| Number 465 | October 25-31, 2010 |
|
This Week:
|
|
A number of you have commented that there has not been a pledge drive in quite a while. True enough, it's been almost nine months since the last one. Mostly that's because I am very aware that times are tough, and I know that many of you likely have to hold on to your money these days. Still, Nygaard Notes can't survive without financial support, so I finally decided that it had to be done. And it really does have to be done. Nygaard Notes started in 1998, and every year since then the level of financial support for the Notes has increased. Except for this year. How come? I assume it's the economy. I have had people tell me that they can't pledge what they pledged last year. They tell me that they have to reduce their pledge from $50 to $20, or from $25 to $10, or something. Some people tell me that they cannot make a Pledge at all because they lost their job, or took a pay cut, or had their hours cut back, or whatever. I totally understand. We all cut back where and when we have to. Nonetheless, I humbly ask those of you who CAN make a financial contribution to do so. Here are the facts of the matter: When the income from Pledges goes down, that means the income for Nygaard Notes goes down. Unlike Public Radio, or any number of other non-profit organizations that take pledges, Nygaard Notes survives SOLELY on Pledges. There is no other support for this project than YOUR PLEDGES. No foundations, no matching grants, no tax exemptions, no public funds. Just you. When the Pledge income goes down, the result is that I end up having to spend more of my time working at my other jobs. Don't get me wrong, I like my other jobs, and I'm lucky to have them. But what that means is that I cannot put out the Notes as frequently as I would like. The result is that some subjects that I would love to address go unaddressed. Over the past year, for instance, some of the unaddressed subjects about which I was ready to write but couldn't find the time to do the necessary research includes: * Bolivia and Ecuador * More explorations of my core values. I got a great response from the series I did on Democracy. My other core values of Compassion, Justice, and Solidarity remain to be explored. * Taxes. Does anybody know what a "Marginal Tax Rate" is? And related questions. * I could write so much more on Social Security! * Green jobs. The Blue-Green Alliance. The Indigenous Environmental Network. * Political mythology, the Social Imaginary, and the role of metaphor in reinforcing ideology. * More, more, more... So, my point is that HERE WE ARE WITH ANOTHER NYGAARD NOTES PLEDGE
DRIVE Thank you for considering making a Pledge of support for Nygaard Notes. You won't regret it! |
|
If you've made a Pledge within the past year, you should already have received a renewal notice. If you haven't, I apologize. You can send me an email or letter asking me about the status of your Pledge, and I'll be happy to let you know where we're at. Speaking of emails, let me know if you'd prefer not to receive your renewal notice in paper form, and I'll send your notice via email. Also, I normally send out renewal notices to all Pledgers (at or near the anniversary of your most recent Pledge) via the U.S. Postal Service. It reminds you of how much you pledged, and asks you to send in your Pledge for the coming year. I even enclose a self-addressed, stamped envelope! However... If you would prefer to receive your notice via email, rather than in paper form, then you should send ME an email, and ask to receive your renewal via return email. I'll send you the same letter, with the same information, but without the paper or the stamps. Then you can either send in your Pledge online, or use your own envelope and stamp to mail in your Pledge. Either way is fine with me. I enjoy writing little notes to those of you who support the Notes with your hard-earned dollars. At the same time, it does save energy and paper to do it by email. So we can't lose either way. The whole point is to know when your renewal is due so you can do whatever you think is right. So I'll send you something in whatever form you like. Thanks! |
|
It's virtually impossible to be unaware of this thing that people refer to as the "Tea Party." They're everywhere. Barack Obama just came to Minneapolis, and I went over to join in a demonstration in protest of the FBI raids that recently occurred here in this city (and that I mentioned in the last Nygaard Notes). Sure enough, I ended up standing next to a Tea Party member. Like I said, they're everywhere. And that got me to thinking about Nygaard Notes. ‘Way back in Nygaard Notes #190 (January 31st, 2003) I outlined a three-step process I called the "Demagogue Dynamic." People under stress, I said, gravitate to strong leaders with simple solutions. Some of these people are what are known as demagogues. A demagogue, says my dictionary, is "a person who tries to stir up the people by appeals to emotion, prejudice, etc. in order to become a leader and achieve selfish ends." I said that the strategy of such people is to utilize a three-step process that goes like this: 1. Accurately "read" popular discontent; 2. "Explain" what the problem is, and 3. Sell