Big Bad Teacher Unions

By Matthew Dunn

                What do Kim Kardashian and teachers’ unions have in common?  They are both given a tremendous amount of negative attention by the American press.  The American media in recent years feels that they have stumbled onto the twisted and selfish dealings that are conspired on inside teacher unions.  If you don’t believe me, Google teacher unions, and you will find that one of the first search results is an anti-teacher union website. 

                There has been a remarkable shift in the way that teachers are portrayed.  At one time it seems that they were held up as saints for the work that they did.  It seems now, that there is a much different attitude towards teachers and their unions in particular.  Conservative commentator Ann Coulter once referred to teachers as “taxpayer supported parasites who were inculcating students in the precepts of the Socialist Party of America”.  That statement may be extreme but it isn’t that far off from moderate columnist Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, who says that “he is not a big fan of teachers’ unions”.    

                In 2010, there were several mainstream documentary films about schools which saw teacher unions as the problems.  Both Waiting for Superman and The Lottery, were played widely, and garnered much publicity.  In celebration of the release of Waiting for Superman, NBC played a series of reports about how public schools were failing, and it seemed as though teachers’ unions were given a great deal of the blame. 

                Teachers’ Unions are portrayed as reluctant to school reforms, influential with government officials, and protective of bad teachers.  Recently, Fox 5 Editorialist referred to the UFT (The New York City Teachers’ Union) as keepers of the status quo.  He also referred to them with words such as union boss, to describe the President of the UFT, and a very organized and effective political machine.  In a recent town hall debate, Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey said that teachers’ unions are the problem. 

                So with all this bad press, is all of this information true?  Are teachers’ unions causing schools to fail?  On teachersunionexposed.com teachers are said to use their political influence to block school reform.  However, in 2001 the No Child Left Behind Law was passed, creating a federal mandate for reforming schools.  This law passed Congress by heavy majorities in both parties.  If teachers’ unions opposed this reform, it seems as though their influence with Congress was lacking.  In fact there was only one Democratic Senator ( the party that most teacher unions support ) who voted against the bill.  Teachers’ unions have also worked with governments to create new teacher evaluation plans, in response to the federal government’s race to the top initiative. 

                So if teachers’ unions are detrimental to education, that means that states that have few teachers’ unions must have excellent educational systems right?  Wrong.  In fact some of the worst educational systems are in southern states which have routinely the worst educational systems in the nation.  Mississippi, almost always ranked in the bottom of the list for worst places to be a child, only has 36.8% of its teachers unionized.  New Mexico, recently voted the worst state to be a child, has 41% of its teachers unionized.  In contrast to this, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts, which have some of the best educational systems in the nation, and are considered some of the best places for children to live all have over 80% of their teachers unionized.  Perhaps because the conditions are better for teaching in these states, they attract more talented people.  So maybe unions aren’t destroying education for children.  Apparently, people who have respect for others rights might be good teachers after all.   

Can We Work It Out or Was I Just Born This Way?

            Music is a pervasive influence in all of our lives.  We listen to it when we drive to work, we personalize it when we run on the treadmill, we celebrate with it when important things happen, and we remember it when we either try to remember or forget the past.  To meet a person who does not hear music in their daily life would probably be more difficult than meeting someone who has been struck by lightning.  Music reflects our moods and emotions, our sorrows and joys, and is one of the best ways to see how people define themselves. 

            In today’s popular music, there seems to be a great commonality.  It seems that individual artists have become the main driving force and musical groups seemed to have declined in popularity.  There are still groups of course but many of them seem to be holdovers from earlier decades.  Individual artists seem to the mainstay of today’s music.  If one peruses the Billboard charts or the Grammy nominations, one will likely see mostly songs and albums by individual artists such as Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Adele, and Bruno Mars.  In many of the hit songs by individual artists we notice that many of them feature other individual artists such as Katy Perry featuring Kanye West or Enrique Iglesias featuring Pitbull. 

            This trend of individual artists seems to have changed from the past when individual artists started out in groups.  Artists such as Eric Clapton and Michael Jackson became very famous as solo artists but they started their careers in collaborative groups.  After a number of years artists such as these moved on from their groups perhaps because they had outgrown them or perhaps because their particular talents were better suited to individual work.  However, in today’s music (of course there are exceptions) it seems as though many of the solo artists have come out of nowhere and suddenly they burst onto the scene almost like someone who makes a grand entrance at a party. 

            Why has this become the trend?  A little over a decade ago, the 1990s brought us an age of musical groups in various genres.  Why such a great change in so little time?  There could be many speculations at why this has occurred.  First of all is the American Idol effect.  American Idol has by far been the most popular show of the last decade in American television.  It has spawned many spinoffs and copies such as The Voice, America’s Got Talent, and the X-Factor.  These shows sometimes have the artists in collaborative situations but for the most part the show celebrates individualism.  Each of the shows features mainly individual performers singing for a panel of judges.  The judges then give their opinions which sometimes vary widely depending on the judge’s persona.  After the votes are then tabulated, singers are sent home until one becomes the winner.  The genius of American Idol is that it seems to give people a sense that anyone can be a star, and we give everyone a chance, even those who are dreadful.

            Hip hop music has also seemed to have changed the musical landscape.  Hip hop (especially gangsta rap) celebrates the individual.  From how much money they make, to the jewelry they wear, to the amount of bitches they be pimpin, to the amount of motha fuckas they shot, hip hop music seems largely to be an expression of individual accomplishments.  Since the 1990s hip hop has very successfully branched out and become incredibly popular.  With this, hip hop music began to blend into many different kinds of music and white artists whose music would seem to be very different from hip hop began to collaborate with hip hop artists.  Whoever thought that a young white girl from California would be collaborating on a pop song with a gangsta rapper whose claims to fame were being a member of the Crips, smoking weed, and a trial for murder.  Perhaps hip hop has added more individuality to popular music. 

            Another factor in making the individual star more popular is of course computers.  Like music computers are part of all aspects of our lives.  With the advent of the personal computer and the internet, the way people listen to music was forever changed.  People all over the world can now listen to music absolutely for free at any time.  When this happened it changed the business model of the music industry.  Instead of relying principally on sales for revenue, they would now have to rely on artists generating revenue through other outlets such as concerts.  Individual artists require less attention than groups and their leading personalities usually manage to draw very large crowds even when tickets are excessively priced. 

