The moral judgments are implicit in the facts. Stiglitz doesn't have to do anything other than report the data as they are.

This must-read analysis of our descent into America’s abyss of misery simplifies how we got here–implicit in the article is the thought that even worst times lay ahead–for we don’t seem able to steer away from the rocky shore of economic disaster as we row to the drum-beating cadence of the radical right wing.

Well presented straight talk from one of the economists who understands the social economic nature of our times. Stieglitz, as a Columbia University professor and former chief economist for the world bank is one of the worlds prime sources in economic knowledge and thought.

This is excellent journalism article. This story should be wriitten by as many as possible.

Well, it’s a good piece but the last chapter is missing. Proceeds are raked in by the 1 percent marauders, I think, more or less, all over the world. In America, inequality is harsher, however. A few make billions, present fake numbers and arguments, and walk away with the cake. Credit ranking industries provide them the support. And when the cave in comes, the losses are invariably picked up by the rest 99 percent on whose savings the governments again pays the 1 percent. An economist can only diagnose if s/he wishes...and the Nobel Laureate has done that.

Impeccably argued, this essay on the current state of affairs in America will, unfortunately, lead nowhere. Not that the 1% won't read it and care--in fact I'm sure that a number of the NewsTrust reviewers who laud this piece are among the 1%. No, the problem is more basic; the 1% have successfully co-opted a significant portion of the 99% by convincing them their interests lie in common with the power elite's corporatist agenda. It is hard to imagine how any of the hard realities that underpin income inequality are likely to change.

Stiglitz is an economist that grasps the fact that economics isn't an arcane theory but affects the lives of an entire social network comprised of human beings. This is not Milton Friedman's stale rehashed version of Adam Smith or the ridiculous "Laffer curve" of Economics 101. Stiglitz writes with the lucidity of C,Wright Mills and John K. Galbraith who had an overriding concern for how economic policy affected the average person.

Well-written opinion piece comparing wealth distribution in troubled countries with wealth distribution in the United States. From a journalistic point of view the story would have benefitted from links and sources, however it is argued well and offers compelling conclusions, highlighting a topic, which seems to be mostly ignored by the mainstream media.

This is one of the best written articles on this subject I have seen. This material can be difficult to express but the author managed to produce an extremely informative article in a short amount of space that is easy to grasp. The facts are in the article but not tied up in the usual mathematics that turn most people off. This should be required reading in all civics classes (if they still exist).

A great econometric overview.

This article addresses a very important problem, concentration of wealth and increasing inequality in the USA.

there are given facts here, but the impressiveness of the article comes from the simple but not simplistic analysis of the consequences of the facts. the factors which relate are all, or almost all here in plain view. what should be frighteningly noted by all involved is the statement, followed by the reasons for it, that "an economy in which most citizens are doing worse year after year...like america's- is not likely do well over the long haul"

I wish I could hit the nail on the head again and again the way this article does.

In addition to my agreement with the other reviews I would add that the author of this article manages to avoid the accusatory language typically used to state the same facts. Those who might be sitting on the fence regarding the point of this article might find it a little more palatable.

Had trouble reading through article, large blocks of text.

It is mostly good journalism because it mostly sticks to verifiable facts. There are two exceptions. Fist, “The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes” is opinion. It lacks specific references to actual persons who think that way. Second, “Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America.” What economists are saying they can’t fully explain?

Lucidly written, to a wide audience, readily accessible. Excellent at integrating the economic inequities with the political, the social, even the psychological. Opinions offered without snark or stridency, allowing the reader to ponder the evidence and makes his/her own judgments. Could have focussed more on the phantom of political parties -- that both, whatever other differences, agree that it's just fine to have 1% earn so much while others are faltering. Excellent use of deTocqueville

I was astonished and pleased by the writer's initiative and courage to report on the reality of the top one percent of people allowing inequality to grow in the United States. Newspaper reporters need to write stories similar to this subject, which often seems to be the "elephant in the room." We can no longer ignore the reality that the individuals responsible for the financial innovations that brought the global economy to the brink of ruin earn higher salaries than people who have contributed innovations to society. In classes, I have learned that 20 percent of the world's population control 80 percent of the world's resources, so this article is an interesting national angle to the story. The writer doesn't include a variety ... More »

This was good journalism because I started off reading the article with one opinion, and wound up with another. Initially, I felt the authors bias and sense of right and wrong was too overwhelming for me to get an accurate picture of an economy that I have constantly struggled to understand. However, her factual backing-up of her assertions as to why our country is in trouble when it comes to wealth distribution was insightful and sobering. Perhaps the most valuable and awe-inpsiring part of this story was when the author cited the young students are are choosing finance over other talents due to its monetary promise, thus scouring the economy even further. I am no expert on the economy, but this article helped me to more ... More »

I thought this article was really well-written as well as really interesting. However, it is not really well-sourced, because it just writes "Experts say," but does not have any quotes from actual experts. However, since this is a magazine-style article, this is not unusual. I really liked the author's style, as well as the way they explained the situation -- the article was very easy to understand. I really enjoyed the article.

Yes, but the 1% still have all the control!

As another reviewer said, the facts speak for themselves.

Vanity always has good journalism.

While the article is well-enough written and may be good journalism, is that all that matters? Mr. Stiglitz relates only facts that are superficial, and this has as little to do with reality as external appearance has to do with the entirety of nature.

He is talking about 'economics', which subject has little connection with the fictional mirage known as 'finance'. And the beneficiaries of the swindle he deals with are only the corporate intermediate puppets, rather than the single-figure number of puppeteers who take the real worth of the planet in the high ninety percents.

He is talking about salaries and commissions rather than overall 'profit' or benefit. For instance, we see little indication that he has ... More »