the voters on a false "solution." The small-government mania invoked by the Tea Partiers (and others) follows the pattern well. Many people are legitimately upset when they feel like they don't really have control over their own lives, and that starts the Demagogue Dynamic: Step 1. Leaders, like Rush Limbaugh, note the discontent and pump it up endlessly; Step 2. These same leaders offer the explanation: The problem is Big Government. Step 3. Then they pitch their simple solution: Shrink the government. Read, Explain, Sell; it's as easy as 1, 2 3. A Democratic Dynamic What is Nygaard Notes trying to do, and why is it different from what the Tea Party leaders are trying to do? Well, instead of going the demagogue route, I advocate using what might be called a Democratic Dynamic, which is a values-based, systems-oriented approach to thinking about the world. It's pretty simple, really. I, too, hear people saying that they feel like their lives are not under their control. In fact, I sometimes feel that way myself. But from that starting point my Values-Based Systems Approach leads in a very different direction. Instead of focusing in on a scapegoat, a target, or a simple explanation, I encourage people to step back and look to see for themselves what explains the feeling of impotence. It's always complicated, which is why it doesn't hurt to have some help thinking about it. But everybody can think about it, and should. ‘Way, ‘way back in Nygaard Notes #65 I published a piece called "Morals, Ethics, Values, and Thinking," in which I said: "Every time you interpret something you are relying on your values and beliefs. Every time you direct your attention to one thing and ignore something else, you are making a choice, and that choice will reflect your values. This is not an ‘objective' process, nor should it be." That's the Values-Based part of my method, and it requires that we spend some time getting clear on what we value. That is, what are the things that are most important to us, and why? The core values of Nygaard Notes are Democracy, Solidarity, Compassion, and Justice. Yours might be different, it doesn't matter. The point is that we start there. Then we focus on the issues and policies and social phenomena that most affect those values. That's the Systems Part: It's not Good Guys and Bad Guys. Rather, it's systems, institutions, social patterns, political mythologies, and more. When we step back, examine our values, reject the simple solutions and the scapegoating that goes with it, what we usually see is those systems and patterns and the big, big social forces that were created and are maintained by people not too different from you and me. And the core message—really in all that I write—is this: If people not too different from you and me created and maintain the systems that shape our lives, then people like you and me can change those systems, or create new ones. Maybe not just people like you and me. Maybe you and me. My job is to use my talents to think about all this stuff, to try to take things apart and see how they work. A Working-Class Intellectual I sometimes refer to myself as a "working-class intellectual," and I wonder if that phrase sounds funny to people, or maybe elitist. When I use the phrase, what I am thinking of is a man who continues to inspire me, Antonio Gramsci. He suggested that all of us are intellectuals (I'm paraphrasing to avoid the sexism in the original quote), but that "not all [of us] have in society the function of intellectuals." That is, as Barry Burke summarized it in The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, Gramsci believed that "everyone has an intellect, and uses it, but not all are intellectuals by social function." The work I have taken on is intellectual work, aimed at promoting the values I hold dear. That's where the "intellectual" part comes in when I'm asked to categorize myself. Gramsci further spoke of what he called "organic intellectuals," a group which he said "grows organically with the dominant social group, the ruling class, and is their thinking and organising element." Gramsci believed, says Burke, that "It is through this group that the ruling class maintains its hegemony over the rest of society." What we needed, said Gramsci, (and still need, in my view) is to develop a "counter hegemony," which he said would require, among other things, that "the working class movement ... produce its own organic intellectuals." I don't think we need a new hegemony, but I do think we need a radical re-working of our economic, political, and social systems. When I call myself a Working-Class Intellectual, then, all I am saying is that I have decided to make my function in society that of an intellectual, and that my work is guided by an allegiance to working class values as I understand them. And that includes trying my best to use language that is understandable to anyone who can read, not just anyone who has gone to college. (It's not rocket science; I didn't go to college myself.) All of us are intellectuals. The only thing different about me is that I've decided to make this intellectual work my life's work. I hope you will support it by making a Pledge to Nygaard Notes. That's the only way I can keep going. Thank you! |