            Perhaps the individual artist is better than the group.  Musical groups tend to be ripe with turmoil.  This infighting in the group can sometimes lead to great music, but almost always it eventually leads to the end of the group.  Perhaps now we have a better handle of ourselves as individuals.  We don’t need to define ourselves as part of a group, and individual artists seem to suit our tastes better.  Or maybe perhaps our music has become too individual becoming shallow and materialistic and focusing on fantastic things that many of us can only dream about having.  Many of us seemed to have lost a sense of community and we don’t aspire anymore to be in a rock band, we all just aspire to be singers while playing rock band. 

            The choices we make about our music are like most of the ones that we make in society.  They are in fact our individual choices, but they do not exist in a vacuum.  We make them based on what is presented to us, and what the general zeitgeist is.   

Summer Reading List

By Matthew Dunn

                If you are in the mood to learn about the world that we live in this summer, any of the following books might be good. 

The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein:  The history of the free-market economic revolution.  Klein challenges the popular myth of this movement’s peaceful global victory.  Klein shows how the followers have repeatedly harnessed terrible shocks and violence to implement free market policies. 

Dirty Wars:  The World is a Battlefield by Jeremy Scahill:  A story describing the evolution of the War on Terror.  This work of investigative journalism details the rise of Joint Special Operations Command or JSOC and how it has changed the face of warfare, and what the implications are for the world.

Fordlandia by Greg Grandin.   A history of Henry Ford’s unsuccessful business venture into the heart of the Amazon Rainforest.  A story that is interwoven with the history of the Ford company and how one very famous capitalist tried to re-create society. 

The Death and Life of the American School System by Diane Ravitch.  Diane Ravitch sifts through the headlines about the problems facing public education and constructs a narrative detailing the great changes that have arose from the educational reform movement.

Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt.  A dying historian’s take on how the world has changed in his lifetime for the worse and recommendations for how the world could precede for the better. 

Bad Sports: How Owners are Ruining the Games we Love by Dave Zirin.  This book details the policies and practices of many sports owners.  These policies and practices have led to overpriced tickets, robbing of public funds, and not necessarily good sports teams. 

Tropic of Chaos by Christian Parenti:  This book outlines the problem of climate change and how it has intersected with other world factors to make some areas of the world very violent places. 

If you have any other suggestions about good books about current events please let me know about them in the comments section. 

Are we the Starks or the Lannisters?

By Matthew Dunn

                The fantasy series Game of Thrones on HBO has captured some of the highest ratings that the channel has ever seen.  The series, based on the novels by George R.R. Martin, is a tale of a fantasy world called Westeros, where noble families fight for power.  Much of the first three seasons of this show deals with the conflicts between two of these families, the Starks and the Lannisters.  Even though the series is fantasy, it seems to echo many of the events happening in the world today. 

                The Starks in the series are a noble house who control the northern lands of Westeros.  The Starks value honor above all else, even when it puts them in dire conditions.  In the first season, the family patriarch, Ned, is sent to the capital of Westeros to serve as the lead advisor to the king.  Ned is quickly overwhelmed by the amount of backstabbing, spying, and plotting which leads to his inevitable downfall.  Due to his trusting nature and his desire to keep his family safe, he eventually ends up without a head, thanks to the rival Lannister family.

                The Lannisters in contrast, seem to value power above all else.  During the series the Lannisters are in control of the country’s monarchy.  The Lannisters most influential character throughout the series is the eldest daughter of the family, Cersei, who serves as Queen of Westeros.  Cersei is driven only by her lust for power, and her desire to keep her children safe.  When Ned Stark discovered that her firstborn son, Joffrey, was the illegitimate product of incest between her and her brother Jamie, she outmaneuvers him, and has him imprisoned.  Joffrey once he has control of the crown, beheads Ned, as a show of force to all others would challenge the Lannisters. 

                In the second and third seasons of the series, Ned’s son Robb, seeks vengeance for his father’s murder.  He rallies his loyal troops from the North and marches to the South.  He wins key battles, but he is not able to gain much ground on the powerful Lannister forces.  Like his father, Robb puts a great deal of emphasis on his code of honor, and this eventually leads to his undoing.  He is outwitted by the patriarch of the Lannister family, Tywin, and is murdered at a wedding feast. 

                The United States fights in multiple countries around the world today, in the name of freedom, security, and democracy.  When Presidents Bush and Obama spoke to the nation about the goals of these wars, they sounded much like the Stark family calling for honorable sacrifices.  Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were against our way of life we were told.  In Lannister fashion, the Islamic terrorists seemed to call for war on an honorable people.  Therefore, U.S. leaders called for vengeance much like the Starks would.   

                However, in reality Islamic terrorists seems to share much more in common with the Starks than the U.S.  The Starks of the North are a tribal people, and the people of the North are hold on to their traditions because of the harsh conditions of their region.  People in the North are deeply spiritual and hold on to old religious beliefs even when the rest of the world seems to change.  In the North, the Starks even practice honor killings, and they personally behead members of citizens who break the codes of honor.  Any one of these descriptions could just as easily fit many members of Islamic fundamentalist groups. 

                In fact the United States in its culture today seems to behave much like the Lannisters.  Our nation seems to be completely driven by desires both carnal and material.  Even though we still have sexual taboos, they seem to be flaunted everywhere, much like the Lannisters flaunt the taboo on incest in their world.  The Lannisters are the richest and most powerful family in their world, yet none of the members of the family seems to be happy.  Sounds almost like America, doesn’t it.  

                What is perhaps more disturbing though, is that the United States increasingly has behaved much like the Lannisters in the realm of foreign policy.  Jeremy Scahill’s recent book and documentary Dirty Wars, details how the United States have conducted secret military actions around the world.  We have routinely got into bed with unsavory characters in order to fight the war on terror, and also have committed atrocities.  In one particularly disturbing story from Dirty Wars, U.S. Special Ops raided a party at night, killing several people, who had no known links to the Taliban or terrorists.  This sounds eerily similar to Lannister actions at the Red Wedding where they murdered Robb Stark. 

