i love this poster.
Nicholas Kristof argues that the U.S. is at the level of plutocratic banana republics:
CEOs of the largest American companies earned an average of 42 times as much as the average worker in 1980, but 531 times as much in 2001. Perhaps the most astounding statistic is this: From 1980 to 2005, more than four-fifths of the total increase in American incomes went to the richest 1 percent.
Step back and (for the moment) avoid passing judgment on whether this state of affairs is good or bad. What’s fascinating is that against this backdrop, last week’s election went to the Republicans, who admit that their top priority is passing large tax cuts for the richest 2 percent of Americans. I know much has been written about this, but I think it defies easy explanation how economic policies that benefit so very few enjoy the support of so many.
The effects were not short-lived, either. When the volunteers whose performance improved was re-tested six months later, the benefits appear to have persisted.
I’ve never really thought about why President Lincoln was facing the other way on the penny. I’m sure there’s a valid reason why he’s looking one way while the others are looking the opposite, but the above explanation seems as good a reason as any.
Marissa says that actually, Lincoln is the only one facing “forward” – and the rest are facing back.
social change (is) driven by mobilization (which is) driven by connecting people