Quotes About Government

It was unreal as everything else--as the philanthropic pretense of the whole concern, as their talk, as their government, as their show of work. The only real feeling was a desire to get appointed to a trading post where ivory was to be had, so that they could earn percentages.

Conrad regarded the formation of a representative government in Russia as unfeasible and foresaw a transition from autocracy to dictatorship.

Of course, government in general, any government anywhere, is a thing of exquisite comicality to a discerning mind;

Globalization is the field on which some of our major societal conflicts—including those over basic values—play out. Among the most important of those conflicts is that over the role of government and markets.

If our economic system leads to so many people without jobs, or with jobs that do not pay a livable wage, dependent on the government for food, it means that our economic system has not worked in the way it should, and then government has to step in.

Loose money and light regulation were a toxic mixture. It exploded.

Quinto, los programas de Gobierno para conseguir una prosperidad compartida deberían enfocarse a la vez en la distribución de los ingresos de mercado —lo que a veces se denomina predistribución— y la redistribución, los ingresos de que disfrutan los individuos tras los impuestos y pagos.

Quinto, los programas de Gobierno para conseguir una prosperidad compartida deberían enfocarse a la vez en la distribución de los ingresos de mercado

Sexto, visto que las reglas del juego y tantos otros aspectos de nuestra economía y sociedad dependen del Gobierno

Antes que una reforma económica habrá que hacer una reforma política.

Suppose someone were to describe a small country that provided free education through university for all of its citizens, transportation for schoolchildren, and free health care - including heart surgery - for all. You might suspect that a country is either phenomenally rich or on the fast track to fiscal crisis.

el Brexit en Reino Unido y la elección de Donald Trump en Estados Unidos— plantearon dudas respecto a la sabiduría de los electorados democráticos.

More than 80 years ago, John Maynard Keynes explained why market economies often have persistent unemployment and taught us how government could maintain the economy at or near full employment.

The irony is that just as markets started delivering more unequal outcomes, tax policy asked less of the top. The top marginal tax rate was lowered from 70 percent under Carter to 28 percent under Reagan; it went up to 39.6 percent under Clinton and down finally to 35 percent under George W. Bush.54 This reduction was supposed to lead to more work and savings, but it didn't.55

the newly elected government was told in effect that they had no choice: accept the conditions or your banking system will be destroyed, your economy will be devastated, and you will have to leave the euro. What does it mean to be a democracy, where the citizens seemingly have no say over the issues about which they care the most, or the way their economy is run?

Capitalist economies have thus always involved a blend of private markets and government—the question is not markets or government, but how to combine the two to best advantage.

The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy are to spend money on common needs. The rich don't need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security. They can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people.

For now, we simply note that the marked reduction in inequality in the period between 1950 and 1970, was due partly to developments in the markets but even more to government policies, such as the increased access to higher education provided by the GI Bill and the highly progressive tax system enacted during World War II.

one can't really separate out any individual's contributions from those of others. Even in the context of technological change, most inventions entail the synthesis of preexisting elements rather than invention de novo. Today, at least in many critical sectors, a large fraction of all advances depend on basic research funded by the government.

There is another way for moneyed interests to get what they want out of government: convince the 99 percent that they have shared interests. This strategy requires an impressive sleight of hand; in many respects the interests of the 1 percent and the 99 percent differ markedly. The fact that the 1 percent has so successfully shaped public perception testifies to the malleability of beliefs. When others engage in it, we call it "brainwashing" and "propaganda."1

Just as Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib have eroded America's moral authority, so the Bush administration's fiscal housekeeping has eroded our economic authority.

A central thesis of chapters 2 and 3 is that market failures—and the failure of government to circumscribe them—play a key role in explaining inequality in America. At the top there are rents (such as monopoly rents); at the bottom there is underinvestment in human capital. Hidden subsidies that distort the market and rules of the game that give an upper hand to those at the top have compounded the problems.

Incluso estalló una discusión entre dos de mis compañeros, un antiguo policía que criticó de manera virulenta al Gobierno y un exmaestro de escuela que le señaló que la protección social y los pagos por discapacidad de los que hoy dependía él mismo como expolicía provenían de ese Gobierno.

during the 2008 crisis, corporate welfare reached new heights. In the great bailout of the Great Recession, one corporation alone, AIG, got more than $180 billion—more than was spent on welfare to the poor from 1990 to 2006.68 As