                Perhaps Martin’s tale is a warning about empires or perhaps it is a prediction of what comes to empires.  We find out in the third season, even the supremely wealthy Lannisters have accumulated large war debts.  Tyrion Lannister, who is serving as the bookkeeper in the third season, says this is dangerous because if they don’t pay their debts, the lenders will support their enemies.  Time will only tell if both the Lannisters and the United States have overleveraged themselves.  If this is true, then both the United States and the Lannisters could fall from powerful dragons from the east.  

Is Batman Good for Gotham City?

By Matthew Dunn

                Since his creation Batman has become one of the most popular characters in the superhero genre.  Bruce Wayne, traumatized after witnessing the murder of his parents as a child, swears revenge on criminals as an adult.  He transforms himself into Batman, and he aims to strike fear into the hearts of criminals or those who would harm others.  Batman throughout his existence has had many changes since his character was created.  Perhaps one of the darkest interpretations has been created in Christopher Nolan’s recent Batman trilogy. 

                In the first film of the series Batman Begins, we see Bruce Wayne as a young man and his transformation into Batman.  At the beginning of the film Bruce is trying to learn about the criminal element and because of his great skills, intelligence, and resources, he is recruited by a secret organization known as the League of Shadows.  The League of Shadows, led by Ra’s al Ghul, is committed to stopping crime around the world.  They do this by committing huge acts of destruction and sometimes genocide in order to make the survivors re-evaluate their lives and to bring balance to the world as they see fit.  After training with the organization, Bruce disagrees with their extreme plan to destroy his home city of Gotham, and he proceeds to destroy the temple of the organization along with many of its members.  However, he saves his mentor, who we later find out was Ra’s al Ghul, who had hidden his identity.  

                When Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham he proceeds to construct his new identity of Batman.  He uses his family’s great wealth and business dealings to arm himself with a plethora of weapons including a Kevlar suit and a tank ( a great departure from the Batmobiles of previous Batman stories ).  Once becoming Batman he seeks to rid the city of corruption and crime by frightening his enemies.  While doing this he stumbles upon a plan concocted by the surviving members of the League of Shadows to unleash a terrible toxin upon the city which will put all the citizens of Gotham into a psychotic state whereby they will turn upon each other and a genocide will commence.  Batman with the aid of perhaps the only non-corrupt member of the police force, Jim Gordon, realizes a solution to the plan and eventually stops the League of Shadows from committing their terrible actions.  Although not explicitly mentioned by the police or government officials, Batman becomes a hero to the citizens of Gotham.

                However, is Batman really the solution for Gotham?  After all the League of Shadows originally recruited him in order to destroy Gotham.  Since he refused and then subsequently destroyed their headquarters, one might see their later attack on Gotham as revenge on Bruce Wayne.  Also the League of Shadows carries out their terrible plan with stolen weapons from Bruce Wayne’s own company.  Had Bruce Wayne carried out the same actions as Tony Stark in Ironman, he would have had his company stop making weapons and thereby decreased the ability of the League of Shadows to wreak havoc on the citizens of Gotham City. 

                The problems created by Batman become even clearer in the second part of the series, The Dark Knight.  In this film Batman meets his most famous nemesis, The Joker.  The Joker is a sociopathic madman who seems to find mass killing to be humorous and enjoyable.  Unlike the League of Shadows he has no wider aspirations than just causing chaos for the sake of having chaos.  In these ways he shows himself to be the polar opposite of Batman, for Batman has the goal of ridding the city of crime, and at the same time has a great respect for human life.  In the beginning of the film, the organized crime elements of Gotham give financial support to the Joker in order to kill Batman because he has severely damaged their abilities to do illegal business.  The Joker then proceeds to take that money and use it to terrorize the people of Gotham in order to confront Batman.  At the end of the film, when the two rivals battle each other, Batman wins the fight and then saves the Joker from death.  In his final speech the Joker reveals that the two of them essentially need each other because they complement each other’s needs. 

                We see in this film the true problem of Batman.  Although he may possess many great abilities he cannot stop crime.  In fact his presence leads to an increase in crime.  He may have stopped many of the low level criminals but as his trusty butler and companion, Alfred Pennyworth, instructs him in their desperation they unleash a truly destructive force.  The Joker takes crime to a whole other level threatening to kill thousands.  Also because of Batman’s refusal to kill the Joker because of his own psychological needs, the Joker will live to battle Batman again and presumably kill countless more in the process.  As the Joker says in his final scene, “I think that you and I are destined to do this forever.” 

                In the third and presumably final film, The Dark Knight Rises, we are introduced to a Gotham that has not seen Batman for several years.  This Gotham seems to be much more peaceful, due to the absence of Batman and the new criminal laws which were passed.  These laws place harsh punishments on criminals and also allow law enforcement more leeway in fighting crime, much like the PATRIOT Act or Rico laws in the United States today.  However, the peace does not last and soon Gotham is confronted with another vicious and powerful villain known only as Bane.  Bane, like Bruce Wayne, has been trained by the League of Shadows and is a mental and physical match for Batman.  With the help of a wealthy businessman who seeks to take over the Wayne business empire, Bane makes an attack on the Stock Market and gains access to a nuclear core designed by Wayne enterprises and turns it into a bomb.  After defeating Batman in hand to hand combat, Bane reveals that he intends to finish the work of the League of Shadows and destroy Gotham City.  He then imprisons Bruce Wayne in the prison where he spent most of his life, where escape is nearly impossible.  While he does this, Bruce will be forced to watch, tortured as he can do nothing to save the city. 

                Without Batman to stand in his way, Bane proceeds to become overlord of Gotham.  With the threat of a nuclear attack, he proceeds to set a government to his liking.  He releases criminals held in the city jails, steals the property of the wealthy, and sets up show trials similar to the ones in Revolutionary France or The Soviet Union under Stalin, whereby the verdicts were predetermined and the accused were always sentenced to death.  Bruce Wayne who is far away in prison is forced to watch the destruction of the city he had worked so hard to defend.  Then after hearing a story of a child who escaped from the prison he is in, he trains and eventually escapes to return to Gotham as Batman. 