|
Today's Testimonial |
| October 26th "Quote" of the Day: The "Bags of Cash"
Outrage
This past Sunday, October 24th, The New York Times ran a major front-page story headlined, "Iran Said to Give Top Karzai Aide Cash by Bagful." These "bagfuls" of cash were said to be "part of a secret, steady stream of Iranian cash intended to buy the loyalty of [a top aide to the Afghan President] and promote Iran's interests in the presidential palace, according to Afghan and Western officials here." This story was considered such an outrage that it was placed on the front page of the Sunday Times, the largest-circulation Sunday paper in the country. To put this front-page story in perspective, we have to remember ‘way back to the last issue of Nygaard Notes – Number 464 – in which I discussed how the United States paid the entire budget of the corrupt and human rights-violating National Directorate of Security in Afghanistan for most of the past decade. The United States did this from 2002 until 2009, and may still be doing it for all we know. There has never been a feature story in the U.S. media about this. Maybe it was done by electronic transfer instead of by bagfuls, rendering it less newsworthy. Now, when we are talking about bagfuls of cash and the influence it brings, recall that Iran shares a 565-mile border with Afghanistan, and is in the cross-hairs of the U.S., which is running a rather significant military operation in Afghanistan. So one might expect Iran to seek some "influence" in their neighbor country that is being occupied by their enemy, the World's Only Superpower. The United States, on the other hand, does not share a border with Afghanistan, since the countries are roughly 6,000 miles apart. Yet the U.S. is pumping impossible-to-know quantities of money into the nation for reasons that must worry Iran and every other neighbor. Now that I think about it, "bagfuls" of cash doesn't necessarily seem like so much for those who can remember as far back as February of 2007. That's when the Reuters News Service (along with many others, mostly outside of the U.S.), reported: "The U.S. Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said on Tuesday. "Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform." In contrast to the front-page Iranian "bagfuls of cash" story, this story about U.S. pallets with tons of U.S. cash was reported in a short article on page eight of the New York Times. And so it goes. |
|
Today's Testimonials: Last month, in Nygaard Notes #462 I published a set of essays called "A Perfect Storm for Propaganda." It was re-printed locally in the Twin Cities Daily Planet, and also in the Cold Type Reader. Cold Type is a national publication, and they pick up pieces by people like William Blum, Uri Avnery, John Pilger, George Monbiot... and Jeff Nygaard. Cold Type gave it a sub-headline that summarized it this way: "Jeff Nygaard tells how shrinking budgets and human nature set us up for spin from journalists and politicians." You can read it here: http://www.coldtype.net/Assets.10/Pdfs/0910.Reader49.pdf Nygaard Notes readers don't need to see it published anywhere else to know what they're getting. I received a number of comments from readers in response to "A Perfect Storm" as published right here in these pages. One reader said: "Thank you for this incredibly well thought-out and expressed issue! ... really important are your insights as to why our reporters create propaganda and we as readers accept it without reflection. Thanks to you, I'm learning how to reflect on this phenomenon. I'll be reading this piece again and again. It's so good to read clear and insightful analysis! A second reader echoed the sentiment, saying: "You have an incredibly discerning mind that is able to clearly and intelligently dissect what is really happening." Both of these readers are already Nygaard Notes Pledgers. Won't you join them? If you do, please send along your comments, as they did. Both your dollars and your ideas are needed to keep Nygaard Notes thriving! |
| "Quote" of the Day: Editorial in Disguise
Two obvious examples of editorializing in the news pages appeared in the New York Times of yesterday (October 26th). I'll quote one today, and the next one tomorrow. (Say, I'm starting to like this daily publication schedule!) Editorial Number One: "Unsustainable" The first editorial in the October 26th Times was on the front page, in a story headlined "Divide on Deficit Likely to Grow After Election." It took only until the third paragraph to begin the editorializing. The Times spoke of the decisions that "the White House and a lame-duck Congress will face" after the election. They might even, says the Times, debate "the recommendations that President Obama has directed a bipartisan debt-reduction commission to offer by December." (Nygaard Notes will be reporting on this frightening prospect next month.) OK, here's the third paragraph: "The report of the 18-member commission, which includes a dozen senior members of Congress, six from each party, will help determine whether a bipartisan consensus exists to deal with the unsustainable combination of fast-growing entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare and