Prof. Loomba is an absolute disgrace. The fact that the University employs someone so dimwitted is astonishing. I know one professor I’ll never be taking a class with.

Actually, she’s kind of a big deal. Was it the part about “equality and fairness and justice”, or the part about a “genuine attempt at some kind of democracy” that bothered you?

No… what bothered me is it sounds like she supports communism! “we all share in common should belong to all of us”

I have one question for Prof. Loomba: Do you practice what you preach?

Are your books shared “in the common”? Do they belong to all of us or to you? Will you send me free copies? A quick search on Amazon shows them in electronic form so they would be free to post (no cost for ink and dead trees).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syfKVgkLwEE

Sharing what rightfully belongs to ALL of us is hardly anything less than fair, and Prof. Loomba is exactly right in saying so. Elizabeth Warren also made a great case for this:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you! But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Why? Because you disagree with her?

Let me run something by you, anonymous troll. Maybe people who have different beliefs than yours are neither dimwitted nor disgraces. Maybe they just, I don’t know, have different beliefs?

Managed capitalism is not the same thing as communism. I very much hope that you’re not a grad student at Wharton. Or do they not teach the difference?

shes not a disgrace because she has different beliefs. thats totally fine. but if shes teaching this garbage to her students, then yes shes a disgrace

No, she is a disgrace because she is a supposedly educated individual who has no concept of how the real world actually works. She offers no concrete critiques of individual policies and seems to bemoan the lack of free tuition for all and guaranteed employment. May I ask where your lovely English department would be if Penn charged nothing for tuition?

Additionally, calling those in the financial system “parasites” is so biased and uninformed that it is truly pathetic. She may not wish to believe it, but the financial sector produces immense value and provides services that are integral to a thriving economy and that improve our daily lives. She benefits the services the sector provides (credit/debit cards, asset management for her 401K, mortgage services, etc.), yet begrudges those that provide them. Yes, those in finance contributed to the crisis, but so did the meddling government and irresponsible borrowers, many of which are present at the OWS protests. Why doesn’t she direct her ire at them? Oh, that’s right. Because they’re not wealthy, so they don’t deserve criticism.

I mean, she even admits she knows nothing about economics. Perhaps she should stick to writing stories and papers and let those who actually understand the issues at a meaningful level guide our policy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203914304576627191081876286.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

BY CHAD BRAY AND SUSAN PULLIAM

Raj Rajaratnam, the face of the biggest trading scandal in a generation, was sentenced to 11 years in prison, one of the longest-ever terms handed down for an insider case.

“His crimes and the scope of his crimes reflect a virus in our business culture that needs to be eradicated,” U.S. District Judge Richard Holwell said in imposing the sentence. Judge Holwell also ordered Mr. Rajaratnam to pay a $10 million fine.

[The rest is available only to subscribers.]

So because one individual is sentenced for his crimes and because one judge makes a sweeping statement, that is an indictment of the entire financial sector? You’re almost as disingenuous as Dr. Loomba.

Caricaturing the movement and attacking those who voice support of it is neither productive, nor particularly interesting. Nor is damning protesters for not having specific policy proposals- do only economists have the right to protest social conditions they don’t like? Is that what democracy means to you?

As to the major concern Occupy Wall Street is trying to raise, to me is simply- how much inequality are we willing to tolerate as a society? Specifically when economists, including Emmanuel Saez have shown that income concentrated within the top decile, and indeed the top 1% is at unprecedented high levels. Effective taxes paid by the super rich on their entire income (not just the marginal rates) are lower than those paid by working class families. IRS data shows income levels of 80% of Americans
have stagnated or declined in the past two decades, while those of the top have risen absurdly. Yet cutting off services for the majority is seen to the cornerstone of deficit reduction. The protestors don’t see that as particularly fair. Neither do I. You may disagree (although I would encourage you to read the excellent slate series on inequality before you do so: pdf at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html)

Still having a debate is what this process is about- calling people disgraces for holding political opinions is simply lazy, and antidemocratic.

A large chunk of tax revenues are wasted by an inefficient and bloated government. Try fixing these inefficiencies before you beg the productive members of society for handouts. And given that nearly 50% of Americans do not pay any Federal income tax and that the wealthiest 1% pay nearly 40% of all Federal income taxes, the wealthy clearly pay their fair share. That the top earners/producers in our society pay a smaller share of their income as taxes similarly doesn’t matter. Assuming that citizens use public goods somewhat proportionally, shouldn’t we strive for a system in which all taxpayers contribute an equal dollar amount not an equal percentage of their wealth? That seems more equitable to me.

^ Whatever your latest argument should be, at least you have been able to make it in a civilized, humanly decent, educated fashion as opposed to the beastly, amateur name-calling you were resorting to earlier. It seems Professor Loomba has been a vital part of your Penn education in whatever small way, whether you like it or not ;-)

I love the last post. I agree that calling a professor a disgrace for voicing their opinion is just disturbing. Would you prefer your educators to be uncritical, and unengaged with the issues of their day, or worse still to always agree with you? Why pay all that money to go to college?

also a couple of quick numbers which are in the link below, but have also been widely quoted:

1. The top 1% pay most of the taxes because they earn most of the income, not because they pay a unfair share of that income. You say the top 1% pay 40% of federal taxes, but don’t mention they own 42% of the country’s wealth- a figure that has steadily climbed. The bottom 80% own 7% by the way.

2. The inflation-adjusted average hourly wage in this country has not budged in fifty years.The disparity between CEO and worker pay is now 50 times higher than it was from 1960-85.
3. By nearly every inequality statistic, not only is the U.S. far worse than any other OECD nation, it even outstrips several Latin American countries Washington has itself criticized for being highly unequal.

