Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

The <keyword id="2219970" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="World-Book-Night">World Book Night</keyword> (now in its fourth year and coincides with the <keyword id="2219971" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="UNESCO-International-Day-of-the-Book">UNESCO International Day of the Book</keyword>) came and went, but did it impact our life in any way? In the UK, 20 titles were selected and thousands of those <keyword id="5050" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="books">books</keyword> were given away for free on the night of <keyword id="6460904" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="April-23">April 23</keyword> to inspire people who “haven’t yet been turned on” to reading. A quick look at the list had us pleasantly surprised. It included the works of <keyword id="210859" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Agatha-Christie">Agatha Christie</keyword>, <keyword id="17397" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Jeffrey-archer">Jeffrey Archer</keyword>, <keyword id="324611" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="John-Grisham">John Grisham</keyword>, <keyword id="241349" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Roald-Dahl">Roald Dahl</keyword>, <keyword id="1367712" type="PERSON" weightage="80" keywordseo="Andy-McNab">Andy McNab</keyword> and others – mostly popular stuff that may actually drive reluctant readers back to the age-old habit of reading. 
 And that brings another startling fact to the forefront. If reading less is a global malady, men could be suffering more from it than their female counterparts. No, we are not getting gender-biased here. The findings came from a survey commissioned by the <keyword id="2219978" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Reading-Agency">Reading Agency</keyword> and conducted by <keyword id="2219982" type="COMPANY" weightage="100" keywordseo="OnePoll">OnePoll</keyword>. According to the report, researchers from OnePoll spoke to 2,000 British men and <keyword id="624" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="100" keywordseo="Women">women</keyword> ahead of the World Book Night and it was found that 75% of the men would watch the big screen version of a story, instead of reading the original book. In fact, 30% of the men said they had not read a book after their school days. 
 But in spite of all the statistics, reading does change one’s life. They say everyone can write at least one classic – their own life story. Surprisingly enough, we have one such book in our April list – the <keyword id="2219985" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Posthumous-collection">posthumous collection</keyword> of <keyword id="642178" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Essays">essays</keyword> and <keyword id="851600" type="PERSON" weightage="100" keywordseo="short-stories">short stories</keyword> by a young <keyword id="2219988" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="Yale-graduate">Yale graduate</keyword> that has gone viral and read by at least 1.4 million people across 98 countries. That gives us great hope that books (in any format) will never become obsolete. Browse through our list of seven wonder works – analytical, inspirational, <keyword id="820033" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="80" keywordseo="sublime">sublime</keyword>, but essentially a <keyword id="6374782" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="journey">journey</keyword> towards a changing world order, a look into the changing times. 
 
Image: Thinkstock/Getty Images

April Read: Try These
7 Books To Usher In A Summer Of Change

Conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos Milo Yiannopoulos announced that he was planning to launch a comeback tour <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart-2017-2" target="_blank">after his abrupt resignation as editor from the far-right website </a><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/milo-yiannopoulos-resigns-breitbart-2017-2" target="_blank">Breitbart</a> News earlier this year. The multi-day event, which he called "MILO'S FREE SPEECH WEEK," is scheduled be held in Berkeley, California - one of the cities known for its promotion of free speech since the 1960s - sometime later this year. He said the event would presumably draw activists, YouTubers, veterans, and more "from across the ideological spectrum." "We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression and the First Amendment," wrote Yiannopoulos in a statement on his <a href="https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/photos/a.594779487326617.1073741828.423006854503882/897230913748138/?type=3&amp;theater" target="_blank">Facebook page</a>. "All will be welcome, regardless of political affiliation."Berkeley has recently been embroiled in controversy after the University of California at Berkeley campus attempted to schedule an appearance of Yiannopoulos for a book tour in February. The event was eventually canceled after violent protests erupted on campus. More recently, the conservative best-selling author Ann Coulter was also scheduled to appear at UC Berkeley later this month. She said she was facing restraints and "burdensome conditions" from campus officials on her scheduled appearance. "I'm speaking at Berkeley on April 27th, as I was invited to do and have a contract to do," Coulter wrote in a <a href="https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/855189398282883074" target="_blank">series of tweets</a>. "Berkeley just imposed an all-new arbitrary &amp; harassing condition on my exercise of a constitutional right."Yiannopoulos appeared to acknowledge Coulter's current situation with campus officials and included conditions for his event. "If UC Berkeley does not actively assist us in the planning and execution of this event, we will extend festivities to an entire month," he continued. "We will establish a tent city on Sproul Plaza protesting the university's total dereliction of its duty and encourage students at other universities to follow suit." <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/putin-us-planning-false-flag-attacks-frame-assad-using-chemical-weapons-syria-idlib-2017-4">PUTIN: The US is planning false-flag attacks in Syria to frame Assad for using chemical weapons</a></h3> Please enable Javascript to watch this video