inadequate tax revenues." The message: Social Security is "fast-growing." Social Security is "unsustainable." Social Security is part of the problem with the budget deficit. The first two points are opinions, and the last point is a little trickier. The Times doesn't exactly say that Social Security is making the federal budget deficit worse, but Obama's "debt-reduction commission" is considering it, so it must be a part of the problem, no? It's not, so in the first three paragraphs of this front-page story we have two opinions and a false inference. Yikes! The idea that Social Security is "unsustainable" is not only an opinion (despite the Times stating it as a fact), but it's a wrong opinion, I believe, as I've said many times, in these pages and elsewhere. Yet it is increasingly common in our daily news accounts. (Which, as you may have heard, are supposed to avoid editorializing.) Let me quote here from Briefing Paper #273 (August 6th , 2010) from the Economic Policy Institute, entitled "Social Security and the Federal Deficit: Not Cause and Effect." Here's one relevant paragraph from the report, which directly addresses the "fast-growing" claim: "Social Security spending as a share of the economy is projected to decline after the Baby Boomer retirement, leveling off at around 6% of GDP [Gross Domestic Product; that is, the overall economy]; this is a little more than 1 percentage point above current revenues as a share of GDP." That's not fast-growing. That's not unsustainable. Now, the false inference. If Congress is going to debate "the recommendations that President Obama has directed a bipartisan debt-reduction commission" to make in regard to Social Security, is that because Social Security adds so much to the federal deficit? Here's another paragraph from the EPI report: "The Social Security trust fund is projected to grow to a peak of about $4.2 trillion by 2024. At that point, Social Security will begin tapping its trust fund to help pay promised benefits. The trust fund itself is projected to run out around 2037. If Congress does not act to shore up Social Security's finances before the trust fund runs out, then benefits would have to be cut by an estimated 22% because payroll taxes would be lower than benefit outlays, and Social Security would not be allowed to make up the shortfall by borrowing. [It's prohibited by law from doing so.] As a result, Social Security cannot and would not add to the federal deficit when its trust fund is exhausted." As I pointed out in my recent piece "Social Security: The Simple Solution" we could fully fund the program for the next 75 years, and beyond, simply by raising the payroll tax by one percentage point each for the employer and the employee. Or, we could solve about 90 percent of the problem if we were to raise the cap on taxable earnings back to where it used to be in the 1980s. This would leave untouched about 83 percent of all taxable wages. So, here's the story on Social Security: Not fast-growing. Quite sustainable. No effect on the deficit. |
|
Today's Testimonial The following hand-written comment came in this week from a new subscriber who was moved to say this when he sent in his first Pledge of support for Nygaard Notes: "When I read your Notes I don't feel so alone and hopeless, and that is especially important to me because I have adult kids who need a better world." This is the kind of comment that keeps me going! |
| "Quote" of the Day: Editorial Number 2: Unaffordable Yesterday I talked about a front-page article in the New York Times from a couple of days ago, October 26th that, despite being offered as a "news" story, featured a highly-charged opinion to the effect that Social Security is "fast-growing" (it's not), and "unsustainable" (it's not), and that it contributes to the federal deficit (it doesn't). In that same edition of the New York Times, but this time on page six, we find another editorial. This one runs along the same lines as the other, which I'll explain in a moment. The headline reads: "As French Pension Law Nears, Unions Risk Losing Public Sympathy" The opening sentence says, "The French strikes and demonstrations over a proposed increase in the retirement age have lasted for weeks and attracted wide sympathy in a society whose work force is less than 10 percent unionized." Note the bizarre nature of the headline: The strong support that the unions actually enjoy is not the story. The possibility that it won't last forever is the story. Huh? Let's leave that aside for now, and focus on the telling editorial comment. The story is about the proposed increase in the early retirement age in France, which the conservative president is about to ram through the Parliament. The unions are challenging the law and, according to the Times, that confrontation "is likely to set the tone for the many similar conflicts that are sure to arise in future years as the government seeks to deal with a budget deficit by scaling back generous social welfare provisions the state can no longer afford." The ideology here is so widely-accepted that many might not even notice the editorializing. The idea that the state "can no longer afford" this or that provision is highly debatable. (And, of course, "generous" is