                After Batman returns to Gotham he confronts Bane once more, this time defeating him.  However, he is stabbed by Miranda Tate, a woman who Bruce had entrusted with the nuclear technology his firm had created and had a sexual liaison with.  She reveals that her real name is Talia al Ghul and that she is the daughter of the slain leader of the League of Shadows.  She was in fact the child who escaped from the prison with the help of Bain.  It seems as though Bain carried out his atrocities in Gotham mainly as a labor of love for her.  Soon after this scene, Talia attempts to detonate the nuclear bomb in an attempt to destroy Gotham.  After escaping Bane, Batman manages to thwart her efforts by obtaining the bomb and detonating it from his fighter jet over the ocean.  Batman appears to have died in the blast, but it is revealed in the last scene of the film, that he escaped and moved abroad with Selina Kyle who was Catwoman during the film. 

                Once again in this film, we see how the existence of Batman leads to death and destruction for Gotham.  Bruce Wayne’s nuclear research leads to the creation of a neutron bomb and his trust in the wrong person puts the bomb in the hands of someone who seeks genocide.  Also we see Talia carries on her father’s work, but specifically targets Gotham because of the desire for revenge on Batman.  This is why Bane tortures Batman.  Lastly, the re-appearance of Batman after Bane’s attack on the stock market allows Bane to elude police capture.  Once again, we see Batman putting his psychological needs to stop crime ahead of what actually might be good for the city of Gotham. 

                Looking at Batman in this light can shed some very important lessons for our world.  First criminal activity cannot be stopped by the escalation of violence against criminals.  For example, many countries have escalated an incredibly violent war on drugs.  However, this has not stopped the drug trade, but made the drug cartels more violent and in fact in some places such as Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia the drug cartels regularly do battle with the military and win.  Next, just because someone is very skilled like Batman, does not mean that they have any grand solutions to the injustices of our time.  Batman has great skills and resources but even with the best of intentions he cannot accomplish his grand goals.  Lastly, Batman offers us a lesson about our own needs.  Batman fights crime in order to deal with the pain of watching his parents gunned down.  Therefore we see that he is in fact dishonest about his motives, which really appear to be purely selfish and not really about making the city a better place.  For if crime was eliminated from Gotham, he would have no purpose much like the Bruce Wayne that we saw at the beginning of The Dark Knight Rises.  Perhaps the final lesson here, is to acknowledge that we do all in fact have needs, but we need to recognize the needs of others as well.  If the Batmans of the world did this, both Gotham and the rest of the world might be better off. 

Is it still My Kind of Town? Chicago in the Age of Neo-Liberalism

By Matthew Dunn

                Chicago, the windy city, The Second City, Chi-town.  A place where the only thing bigger than the  skyscrapers are the dreams of its citizens from the traders in the pits, to the ballers on the courts. Creator of the of deep dish, the Chicago dog, and all kinds of magnificent meat.  Home of those lovable losers, The Chicago Cubs, the presently great Chicago Blackhawks, and of course Da Bears.  It gave us Michael Jordan, who not only won basketball championships, but forever cemented the relationship between business and sports.  Chicago gave us the Second City Comedy troupe, which spawned the careers of many of our great comedians like Bill Murray and Steven Colbert.  It allowed the rise of an African American woman, Oprah Winfrey, who was born into poverty to triumph over adversity and become one of the most successful media personalities ever.  And of course last but not least, Chicago gave rise to a small time community organizer, who would eventually become the most powerful person on the planet. 

                There is no doubt that Chicago has been a tremendous part of the American culture.  Besides these cultural phenomena, Chicago was also the birthplace of many of the most influential economic ideas.  Most of these came from The University of Chicago’s Department of Economics.  The Chicago School of Economics has long been considered one of the world’s best economic departments.  The faculty of the department have won more international awards for achievement in economics than any other university.[1]

                Along with the prestige of the university department, has come a general set of economic ideas.  Collectively these ideas make up much of what could be called free market fundamentalism, monetarism, or neoliberalism.  The ideas of neoliberalism could best be described in a quote by Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, who taught at the University of Chicago:

The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither.  The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.[2]

                Those who follow along with the neoliberal way of thinking believe that government causes almost all major economic problems.  This happens because governments try to contain or control the economic market.  Because of this neoliberal economists advocate for governments to de-politicize the economy. 

                Price Inflation is one of the major problems that neoliberal economists believe is caused by governments.  Neoliberal economists advocate for government to limit its actions so it can stop inflation.  Because governments have a tendency to spend more money than they take in, governments find themselves running deficits quite often.  Therefore because governments increase the supply of money, they are the main cause of inflation.  Neoliberal economists advocate that governments counter this by having government pass laws requiring governments to balance their budgets.[3]  In order to help them reach their goal of having a balanced budget, governments should also sell off assets, which private business could run at a profit.  This will help private business as well as helping government to unload costly assets.  Also, neoliberal economists recommend that governments loosen and end regulations on the market, in order to allow the market to reach its full potential.[4] [5]

                Since many of these ideas were formulated at the University of Chicago, it is only natural that they would have a great deal of influence on the city.  Since the 1800’s Chicago had been home to the Chicago Board of Trade, the world’s oldest futures and options exchange.  This exchange and the others that followed (such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange) trade futures contracts on commodities such as eggs, meat, and grain.  These contracts are designed to reduce the amount of risk in price fluctuations for the suppliers of these commodities.  Traders who buy and sell these contracts can profit greatly or fail greatly, when they speculate on the contracts.  Free market economists from the University of Chicago saw these exchanges in the postwar United States as one of the last bastions of true free market capitalism. 

                In the 1960’s Leo Melamed became Chairman of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.  Melamed was very interested in the ideas of free market capitalism and sought to expand the business of the exchange.  He believed that the exchange could make a great deal of profit trading futures in financial products such as currencies, stocks, and bonds.  Melamed discussed his ideas with Milton Friedman who went on to write a paper arguing for futures trading in the currency market.[6]  Friedman’s article and Melamed’s business savvy, worked and the exchange began trading futures based on financial products in the 1970’s.[7]  With trading in financial futures underway, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange expanded rapidly, and financial trading would create enormous fortunes in the city of Chicago in the following decades. 

                Soon after this in the 1980’s, Chicago would see the rise of it longest ever serving mayor, Richard M. Daley.  Daley is the son of the second longest serving mayor in Chicago history Richard J. Daley.  The elder Daley, was known as a tremendous power broker in the national Democratic Party, rumored to have rigged the Presidential Election in Chicago in 1960 to help John F. Kennedy become president.  However, once the younger Daley became mayor in the late 80s, his economic policies looked much more like a strong Republican’s rather than the party his father had been so influential in.  It seems as though he was strongly influenced by the economic ideas which emanated out of the prestigious university of his hometown. 

