Robert B. Reich, a co-founder of The American Prospect, is a Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. His website can be found here and his blog can be found here.
D ot-com billionaires are sprouting like spring crocuses, and their money is trickling down through the rich topsoil of America. The average pay of chief executives of major companies rose 18 percent in 1999, to $12 million. (Back in 1990, it was a modest $1.8 million.) Fearful of the dot-com brain drain, big law firms just hiked the pay of first-year associates to $120,000, not including signing bonuses. Wall Street investment banks, facing the same threat, are even raising the pay of analysts just out of college, to more than $75,000. The frenzy knows no bounds. Setting a new moral example for college students across America, the president of Brown University, not content with a meager $300,000 salary, just jumped ship after only a year and a half for another university that offered three times as much. Fed chief Alan Greenspan fears that all this prosperity is causing consumers to buy more than the economy can produce, which means that inflation is just around the corner. So...
I f they were true profit-maximizers--textbook illustrations of rational self-interest--American corporations and their top executives would be flooding Al Gore's campaign with money, and not George W.'s. Rather than gamble on an unknown W., they'd bet on a proven Al Gore.
No administration in modern history has been as good for American business as has the Clinton-Gore team; none has been as solicitous of the concerns of business leaders, generated as much profit for business, presided over as buoyant a stock market or as huge a run-up in executive pay. And no vice president in modern history has had as much influence in setting an administration's agenda as has Al Gore.
Consider fiscal policy. You'll recall that by 1992, after 12 years of Republicans in the White House, the nation's debt had almost quadrupled, from $914 billion to $4 trillion, and yearly deficits had quintupled from $59 billion to more than $300...
Any time now, government economists will decide whether America Online's (AOL's) $165-billion proposed take-over of Time Warner is likely to be good or bad for consumers. If good, the government will sign off. If bad, there'll be negotiations with AOL and Time Warner until an agreement can be reached on what the new company would have to do to answer economic objections. The inquiry will be quiet and businesslike, occurring in colorless offices and occasionally in meeting rooms filled not only with economists but also with government lawyers and the counsel and investment bankers representing AOL and Time Warner.
I'll save all those economists and lawyers and bankers a lot of time and trouble, and answer their questions right here:
Is the combination efficient? Yes. AOL serves about 20 million Internet subscribers. Time Warner serves 13 million cable subscribers and also has a lot of content--magazines, movie and music studios, and...
The Wall Street Journal
If I had my way there would be laws restricting cigarettes and handguns.
But Congress won't even pass halfway measures. Cigarette companies have
admitted they produce death sticks, yet Congress won't lift a finger to stub
them out. Teenage boys continue to shoot up high schools, yet Congress
won't pass stricter gun controls. The politically potent cigarette and gun
industries have got what they wanted: no action. Almost makes you lose
faith in democracy, doesn't it?
Apparently that's exactly what's happened to the Clinton administration. Fed
up with trying to move legislation, the White House is launching lawsuits to
succeed where legislation failed. The strategy may work, but at the cost of
making our frail democracy even weaker.
The Justice Department is going after the tobacco companies with a law
designed to fight mobsters--the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
(Broadcast 5/24/01) When President Bush recently addressed Yale s graduating seniors, he gave a hearty "well done" to those who got straight A s, but consoled the C students by telling them that they, too, could be president of the United States. Apparently, he was referring to his own less than stellar academic performance as a Yale undergraduate. A C-average as the key to success? Actually the President was on to something. Studies show that students who graduate from college with straight-A s have less chance of becoming chief executives of anything, and also are less likely to become rich later in life, than are students with more modest grades. A recruiter from a major investment bank told me recently he no longer even bothers to interview straight-A students from Ivy League universities, because -- he says -- they ve spent their whole lives jumping obediently through every hoop placed in front of them. He wants young people who are out to beat the system -- who are innovative...