Milo Yiannopoulos announces 'grand comeback tour' at UC Berkeley

<a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-business-insider-interview"></div></div></div>After nearly 30 years of writing, Michael Lewis has tackled his first love story.Lewis, the author of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Big-Short-Inside-Doomsday-Machine/dp/0393338827">The Big Short</a>" and "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Art-Winning-Unfair-Game/dp/0393324818">Moneyball</a>," didn't go the typical romance route, though. His new book, "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Undoing-Project-Friendship-Changed-Minds/dp/0393254593">The Undoing Project</a>," tells the story of Daniel "Danny" Kahneman and Amos Tversky, two best friends who revolutionized cognitive psychology.As Lewis put it to Business Insider, the relationship between these two brilliant Israeli psychologists "was a love story without the sex."Kahneman's and Tversky's personalities and ideas perfectly complemented each other's. They understood each other in ways no one else could, and this resulted in groundbreaking work on judgment and decision-making through the 1970s and '80s.Tversky died from cancer in 1996, but Kahneman has continued to develop their ideas and generate many new ones, and he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2002.Kahneman and Tversky's theories have influenced medicine and public policy, and led to the founding of behavioral economics and an analytic approach to crafting professional sports teams.And while their work has been explored for many years, Lewis was in a unique position to tell the human story behind the ideas - Lewis taught Tversky's son Oren during his teaching fellowship at the University of California at Berkeley in the late '90s and would later help Kahneman shape his 2011 bestseller, "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555">Thinking, Fast and Slow</a>."We sat down with Lewis to discuss "The Undoing Project," and how Kahneman and Tversky's ideas can offer a valuable lens for viewing Donald Trump's election, Wall Street, and sports.This interview has been edited for clarity and length.Richard Feloni: A central theme of "The Undoing Project" is the fallibility of human judgment. This entire election season was filled with surprises not predicted by polls or pundits on either side. How do you look at this election year using Kahneman and Tversky's theories?Michael Lewis: When I wrote "The Undoing Project," I was not thinking of the American election, and I did not think Donald Trump was going to be elected president. But one of the great things about Amos Tversky and Danny Kahneman is they give you a lens for interpreting human behavior and you can filter the whole election through them.<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_right"><div class="image on-image"></div></div>The first thing they would say is people don't like uncertainty, and their minds are tools for making sense of the world, even when the world is senseless. They dislike uncertainty so much that they will impose an order on it even when it doesn't exist. And in their leaders, advisers, and experts, they much prefer overconfidence, total certainty, to any kind of doubt.I'd say part of the appeal of Trump is that he's presenting himself as a totally certain, infallible person.Then there's anchoring. Amos and Danny did these studies where they'd give their lab subjects a wheel of fortune with the numbers one to 100 on it and have them spin the wheel. And then, after subjects get a number, they ask them what they think the percentage of countries in the United Nations come from Africa. And people who had spun a high number would guess a higher percentage than people who had spun a low number. Amos and Danny showed that you could anchor the mind into answering a question a certain way by giving them a totally unrelated piece of information dropped before.Trump's anchoring people every which way. "There are millions of illegal voters." Everything's "huge." I don't think he's doing it consciously, but he does very well in kind of inserting himself into those kind of chinks in our mental armor.Feloni: What about looking at the way that those who opposed Trump are struggling to accept it?Lewis: Danny and Amos studied the rules of the human imagination when it tries to undo something, tries to create an alternative reality. Say a loved one dies in an accident. You imagine, "If only they hadn't been on that train when it went off the rails - if only." After the election, some people tried to undo Trump. They started with the outcome and worked their