                Daley’s election was celebrated by the Chicago business community.  Daley was thought of as pro-business, which essentially meant that he supported neoliberal economic policies.  He laid off workers in city industries to cut government spending, supported renovations to bring in tourism and wealthy residents, and privatized city industries.  In one of his most famous moves, Daley privatized the city’s parking meters and gave a private company rights to the meters for 75 years.[8]  In addition to this, Daley along with Chicago Public Schools CEO Arne Duncan, pressed for more accountability in the schools, closed failing schools, and opened up more privately managed charter schools.[9] [10]

                Daley was able to win five terms as mayor in Chicago, serving even longer than his father did.  After his fifth term ended he decided not to run for another and Rahm Emmanuel, The White House Chief of Staff, succeeded him.  One of Emmanuel’s first jobs in politics was working on Daley’s campaign.[11]  Emmanuel won by a large margin in the mayoral election and has largely carried on Daley’s policies especially the one’s dealing with Chicago’s public schools. 

               

                So how has all of this free market policy worked out in Chicago?  Has it become an entrepreneur’s  paradise, that might have been imagined by economists at the University of Chicago?  Are the people of Chicago actively pursuing their own self interest, leading to a greater good?  For many of the residents of Chicago unfortunately the answer is no.

                Chicago in many ways can be seen as a failing city.  Descriptions of Chicago in recent business magazines use words like depressing and miserable in their headlines to describe the current state of affairs.  The unemployment rate and the rate of home foreclosure in Chicago are both well above the national average.  For those who are not employed, high sales taxes, long commute times, and the highest gas prices in the nation make for unpleasant travel conditions.[12]  For those without regular employment, coupled with a public transportation system that is perpetually underfunded, it compounds their already difficult situation.[13]  In addition to this, the parking meters, which were privatized under Daley, are now the most expensive in North America.[14]  Turns out privatization doesn’t always work out best for the consumer. 

                Chicago’s schools were reorganized in a neoliberal fashion under Daley as well.  However, this has not led Chicago’s schools to any kind of great improvement.  According to Northwestern University Chicago’s dropout rate is two points higher than the national average, and one out of every five male Chicagoans does not have a high school diploma.[15]  On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, tests that measure educational ability nationwide, Chicago’s test scores remained flat between 2003-2007, and high school performance continued to be very low.[16]  However, despite this, Mayor Emmanuel has continued to follow neoliberal policies in education, and is in the process of closing over fifty schools.[17]

                Although Chicago has had neoliberal policies drive their government actions for over 20 years, it has not helped with the city’s deficit.  The city has run deficits since 2001, and it doesn’t seem to be stopping anytime soon.  The budget deficit is predicted to continue increasing and may reach $800 million by 2014.[18]  With many public services already cut, and key assets sold off to private companies, one wonders where the city government will find the money for their debts. 

                Neoliberal economists believed that the power of the market combined with the reduction of the welfare state, would help African Americans improve their station in society.  Throughout his famous documentary “Free to Choose”, Milton Friedman showed many enterprising African Americans who were not taking government handouts and working hard to become part of the entrepreneurial and middle classes.  Chicago was a city that was much affected by segregation in the postwar era.  Martin Luther King Jr. moved to Chicago in 1966, in order to highlight the great amount of housing segregation which existed there.[19]  Has the power of the marketplace liberated African Americans from extreme poverty there?  Unfortunately it has not.  The average black person makes 45% of what whites make in Chicago.  The only city where the income disparity is worse between whites and blacks  in America is Dallas.[20]  In addition to this, segregation seems to continue on a great scale in Chicago.  The historically African America district of the South Side which has a population of 752,496, continues to be 93% African American.[21]

                Statistics such as these are abhorrent to many, but perhaps the most horrifying statistic about Chicago is the murder rate.  According to a recent investigative report, between 2003 and 2011 Chicago had 4,265 people murdered. This is death toll almost as high as the number of Americans killed in The Iraq War during the same time period.  In 2012, 512 people were killed.  This has led to some gang members nicknaming Chicago “Chiraq”.[22]  With murder rates as high as this, Chicago is one of the most violent cities in the nation. 

                In November of 2008, Barack Obama was elected President of the United States.  As a man who had worked his way up through Chicago politics, he had much to thank the city for.  When he first went to Washington, he brought Arne Duncan and Rahm Emmanuel along with him, to give them high level cabinet posts.  By appointing these two men to his cabinet, he showed that he was in favor of the policies that Chicago had followed in the decades before.  Frank Sinatra once sang in the famous song “My Kind of Town”, that Chicago was one town that won’t let you down.  Unfortunately for many of the residents of Chicago, the conditions have let down many, especially the most vulnerable populations.  If these neoliberal policies, many of which originated in Chicago, continue in the United States, much of the country will continue to be let down. 

               

               

               

               

---

[1] University of Chicago Economic Department, http://economics.uchicago.edu/about/history.shtml.  (Accessed June 18, 2013). 

[2] Friedman, Milton.  Free To Choose: A Personal Statement.  Directed by Peter Robinson.  Arlington, Virginia, 1980. 

[3] Chang, Ha-Joon.  Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.  New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2008.  Location 3167. 

[4] Klein, Naomi.  The Shock Doctrine.  The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.  New York:  Picador, 2007.  Pgs 68-69. 

[5] These are no means the only ideas of neoliberal economists, just some of the major ones.  If you are interested in learning more about neoliberal economic theory any of the books or films mentioned in these footnotes can give you a great deal of information.

[6] Lambert, Emily.  The Futures:  The Rise of the Speculator and the Origins of the World’s Biggest Markets.  New York: Basic Books, 2010.  Pgs 80-82. 

[7] Harvey, David.  The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism.  New York:  Oxford University Press, 2010.  Pg 262. 

[8] Moreci, Michael.  “Chicago: The Privatized City of the Future”.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moreci/chicago-the-privatized-ci_b_187753.html.  (April 16, 2009).

[9] Kingsbury, Kathleen.  “Will Arne Duncan Shake Up America’s Schools?”.  http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1866783,00.html.  (December 16, 2008). 

