It’s no surprise that the economic policies of the past few decades have been largely neoliberal.
The main reason for this is that the neoliberal policies that followed the crash of 2008-2009, including the Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing programme, were premised on the assumption that the world would recover.
The global financial crisis was the biggest shock to the global economy in history, wiping out trillions of dollars in wealth.
However, the policies that were imposed after 2008, and especially the Fed’s quantitative easing programme, have had the effect of eroding the wealth of millions of people and creating a vast financial bubble.
While the economic effects of these policies are far from over, they have made the global financial system more vulnerable to crises, and it’s these economic shocks that have led to the rise of populist parties such as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and France’s Front National (FN).
The populist parties have taken advantage of the economic woes to appeal to voters in the form of populist policies, such as a promise to reduce the wealth tax (WST), which the OECD estimated in 2016 to be the third-most expensive in the world.
This was done by promising to reduce corporate taxes and cutting taxes for the rich.
However this is not enough for populist parties.
The problem with these populist policies is that they ignore the fact that they are not the only way to tackle inequality.
The real solution to inequality in our society is not by reducing inequality, but by addressing inequality and increasing social mobility.
As an economist, I’ve argued that we need to invest in the development of more and more skills, particularly in the sciences, education, and the arts.
However we need also to invest more in the provision of basic services, such a healthcare system, which have the potential to create more inclusive societies and increase social mobility as people get better skills.
To this end, I propose a policy that will invest in research, research infrastructure, and investment in skills, education and the sciences.
The solution is a radical redistribution of wealth from the top 1 per cent to the bottom 80 per cent.
We need to transform the social relationship between the wealthy and the rest of us.
We can start with a radical new income distribution system that allows the bottom half of the society to receive as much as 80 per to 90 per cent of all the income generated by the top 20 per cent while the top 10 per cent receive less than 40 per cent and the bottom 40 per to 50 per cent get less than 10 per to 15 per cent per year.
This means that, starting with the top 0.1 per cent, all workers will receive at least 80 per per cent in income and will receive a share of all profits.
The remaining 20 per to 30 per cent will be paid the same amount as the bottom 20 per, but their share of the pie will be reduced from the current 50 per to 40 per per.
A redistribution of income would also give a boost to the poorest of the poor.
The top 10 percent of the population, who are the most vulnerable to income inequality, would receive an income of about 20 per per cents on the dollar compared to a current 50-50 distribution.
By contrast, the bottom 50 per per of the people would receive less income than today, but they would receive a much bigger share of profits.
This redistribution of resources will create a more equitable society.
By investing in skills and education, we can ensure that we don’t lose a generation of young people who have the ability to build their own skills, and we will create an environment where we can all succeed in a global economy.
The key issue is how to redistribute wealth in a way that is sustainable, and therefore also that is good for our economy.
This is where we have to look at the social impact of our policies.
The most important part of redistributing wealth is the distribution of wealth between the top two thirds of the economy.
Under current policy, the top 5 per cent is receiving around 60 per cent; this is based on the top marginal tax rate of 35 per cent on income over $300,000.
This amount would be reduced to 25 per cent under a redistribution of assets.
In other words, the government would get a massive boost to its bottom line by increasing the amount of wealth held by the bottom fifth of the global population.
In order to be sustainable, our tax system has to be progressive, so that the richest people in the country pay more than the poorest people.
To achieve this, we have got to change our taxation regime to encourage investment in public goods.
The UK and Europe have some of the best tax systems in the developed world.
In fact, the UK is a model of progressive taxation, with the highest rates on investment and business and a low rate on dividends.
But we also have a high level of inequality.
This inequality is creating a financial bubble in the UK, where many people are losing their jobs because they have less than the minimum wage to support them.
The Government needs