also an opinion.) The real issue that is at stake here is seen when we look at a comment from a research paper published by the National Center for Policy Analysis (not a liberal group) on productivity. They said: "Over the past 30 years, productivity growth has been higher in France than in the United States. Moreover, productivity levels are about the same between the two countries—only the French have used higher levels of productivity to increase their leisure time, while Americans have sought to increase income." And there you have it. As productivity (output per hour worked) increases, all societies have a choice: Increase material wealth, or work less in favor of doing other things with your time. (Economists call this "leisure," but it can be anything). So we see that the issue of affordability is a political and social decision, with the wisdom of one choice over another a matter of opinion. As the NCPA study points out, France over the past several decades has chosen "leisure" over income, at least compared to the United States. And this is what we see that the current protests in France are all about: Can France "afford" to maintain the current retirement age? More generally, can France "afford" what the Times calls its "generous social welfare provisions"? Well, that depends. French productivity will continue to increase. What will that society choose to do with the increase? Make more money? Or take more time to enjoy life? It's the same debate we are having in the U.S. when we talk about Social Security being "unsustainable." Productivity will continue to increase in this country, as in France. What will we choose to do with it? Such decisions are not simple, which is why I plan to write about productivity in a future issue of Nygaard Notes. But, for now, I simply wish to point out that the assumption made by the Times—that France "can no longer afford" to have the type of society that its people apparently want—reflects a particular point of view, a particular opinion. And, as any respectable journalist will tell you, opinions belong on the editorial page, not in news articles. |
|
Today's Testimonial A librarian in Minneapolis wrote to me in August, saying that she wanted to "aggressively promote" my work, and adding the comment that: "What you are doing is desperately important... ...There aren't
very many people working on these sorts of ideas – there are not
nearly ENOUGH people (much less institutions) working on such matters." |
| "Quote" of the Day: "A Healthy Sense of Sovereignty"
The New York Times is not known for its comedy pieces, but I had to wonder if a lengthy article on October 11th was intended as parody. Or could it really be true that they ran this piece with their institutional tongue somewhere besides in their cheek? It's so difficult to convey the overall absurdity of this article that I think all I'll do is print a series of the most bizarre of the comments found here, followed in each case by a remark or two to help make clear how an Imperial Mindset can distort one's thinking. (I explained what I mean by "Imperial Mindset" in Nygaard Notes Number 445, "The Empire in Our Heads: ‘The Logic of Rule.'") Start with the headline: "U.S. Presses Iraqi Leaders To Make Coalition Broader: Seeking to Undermine Anti-American Party." Comment: Stretch your mind and try to imagine Iraq attacking the United
States, overthrowing its government, and imposing a six–year-long
military occupation in the face of massive resistance. Then imagine
seeing this headline: "Iraq Presses U.S. Leaders To Make Coalition
Broader: Seeking to Undermine Anti-Iraqi Party." The first paragraph: "the Obama administration has intensified pressure on the country's political leaders to form a broad coalition government that, while unwieldy, would marginalize a fiercely anti-American party now poised to wield more influence than ever." Comment: One would imagine that there might be a relationship between the ability of the U.S. to "intensify pressure on the country's political leaders" and the presence of "fiercely anti-American" sentiment. Wouldn't one?
Comment: That is, they put down their arms and are attempting to use the democratic political process to achieve their goals for the country—exactly what we say we want to happen. These goal include diminishing U.S. influence. For this foray into the democratic process, the U.S. is attempting to "undermine" them. Of course.
Comment: Leave aside for the moment the lack of evidence for his claim, or the citing of anonymous "others" to back him up. Just consider that the person speaking is the official representative of a country whose military is responsible for the deaths of tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the course of a seven-year occupation. And he is telling reporters that "democracy can't tolerate" any group "carrying out political objectives through violent means."
Comment: A "senior official" of an occupying power claims that the occupied country is "increasingly reluctant to accept outside meddling," and praises it as ‘a healthy sense of sovereignty.' I'm speechless. |
|
Today's Testimonial Back in May, a faithful reader wrote to say: "Your notes—and your thinking—are a terrific asset.