[10] Mayor Daley put Chicago’s schools under mayoral control.  The superintendent’s of the Chicago Public Schools was redefined, and renamed the Chief Executive Officer.  This title implies a business leader, rather than a civic one. 

[11] Rahm Emmanuel Biography.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rahm_Emanuel.  (Retrived June 17, 2013).

[12] Wile, Rob.  “25 Facts That Make Chicago The Most Depressing Big City in America”.  http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-is-the-worst-american-city-2013-6#this-year-forbes-named-chicago-the-countrys-fourth-most-miserable-city-its-residents-suffer-from-long-commutes--1. (June 2, 2013).

[13] Moreci, Michael.  “Chicago: The Privatized City of the Future”.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moreci/chicago-the-privatized-ci_b_187753.html.  (April 16, 2009).

[14] Abernathy, Samantha.  “Chicago Has North America’s Most Expensive Parking Meters”. http://chicagoist.com/2012/12/26/chicago_has_nations_most_expensive.php.  (December 26, 2012).

[15] Wile, Rob.  “25 Facts That Make Chicago The Most Depressing Big City in America”.  http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-is-the-worst-american-city-2013-6#this-year-forbes-named-chicago-the-countrys-fourth-most-miserable-city-its-residents-suffer-from-long-commutes--1. (June 2, 2013).

[16] Ravitch, Diane.  The Death and Life of the Great American School System:  How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education.  New York:  Basic Books, 2010.  Pgs 158-159.

[17] Democracy Now.  “Chicago to Shutter 50 Public Schools: Is this Massive Closure an Experiment in Privatization?”  http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/28/chicago_to_shutter_50_public_schools.  (May 28, 2013). 

[18] Jones, Tim.  “Chicago’s Budget Deficit Widens $50 Million to $635.7 Million”.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-29/chicago-s-budget-deficit-widens-50-million-to-635-7-million-mayor-says.html.  (July 29, 2011).

[19] Allen, Susie and Michael Drapa.  “When King Made History At UChicago”.  http://www.uchicago.edu/features/20120109_mlk/.  (Retrived June 18, 2013).

[20] Cottrell, Megan.  “Second City or Dead Last?  Income Apartheid in Chicago”.  http://www.chicagonow.com/chicago-muckrakers/2011/02/second-city-or-dead-last-income-apartheid-in-chicago/.  (February 28, 2011). 

[21] Demographic Information gained on Wikipedia’s article on the South Side of Chicago.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Side,_Chicago#Demographics.  (Retrived June 18, 2013).

[22] Morton, Thomas. “Chiraq”.  VICE produced by HBO.  Originally aired on June 9, 2013.  Statistics found on corresponding website, http://hbo.vice.com/episode-nine.  

Manufacturing Crisis: Panic Attacks in the American School System

By Matthew Dunn

                American schools are in crisis!  The school system is broken!  The failure of schools is leading to economic catastrophes!  AH I can’t breathe!  In the last few years there have been many statements such as this regarding the current state of education.  But before we allow a panic attack to fully overwhelm us, let’s take a moment and relax, before we let ourselves get out of control. 

                So what has been presented about the crisis of American education?  There have been a lot of statistics thrown around talking about how the United States is falling behind in terms of educational achievement.  According to these statistics the United States ranks near the bottom of the list for educational achievement of the economically developed countries.  The conclusion seems to be that government waste, teacher ineffectiveness, and inefficient management has caused the poor conditions in American schools.  The media has constantly reinforced these messages with news reports and films.  In recent years, education has gotten a great deal more focus because of this supposed crisis.

                With the perception that American schools are failing, policy makers have gone into action to try and address the problem of education.  The No Child Left Behind Law of 2001, set national standards that every school would have to meet or face funding cuts or closing.  In addition to this, policy makers at the state and federal level, have created policies which use market based solutions for education such as the Race to the Top initiative.  These solutions are thought to make schools more efficient because the staff who run the schools will be held accountable for the performance of the students.

So what has this supposed educational crisis done to our nation?  Has it caused other nations to threaten our sovereignty?  Has it caused the sales of our products to become substandard?  Has it negatively affected our economy?  The answers to all three of these questions is no.  As much of the world, the United States has had a great deal of economic problems over the last few years, but these were most caused by wild speculating done in various markets.  Most of this speculation was done by very well educated people.  The crisis in education is often presented as some kind of national security threat, but no educated person can argue that the United States has lost military dominance over the world.  The ease at which the United States seems to navigate multiple wars and covert actions can leave no one doubting that our military abilities are supreme.  Has our competiveness in business weakened?  According to the latest edition of Forbes magazine’s list of 25 largest public companies in the world, ten of them are American, and this nearest competitor is China with five.  Considering that China has around a billion more people than the United States, the U.S. seems to be competing and winning just fine. 

Other arguments say that our workers are not educated enough and companies must import labor from elsewhere to perform highly skilled jobs.  This argument tries to appeal to people worried about the children of America chances in the labor market.  Also it appeals to a nationalistic sense that Americans should be doing the good work in this country.  However, importing labor is nothing new in the United States.  The United States is a country where we have consistently promoted and prided ourselves on having emigrants from other countries moving here.  Since the days of Alexander Hamilton (himself and immigrant) we have tried to get some of the most talented people from around the globe to move here and help our institutions grow.  If one ever watches the quintessential American institution of baseball, we know that many of the best players are brought here from other countries. 

                In fact by judging from some international standards, the United States does not seem to be in crises at all.  According to the United Nations education index which measures level of education as being a component in well being and quality of life, the United States received a score of .978 out of a possible 1 which no nation received.  This score made the United States 13^th in the world on the educational index.  13^th may not be 1^st, but the United States ranks above such other powerful nations such as Germany, France, The United Kingdom, Japan, and China.  It should also be noted that tied for 1^st place on the educational index is Cuba, which we know does not use market based solutions for education.  Sometimes, South Korea is held up as an example that American schools should follow.  South Korea performs very well on international exams and is known as having a top notch education program.  South Korea has extensive testing and test review programs for students.  Incredible amounts of pressure are put on South Korean students to perform well on exams.  In another statistic, South Korea also has one of the highest suicide rates in the world?  Is that the kind of education system we want to be replicating?

                Most of what has been peddled by the educational reform movement has been designed to put Americans in a state of crisis over our educational system.  If the public perceives there is a crisis, than this allows policy makers to implement policies which might never go through it there was substantial public debate on them.  In fact, in New Orleans the very real crisis of Hurricane Katrina was used to close many public schools and open up the city to market based solutions such as the expansion of charter schools.  As a public we should not get too riled up about the state of our schools, because it allows policy makers to play off of our fears and create policies that we might not want.

                However, if we are concerned about the state of our schools, we might want to look at some examples of successful and unsuccessful school areas.  If we want to look at a country which is similar to our own, we can look to Canada.  Canada ranks higher than us in most educational achievement studies, and Canada has a very high percentage of teachers who are unionized and have excellent pay and benefits.  Also because education is very much a state by state issue, we might want to look at individual states.  Massachusetts, when compared to nations internationally, performs at nearly the same levels as top countries.  Massachusetts has a strong statewide curriculum and over 90% of its teachers are unionized.  So apparently when we look at these examples, government planning and unionization, which are so often portrayed as the reasons schools are failing seem to do well in many instances.  So the next time you hear someone who talks about the crises facing America’s schools, just tell them to chill.  

The Fate of Nooglers: An Analysis of The Internship *Spoiler Alert*

               Everyone who is willing to work hard can make it in America.  At least what the old wisdom says.  It is the belief that has caused immigrants to move here from the founding of the nation, and it is the reason that so many of us work so hard in this country.  However, over the last few years some have begun to question the so called “American Dream”, and have pointed out that it is merely a myth.  Those who make this argument have a point, it seems as though the path to prosperity is not an easy one in an era where crisis seems to be everywhere.

                Far from being another dumb comedy, The Internship, addresses this very serious concept.  In the film Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn play two recently laid off salesmen.  Although they were very good at their jobs, there simply was not a market for their services anymore.  So the two of them take a page out of the old manifest destiny handbook and move west to California and pursue a prestigious internship at Google.  During this internship, the interns will work in teams of five and the team that wins the competition will be given positions at Google.  The two are obviously outmatched by the much younger and tech savvy college interns.  However, through their hard work, positivity, and cleverness both Vaughn and Wilson with their team of misfits manage to win the competition and earn the much coveted positions.  The movie shows that with the right set of personality traits, even people as out of place as the two protagonists, can reach great heights.

The film becomes a product of Hollywood myth making.  While the younger characters in the film complain of how difficult it has become to make it in America, the characters that Wilson and Vaughn play remind the young members of their team to be positive, even when confronted with almost impossible situations.  Their positivity transforms the team and the underdogs go on to win.  Never mind the fact that they are working for nothing, the dream should keep them alive.  Like many other Hollywood films, this one seeks to inspire dreams in its viewers and follows the familiar rags to riches story popular in America. 

Throughout this film, Google is portrayed very well.  As the film is partly a two hour commercial for the company, we see all the great aspects of working and being a part of Google.  In one scene Vaughn is shocked to find out that he can eat and drink whatever he wants from the cafeteria for free.  Also shown is the non-traditional work environment where creativity is encouraged, from glass boards for writing, funky colored bicycles for riding, and nap pods where employees can rest.  This is a far cry from the horrible sales experience that Owen Wilson’s character has in the mattress shop where he is constantly berated by his idiotic and sexually inappropriate boss (played very amusingly by Will Ferrell).  However, there is a great deal of exploitation that we can see Google using as well.  Almost all the people in the film are unpaid interns.  They are told that 95% of them will not get a job at Google.  While working as interns, they not only do typical unpaid work such as customer service, but they will also bring in new business for Google by getting new businesses to advertise with Google, and creating new applications for download.  Google will profit from the work of these interns, but the interns will not share in any of the fruits of their labor.  Therefore with the exception of the winning team, there will be no monetary reward for the interns. 

                In addition to the fact that interns are exploited, the film shows presumably how the function of internships has changed.  Internships were originally thought of as a modern day apprenticeship, where people would learn a trade while working.  This is still the norm when talking about skilled careers such as physicians.  However at Google the students come to the internship already fully qualified for a job in the internet technology field.  The internship acts like more of a tryout or audition for a job.  In fact with the exception of Vaughn and Wilson, none of the characters seems to really learn any new skills.  Almost any of the students in the film would probably make good employees, but because of today’s super competitive world, companies like Google can pick and choose from an enormous pool of candidates.  Candidates then have to prepare themselves for forms of mental combat with others (as shown in the quidditch scene of the film) and be prepared to be used however Google feels they are necessary. 

                However, this review is not intended to discourage dreaming or an American way of thinking.  People should be allowed to pursue work that is stimulating and enjoyable to them.  If the American dream of success is to remain, exploitative practices such as the ones practiced in The Internship, need to be changed.  People who contribute to a company’s financial health should be paid fairly.  While exploitation continues in labor, the dreams of many American workers will be deferred, while only nightmares remain. 

               

                

Dealing with Economic Crisis: A Comparison between Obama and Roosevelt

              The year 2008 brought the United States and the world to a place that has not been seen since the 1930’s.  The financial industry completely turned on its head during that year as the world watched in horror at the magnitude of the drops in the world stock markets.  Falls like this had not been felt since the 1930’s which culminated in the worst economic depression the world had ever seen.  In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president to serve over this crisis.  The public had elected him by a wide margin in hopes that he would fix the economic system of the United States much like Roosevelt had done in 1932.  They hoped that he would improve the prospects of those whose lives were greatly affected by the financial crisis.  Since his election though, many of his supporters have become disheartened with his policies and have felt that he has not done enough to improve the economic system of the United States and improve the situation of the middle classes. 

                Many books about the financial crisis have been written since Obama was elected president in 2008.  There has been an upsurge in economics books written by the so called “New Keynesians” who argue for a return to the economic policies promoted by the economist John Maynard Keynes.  These policies were largely followed by President Roosevelt and the presidents who followed him.  Keynes argued that the government could be a great factor in promoting the economy especially in times of crisis.  These economists, such as Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, believe that in order to improve the economy the government must take a much more active role in the economy in order to create employment and create more financial regulations in order to stop the types of risky behavior that was undertaken by large financial institutions which were the cause of the crisis.  Since becoming president Obama has given some lip-service to these ideas but he has not aggressively tried to promote new regulations.  This has led to many on the left to become discontent with Obama and believe that he has not lived up to his campaign promises.  Many hoped Obama would be another Roosevelt, whereas now many believe that his economic policies do not differ much from Bill Clinton’s or even George W. Bush’s.