All the movement is saying is that this is not the distribution of opportunity that a just society should aspire to, and have at least enough numbers and scholarly research to warrant an open mind, not derision.

1. By definition, the wealthy will own a large chunk of the nation’s wealth. So what? The overwhelming majority of America’s wealthiest EARNED their money and shouldn’t be subjected to additional government sanctioned theft simply because of this. Should I begrudge Bill Gates because he created software that people were eager to buy? Phil Knight because he sells athletic products that consumers are willing to buy? John Paulson because he made a prescient bet on the mortgage market? Simply because someone can afford to pay more taxes, this doesn’t mean they owe society anything beyond what other citizens owe or deserve to funnel more money into an inefficient government.

2. Citing inflation-adjusted wage statistics is HIGHLY misleading. Wages do not equate to standard of living, which is what is important. While wages have stagnated, the standard of living for middle and lower class citizens has risen dramatically due to a variety of innovations (spurred by self-interested capitalists, not handout seeking hippies). I encourage you to read the report linked below to understand what qualifies as poverty in the United States.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor

As for “distribution of opportunity”, Americans still have equal opportunities to succeed. In our society, more often than not, one’s failure to succeed is a reflection of their own shortcomings. I don’t feel like elaborating, but it is fairly clear from the images and reports of the OWS protests, along with interviews of the protestors, that these aren’t exactly the most ambitious, thoughtful, or hardest working members of our society (which is exactly why this movement will never catch on with a big enough contingent of society to actually leave a lasting impact). They’ve made their choices, now they have to deal with the consequences. Their “strife” is their problem and theirs alone.

Congrats, you found a bastion of conservative thought to support your conservative views. Everyone knows that if you have a microwave you can’t actually be suffering from poverty!

“The Heritage Foundation is a conservative American think tank based in Washington, D.C. Heritage’s stated mission is to “formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.”“

We live in a society where 10% of the country owns 88% of the wealth, where more people are incarcerated than ever before in the history of humanity (far more than in Stalin’s USSR and Nazi Germany combined), where an overwhelming proportion of those being incarcerated are people of color, where more wars have been initiated by this country than any single nation in humanity’s history, where education per student in institutions like this costs the same as the amount that would feed the population of small so-called third-world countries for long periods of time, and students like “Penn Student” are incensed that Professors like Loomba want to start a conversation around these issues? Seriously? I mean I understand if people have differing viewpoints over how to tackle these issues, but going ballistic over wanting to have a conversation about them in an educational setting? Unbelievable!

Sorry – I meant more wars initiated by the U.S. than any other nation in the 20th and 21st century.

“Assuming that citizens use public goods somewhat proportionally,”
-I hope by public goods you simply mean the streets, otherwise you must have grown up far away from social disparities.

“shouldn’t we strive for a system in which all taxpayers contribute an equal dollar amount not an equal percentage of their wealth? That seems more equitable to me.”

- Equal dollar amount? Of all the things I’ve read – this tops stupidity.
Try telling a black 50yr old janitor (who couldn’t afford staying in public school so he had to drop out) that he has to pay the same as a brain surgeon. He would never afford it. And what amount? $50? $100? $1,000? more? Piece of cake for the surgeon, dreadful for the janitor.

PLEASE, please take socially relevant courses while at Penn or you will just be one more clueless, socially retarded person shaming the name of Penn. I can see many other conservatives flinching at your uneducated, embarrassing comments.

And if you don’t want to learn – don’t breed.

@ Concerned Penn Students
1. Assuming people use public goods somewhat proportionally, I asserted that they should pay for these goods somewhat proportionally. What is so confusing/controversial about this? I use the roads, so I’ll help pay for them via taxation. However, I don’t use the roads (or all public goods) 2x as much as others, so I shouldn’t have to pay 2x as much in taxes. In case you’re unaware, this is how the real world works. You pay for things in proportion to how much you use/consume them.

2. Your assumption is that taxation should be based on ability to pay, and thus you oppose a regressive tax regime. You still haven’t explained why the wealthy should bear the burden that others cannot. Simply because the wealthy can pay more taxes, it doesn’t mean they should have to. Imagine if you were in a class, and simply because you had a higher GPA, the professor made you do more work than students with lower GPAs. Would these be equitable?

@ Penn Student in response to Penn Student
Yes, Heritage is a conservative think tank. You still haven’t refuted the actual conclusions of their research. Penn is a decidedly liberal institution, so do you assert that every piece of research from Penn can’t be trusted as a result?

As for the article, if you have multiple cars, cable/satellite TV, videogames, etc., you are not impoverished. Your remark about microwaves misses the entire point. Each data point isn’t that remarkable, but combined, they paint a compelling picture of “poverty” in the US.

I am sick and tired of people who think that the rich owe anything to anyone. Just because we’re rich and others are starving? That’s ridiculous. If they didn’t want to starve, they should be rich like us! We EARNED our money by, for example, hiring people at slave wages and making big profits off their labor: that’s how we EARNED our wealth and we don’t have to give a cent of it back. If others want to be rich, they should go out and exploit workers and destroy the environment and so forth. So to the children who are suffering from malnutrition a few blocks from Penn, whose schools are segregated, their ceilings caving in, WHATEVER: too bad you don’t know how to EARN money like I do! When you’re rich like me, who worked so hard to pay my Penn tuition (or my parents did, or okay so it was the workers my parents exploited who really did the hard work, but they aren’t rich so too bad for them!) — well, anyway, when you’re rich like me then you can talk to me about sharing. Unless you’re Warren Buffet who is a traitor to the rich with all his talk of paying a fair share of taxes. What’s the point of being rich if you have to share any of it?