A collection of 58 posts
Material benefits can always be translated into political power because the political world has always been interwoven with the cultural world.
Republicans balk at the idea of UBI because it seems like an extreme version of your standard government handout. But it isn’t.
The suggestion that we ought to be suspicious of Gates’s work on global health—work that has saved millions of lives—because he made a slightly ambiguous comment about U.S. politics is not only absurd, it is also pernicious.
The drive against bourgeois aspirations underpins an emerging neo-feudal system in which people remain renters for life.
It is hard to emphasize how chillingly inept this remark is, especially for someone with a degree in economics.
Rand and her largely philosophical economic views have been consigned to history as an interesting relic of sorts—a compelling, well-articulated fantasy that has no basis in reality.
Amazon would still have paid tax revenue, and, more likely than not, other tech startups would have followed, growing the taxable population even further.
History suggests another explanation, which has been left unexamined that radicalized union leadership is part, perhaps the primary part, of the problem.
Research indicated that improved technological entertainment options, primarily video games, are responsible for between 20 and 33 percent of reduced work hours.
Focusing on immigration policy through the lens of political allegiance is both dangerous and often ahistorical.
His campaign focuses on solving the problem of job losses to automation—an issue many politicians seem happy to ignore.
“Rising inequality” has become a catch-all explanation with which politicians, journalists, and intellectuals can wave away the actual concerns of “populists,” with abstract talk about the “underlying economic causes” — few if any of which stand up to scrutiny.
There is good reason for the controversy. Early in the book, Reeves lays out the inconvenient truth: