,800 members
Recent Comments
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Romar Correa on Axel Leijonhufvud (1933-2022)
- Meta Capitalism on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Garrett Connelly on Thinking like an Economist?
- bruceolsen on Thinking like an Economist?
- evidencebasedeconomics on Thinking like an Economist?
- Charles Broming on Thinking like an Economist?
- Romar Correa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- Steve Hummel on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- bruceolsen on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- yoshinorishiozawa on Economics Textbooks
- yoshinorishiozawa on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
- John deChadenedes on Economics Textbooks
- evidencebasedeconomics on In economics value-neutrality is an illusion
Comments on issue 74 - repaired
Comments on RWER issues
WEA Online Conferences
—- More WEA Paperbacks —-
———— Armando Ochangco ———-

Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan

————— Herman Daly —————-

————— Asad Zaman —————

—————– C. T. Kurien —————

————— Robert Locke —————-

Guidelines for Comments
• This blog is renowned for its high level of comment discussion. These guidelines exist to further that reputation.
• Engage with the arguments of the post and of your fellow discussants.
• Try not to flood discussion threads with only your comments.
• Do not post slight variations of the same comment under multiple posts.
• Show your fellow discussants the same courtesy you would if you were sitting around a table with them.
Most downloaded RWER papers
- New thinking on poverty (Paul Shaffer)
- Why some countries are poor and some rich: a non-Eurocentric view (Deniz Kellecioglu)
- The state of China’s economy 2009 (James Angresano)
- Green capitalism: the god that failed (Richard Smith)
- The housing bubble and the financial crisis (Dean Baker)
- Trade and inequality: The role of economists (Dean Baker)
- What Is Neoclassical Economics? (Christian Arnsperger and Yanis Varoufakis)
- Debunking the theory of the firm—a chronology (Steve Keen and Russell Standish)
- Global finance in crisis (Jacques Sapir)
Family Links
Contact
follow this blog on Twitter
RWER Board of Editors
Nicola Acocella (Italy, University of Rome) Robert Costanza (USA, Portland State University) Wolfgang Drechsler ( Estonia, Tallinn University of Technology) Kevin Gallagher (USA, Boston University) Jo Marie Griesgraber (USA, New Rules for Global Finance Coalition) Bernard Guerrien (France, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne) Michael Hudson (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Frederic S. Lee (USA, University of Missouri at Kansas City) Anne Mayhew (USA, University of Tennessee) Gustavo Marqués (Argentina, Universidad de Buenos Aires) Julie A. Nelson (USA, University of Massachusetts, Boston) Paul Ormerod (UK, Volterra Consulting) Richard Parker (USA, Harvard University) Ann Pettifor (UK, Policy Research in Macroeconomics) Alicia Puyana (Mexico, Latin American School of Social Sciences) Jacques Sapir (France, École des hautes études en sciences socials) Peter Söderbaum (Sweden, School of Sustainable Development of Society and Technology) Peter Radford (USA, The Radford Free Press) David Ruccio (USA, Notre Dame University) Immanuel Wallerstein (USA, Yale University)
An apt illustration of all that is wrong with the way we run the world.
A few questions and some answers. 1. Do they deserve the money? No. 2. Do they need the money? No. 3. Will they use the money to make the world a healthier, happier, safer. more equal place? Not likely. So why are they given the money? Because presently, that is what the rules say.
About those rules. If you have ever visited France, you have probably toured the Palace at Versailles. The palace once was a royal residence. Now it is owned by the French national government. It was seized from the royals as part of a revolution. As was most of the rest of the wealth of the royals. The French people changed the rules. In the UK over 100 years ago any formal political role for British royals was abolished. But they were allowed to retain their property (valued at billions of Euros). In Norway, similarly the formal political role for royals was abolished. But their property was seized by the government and they given an allowance for living expenses. The British and Norwegian peoples changed the rules.
I suggest approach one or three to deal with the American royals (rich families and individuals and corporations). It is unlikely we would see a repeat of this kind of trillion-dollar announcement in the future. And like France and Norway, the wellbeing of all the American people would likely improve after the rule changes.