THANK you, for your integrity and your determination—as well as
keen mind, and ongoing research." |
| "Quote" of the Day: British "Can No Longer Afford
to Police the World"
Back on September 24th the New York Times reported on British plans "to make significant cuts in defense spending." While this might be good news to many, the headline in the Times read "British Cuts To Military Concern U.S. Officials." The very first paragraph tells us what those officials are "concerned" about. They're concerned about "Britain's ability to carry out its role as the United States' most dependable ally." As the Times puts it, "More than other allies, Britain has displayed both the will to join the United States in the initial phase of military operations and the wherewithal to quickly deploy, sustain and command its own forces." As the Daily Mail newspaper of London put it in a headline for an editorial on the subject: "Let's Face it - We Can No Longer Afford to Police the World." And that's the "concern" of the United States, you see. It's neither cheap nor easy to "police the world," and the Imperial commander needs its deputies, with Britain being Deputy #1. It's not the will, it's the "wherewithal" that concerns the Empire. After all, "the entire active-duty British armed forces are smaller than the United States Marine Corps" so "Whatever budgetary steps the British take have major implications for United States military planning." Sure, there may be few actual threats to the British that call for a large military. And it may be true that some in Britain understand that the threat of terrorism may be best addressed by using non-military means. But still, let's not overdo it, says the military expert found by the Times: "Some American experts say that some of the cuts being contemplated—there have been calls to reduce the number of British Army troops by 20 percent eventually—go too far. ‘A cut this deep would probably have a negative impact on the British Army's ability to deploy and sustain substantial forces,' said Antulio J. Echevarria II, the research director of the United States Army War College." And Not Only That... It was exactly one month earlier (August 24th) that the Times reported plans by Germany to scale back its war machine, too. On that day the Times reported that the German Defense Minister "unveiled plans to restructure Germany's armed forces in what is regarded as one of the most radical military shake-ups since the end of the Cold War. The measures include ending conscription, reducing the Bundeswehr, or armed forces, to 163,000 from 250,000 and streamlining the command structures." Whoa! If this keeps up, pretty soon the World's Only Superpower may have to police the world all by itself. That could be costly. So... What to do? We may have to cut spending on things like health care and Social Security in order to afford all of this! Nygaard Notes will be reporting very soon on what looks to be a scheme to do exactly that. |
|
Today's Testimonial The year 2010 started off with a note from a new subscriber to Nygaard Notes, who wrote in to say: "I came across you fairly recently and I like your analysis, clear sighted and no-nonsense approach... Thanks for your hard work—you're helping make 2010 a year for greater fairness, justice and freedom for us all." |
| "Quote" of the Day: For Most of Us, It's a 20-Year Recession
On September 16th the Census Bureau released their annual report called "Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States." It got a little bit of attention in the U.S. media, although not what it deserved. The newspapers that did report on the increases in poverty, the increases in people without health insurance, and the squeeze on the so-called middle class mostly attributed the bad news to the recession. The Dayton Daily News in Ohio summarized the general explanation in their September 17th headline: "Recession Leads to Record High Poverty, Uninsured Rates." While it is true that the recession has made many people's lives worse, a longer-term look at things reveals that the economic forces at work in the modern era have been steering us in this direction for a long time. Here's Doug Henwood, writing in his excellent newsletter, Left Business Observer, the October 9th edition: "Median household income in 2009 was just 2% above where it was in 1989, even though real GDP was up 63 percent over the same period. Of course, population is up about 25 percent over the period, and not all of GDP takes the form of personal income—some of it goes to corporations, some to government. But real disposable income per capita—the total of income after taxes throughout the entire economy divided by the population—is up 40 percent over the last twenty years. So, on paper, or its silicon equivalent, were things being distributed equally, the average household would have gained about 20 times more income than it has in reality. [Emphasis in original.] "The reason for this huge disparity, of course, is that the rich have gotten most of the benefits of economic growth over the last few decades. The top 5 percent of the population, according to the census numbers has gotten 25 percent of the growth in income over the last twenty years—and the top 20 percent altogether has gotten 54 percent, nearly three times what would have been an equal share." Yes, the recession has made things worse. But things were bad for many of us before the recession hit. And, until we get together and change the structures and institutions that steer wealth toward the already wealthy, things will remain bad for most of us. Nygaard Notes will regularly report on this in the coming months and years. The next installment—soon to come—will be on how this inequality affects the deficits that everyone is so worried about. |
