Nobel Prize winner, professor, author and economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, wrote “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.” Joseph E. Stiglitz served during the Clinton administration as chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers and is former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank. Throughout his piece Stiglitz argues how America’s economy is not likely to succeed in the future. Stiglitz creates a strong and credible argument throughout his piece by using the appeals of ethos, pathos and logos. In “Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%” Stiglitz creates an argument about how the economy is not likely to succeed by applying the rhetorical appeal of ethos. Stiglitz demonstrates ethos when he writes, “During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the …show more content…
Stiglitz applies the use of pathos all throughout his argument but one specific time is when he wrote, “This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy”(Stiglitz747). When I read this the audience feels that so many talented people do not follow their dreams, but rather go into to fields like finance and others that do not even benefit the economy. When creating an effective argument that pulls in your readers you need to appeal to them on a personal level. If you can pull readers in and connect them to real life situations they are more likely to continue reading. Applying pathos throughout the piece helps Stiglitz’s argument become more effective. This creates feelings and emotions that make the readers become invested in the piece the same way Stiglitz’s
Leading up to the year 1981, America had fallen into a period of “stagflation”, a portmanteau for ‘stagnant economy’ and ‘high inflation’. Characterized by high taxes, high unemployment, high interest rates, and low national spirit, America needed to look to something other than Keynesian economics to pull itself out of this low. During the election of 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign focused on a new stream of economic policy. His objective was to turn the economy into “a healthy, vigorous, growing economy [which would provide] equal opportunities for all Americans, with no barriers born of bigotry or discrimination.” Reagan’s policy, later known as ‘Reaganomics’, entailed a four-point plan which cut taxes, reduced government spending, created anti-inflationary policy, and deregulated certain products. Though ‘Reaganomics’ was successful both at controlling “stagflation” and promoting economic growth, it has and always will be an extremely controversial topic regarding the redistribution of wealth.
- The best example is to keep the logo as clean and clean as possible, Google company logo
...visions and relates to us a powerful social evolution based on the ever-widening gap between the majority of the American population (“the 99%”) and the wealthy minority (“the 1%”) (Zinn, p. 619-621, 1995). Zinn’s “prophecy” of a society where the “rich get richer and the poor get poorer” has been attacked time and again by conservatives and others. Considering the events of the last several years, the banking crisis, and the rise of the Occupy Movement in 2011, Zinn’s theories regarding the 99% are amazingly perceptive, even predictive of 21st Century times.
... warn them about their future in the financial market. Even though Miller wrote this novel in 1991 about the trends of the 1980s, the graphic novel is still current today. In fact the distribution is even more skewed then it was 20 years ago. “As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers)” (Domhoff). This data shows that we should be extremely worried about the trend of the distribution of wealth in the United States. A more equal distribution is healthy for average citizens because it allows us to thrive in an environment which gives us more opportunities to move up in the economical society.
The article of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1% is written by the famous American economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, who won the Noble prize in economics, tells us about the growing inequalities between the upper class people and the middle class people. The main purpose of this article was to focus on rising inequality in economy of the United States of America. The article gives us insight about the change in economy in past and present. Joseph starts by giving numbers to mention the difference. 25 years ago richest American had 33% of nation’s wealth and took 12% of its yearly income, today its 40 % and 25% of yearly income (746). Although he did not mention the source, his numbers appear to be true due to his credentials as
New Nationalism focused on eradicating economic inequality. In 2007, the top 1 percent of Americans owned 23.5 percent of the nation’s wealth (Pear, 2011). This problem has increased, not gone away, since Roosevelt addressed it in 1910. Unfairness in the tax code has become a prominent topic of political discussion. President Obama called for alterations to the U.S. tax system, which allows millionaires to pay lower rates than middle-class workers like teachers and firefighters, in his 2012 State of the Union address (“Remarks of President Barack Obama – As prepared for delivery State of the Union Address,” 2012.). In December, the president traveled to Osawatomie to speak. He echoed Roosevelt’s New Nationalism, saying he believes “this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share” (Fox, 2011). Although he spoke in Os...
Logos a way for writers to use any form of mathical reasons, such as numbers, facts, or statistics, in their article or in their arguments. Goode provided facts and statistics throughout her article, and knowledged that mental health should be taken serious, because the issue is increasing every year. Goode logically support her information about the framework of the Precede-Proceed, and discussed the seriousness of school counselors and other school officials playing a major role in decreasing the chance of students having depression, stress, and high levels of anxiety.
Unequal wealth distribution is a significant issue in the United States. The U.S. exhibits the widest disparity in wealth amongst developed countries by a substantial margin. (Government is Good, What is Really Wrong with Government”. This problem is on the uptick as the salaries of CEOs continue to increase astronomically while that of ordinary Americans stall and in some cases even decline. Not only is this matter an economic dilemma but it is also a social and political one as well. This fiasco has led many Americans to believe that the bank of justice has gone bankrupt.
The age of the Great Depression was littered with varying stories of extreme poverty rivaled by the contrasting stories of the .1 percent of society that possessed extreme wealth. President Hoover called the depression “a passing incident in our national lives” (cite 1) which proved to be a gross underestimation of the severity of the situation. The previous decades that brought roaring success and expanding technology was thought to be a period of great success that was earned through hard work and fluid government; and so when the economy collapsed blame turned inward and failure felt deserved just the same.
Sachs, J. D. (2011). Why America Must Revive its Middle Class. Time. 178(14). Ps. 30-32.
Reich, Robert B. “Why the Rich Are Getting Richer and the Poor, Poorer.” A World of Ideas:
Since the unemployment rate was high for a long period of time it began to make America’s wealth distribution even more unequal. In 2007, slightly before the recession, the top 1% wealthiest’s share of America’s total wealth was 24% (Gitlin 7). After the peak of the recession in 2011, the top 1%’s share had ballooned to 40% and the bottom 80% of Americans owned less than 10% (Jordan 2). The 1%’s wealth had jumped 16% in four years because of the loss of jobs by middle and lower class Americans (Gitlin 7). This created a situation in which the wealthiest were getting wealthier and the middle and lower class were getting poorer. It is obvious that a system that continues to work in this fashion is very unfair and is not going to work properly. This sense of immorality with the current direction in which the economy is moving and the built up frustration of this system are just some of the many factors that sparked the original protestors to create Occupy.
While the the 1%, are secured, no one is addressing the rest of the people. As the economy flourishes, housing, higher education and health care, and child care increases with it to the point where 30 percent of a person’s income goes towards housing. People are finding it impossible to purchase a house with their middle class incomes. People begin to fall out of the once stable middle class because too much is needed to be sacrificed in order to live in a stable home. In the shrinking middle class, “40% or more of the residents live below the poverty
With each class comes a certain level in financial standing, the lower class having the lowest income and the upper class having the highest income. According to Mantsios’ “Class in America” the wealthiest one percent of the American population hold thirty-four percent of the total national wealth and while this is going on nearly thirty-seven million Americans across the nation live in unrelenting poverty (Mantsios 284-6). There is a clear difference in the way that these two groups of people live, one is extreme poverty and the other extremely
American society today is epitomized by the growing divide between rich and poor. What is significant about this fact is that both ends of the spectrum are accelerating away from each other, with poor individuals sliding further still into the doldrums of poverty, while those that have enjoyed success in the past to a large degree continue to accumulate even larger sums of riches.