Barack Obama was asked to give the Mandela Lecture because he represents what the global liberation struggle icon stood for. He struck the right chord.
The largest cities in Australia and the US are both the richest and the most likely to push out low-income earners. Having cities of all sizes will increase people’s choices of where to live and work.
Income inequality, the most common way to measure the gap between the rich and the poor, only tells part of the story. Wealth inequality tells the rest.
The data show wealth inequality has grown but is lower now than before the GFC. And overall household income inequality has barely shifted since the start of this century.
Trump should drop his plans to cut taxes and instead look to some of our closest friends to learn what policies actually work to build and sustain a vibrant middle class.
Wealth inequality is no 21st-century phenomenon. But it was decisively shaped by public policy during the last 100 years as economies emerged from war and redesigned the structures for life.
Today the world is dominated by 30 financial corporations that hold more than half the shareholdings of its corporate giants. And they follow the logic of finance capital – the logic of money.
Housing experts writing for The Conversation largely agree on the government policies that are causing negative distortions in the market and the wider economy. And supply is not the key concern.
Our big cities increase incomes faster than population growth, but most residents miss out on the extra income growth. Creating multiple centres of activity may help make bigger better for everyone.
According to the latest Oxfam report, the richest eight people in the world are as wealthy as the bottom 50% of the world’s population. But let’s scrutinise these numbers a bit more.