                However, the reason Obama has not taken a similar path to Roosevelt does not lie with Obama himself.  It lies with the different historical circumstances that each one of these men faced during their terms as president.  The worlds in which Obama and Roosevelt took over were very different and they affected the ways that they acted as president. 

                When Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, the country was suffering from its worst economic depression ever.  In 1929, the Stock Market had its greatest crash ever and things continued to worsen for the United States.  Banks began to fail and unemployment soared.  In addition to this, the Midwestern agricultural regions experienced terrible dust storms which forced thousands to lose their livelihoods.  After being elected Roosevelt immediately took action.  He wanted the people to know that under his tenure the government was going to take radical action to try and fix the economy.  He created a set of plans known as the New Deal.  These plans included regulating the banks, putting people back to work with government agencies, and providing a social safety net for those who could not support themselves.  In short Roosevelt summed up his plans as “Relief, Recovery, and Reform”.  Not only did these plans prove to be immensely popular with the public, but they put the United States on the path to great success.  These economic policies coupled with the United States victory in World War II led the United States to have great domestic and international economic success in the two decades following the Second World War.

                So if Roosevelt’s policies seemed to be so effective why has Obama not followed the same path?  The answer lies with the different worlds in which each of the presidents lived in.  Roosevelt became president a little over a decade after the most destructive conflict the world had ever seen to that point in World War I.  One of the most significant results of the First World War was the establishment of the Soviet Union.  World War I had completely destroyed the Russian economy and eventually led to the Russian Revolution.  After a series of power battles in 1917, the Communists emerged victorious.  The Communists were committed to a much different type of economic system.  They were completely dedicated to the overthrow of the Capitalist system.  In the Soviet Union all private property was seized by the state and the country was thrown into a period of forced industrialization.  Although these policies resulted in the deaths of millions due to forced starvation and massive imprisonments, for the surviving populations it created something that millions in the United States (and in the rest of the world) wanted desperately during the Great Depression: full employment. 

                After the Russian Revolution the idea of communism spread rapidly to countries all over the world.  Almost all countries developed strong Communist Parties which were committed to starting revolutions in their countries to overthrow the capitalist system.  The United States was not immune to this.  The American Communist Party became a large force in American society during the Great Depression.  Communists got involved the struggle for racial equality, workers unions, and held massive political meetings.  In addition to the Communist Party, the United States had two other leftward factions during the Great Depression.  The first was Socialist Party which had existed in the United States since the early 20^th century.  The Socialists argued for a similar economic program as the Communists but they generally wanted to go about it more gradually.  The Socialist Party candidate for president in 1932, Norman Thomas, garnered almost a million votes.  Lastly, the 1930’s was a period of great unionization in the United States.  Labor unions, began to organize much more aggressively during the depression and they began conducted large scale strike actions.  Many who worked in labor unions became radicalized by the ideas of Socialism and Communism and urged workers to take more aggressive strike actions. 

                These three factions of American society put a tremendous amount of pressure on Roosevelt.  During the years of the 1930’s Roosevelt saw the type of class conflict that was starting in Europe and that beginning in the United States.  Communism had already a major victory in Russia and had significant impact in many of the countries of continental Europe.  Roosevelt knew that if he did not act to address the economic problems of the United States many more would turn to the ideas of communism and they might have more chance of creating a successful revolution in the United States.  So because of this, Roosevelt chose to follow the ideas of Keynes and try to use government intervention in order to save the capitalist system of the United States.

                That brings us to the presidency of Obama.  Since the 1980’s the ideas of Keynes have gone largely out of favor in economics.  Many economists during this time began to believe in the ideas of the Chicago School of Economics which believes in a laissez-faire economy where the government takes a little of a role as possible.  This type of economic thinking has led to enormous prosperity in some cases but it also played a great role in the current economic crisis.  Since the government took no action to regulate the practices of banks and Wall Street Investment firms, they began to take larger and larger risks to make great profits.  In many cases these risks paid off during the economic booms of the 1990s and from 2002-2007.  However, it also has led to more frequent economic crashes, the most severe of which is continuing now. 

                Obama, like his predecessors cannot help but have been influenced by these ideologies.  The Democratic Party has largely followed a plan of deregulation and less government intervention since the 1990s.  When Obama was elected he appointed Larry Summers to lead his economic recovery team.  Summers served as Secretary of the Treasury under former President Clinton, and is a great champion of deregulation and less government. 

                In addition to this, there is no major competing vision for the economies of the world now.  With the exception of Cuba, Communism is no longer practiced in any countries of the world.[1]  All governments around the world during the 1990s began to believe that capitalism was the only economic system which should be followed.  Because of this, Obama does not feel the same pressure that FDR felt because there is no country that others can look to as an alternative.  In addition to the lack of any strong leftwing alternatives in the United States, labor unions have become much weaker.  They no longer have the strength that they once had and in some states unions are almost non-existent. 

                Lastly, the world has become a much different place in the last 30 years.  The phenomenon known as globalization has created massive multi-national corporations, many of which are in the financial industry.  Although there were these types of firms during Roosevelt’s day, they did not have the same type of global reach and wealth as they do today.  Obama won his election largely with the help of corporations such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and Company.  However, even the talk of reform of the financial industry has led some such as Jaime Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan, to publicly disagree with Obama, and has led others such as Goldman Sachs to begin supporting  Mitt Romney in 2012.  In today’s world, a President of the United States just cannot survive without the assistance of multi-national corporations. 

                In closing there is no reason why Obama would or even should for that matter follow the same types of policies of FDR.  If he goes that route it will inevitably lead to him undoubtedly being a one term president and probably lead to him being crucified by a great number of the U.S. media outlets.  History has shown that leaders only try to embark on economic policies that attempt to create greater equality when they are faced with the possibility of their current system being overthrown by an alternative.  Without that alternative now, there is little chance of any great change in the United States.                 

---

[1] It should be added that even Communist Cuba has been considered many capitalist reforms and more many years has been running a very successful international tourist business.