way back to find the first thing they could undo to change the outcome. So the first thing they could undo was the FBI director stirring up trouble about Hillary's emails, when really there are all kinds of things that could have happened that would have changed the election.The last thing I'll say is that Danny and Amos pointed out that when something happens people didn't predict, they find ways to explain it as if it were predictable. And you see this in spades in our country right now. You'll be amazed by how many people will have "predicted" this thing a year from now, who didn't see it the day before Election Day. The tone of the commentary is already like, "If you had been out there and you'd taken the pulse of the ordinary American, you'd have seen it coming," as if it were a failure of intelligence. But that's not what it was at all! It was a kind of accident. He got almost 3 million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton! He happened to get more in some of the right places. It was just like one of those things where a stock going up and people impose a false sense of order on it. It's really more intellectually honestly viewed as a disorderly process.Feloni: What made you want to tell the story of Danny Kahneman and Amos Tversky? What do you want readers to learn about their personal lives?<table class="float_left" dir="ltr" border="0"><tbody><tr><td>WATCH: Why Lewis wrote 'The Undoing Project'<div></div></td></tr></tbody></table>Lewis: I always find with my stories that the way they start is that I just get so interested in a person that I'm compelled to go back to them over and over until I learn more and more about them, without even quite thinking it's material for a book. Maybe I'm thinking it's a magazine piece. What set me over the edge with this story was, one, the sheer level of interest of the two main characters. They have great literary dimensions. Two, the peculiar passionate relationship between them, which was a love story without the sex. Their children were ideas.And three, was just the influence of their ideas. You see them everywhere. There are people in medicine who will tell you that they've deeply influenced medical diagnosis and the way doctors think about their jobs. On Wall Street, you go back to the origins of the suspicion of stock picking, the beginning of the movement toward index funds, and their fingerprints are all over that. They're also all over "Moneyball," the whole statistical movement in sports. Every place where big data and algorithms are challenging experts, you will find Kahneman and Tversky in the room.There just aren't many stories that are this good. It was a really good, really important story, and I had peculiar access to it.Feloni: How do their personal stories shed light on their theories?<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>The thing about their relationship and the intensity of their feelings for each other was that it was so important in their work. The ideas are all about human fallibility - human vulnerability, even - and their origin largely starts with Danny Kahneman exploring his own fallibility, his own vulnerability. But he was incapable of doing that by himself, in part because he was so unsure of himself. Amos created a safe place in which Danny felt not only confidence but a kind of unconditional acceptance and love.The strength of that relationship is what enabled them to explore what's weak in people. And it was the great insight into themselves - particularly looking into Danny - that was the source of their idea generation. So it's not surprising that when the relationship started to fracture that the ideas also started to dry up.Feloni: Your previous book, "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Flash-Boys-Wall-Street-Revolt/dp/0393351599">Flash Boys</a>" - about <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/iex-ceo-brad-katsuyama-interview-lies-flash-boys-and-egregious-pricing-2016-6">Brad Katsuyama</a> gathering a team to take on what he felt to be abuses of high-frequency trading - also had protagonists shaking things up. In the two years since that was published, his firm, <a href="https://www.iextrading.com/">IEX</a>, has become an exchange and is planning on listing companies in 2017. Your book had the effect of making them celebrities of sorts. Are they meeting your expectations?Lewis: They have exceeded my expectations. The world around them has also exceeded my expectations in their attempts to stop them from actually improving the markets. I think the game is slightly changing, and that because they're now an exchange, they can generate data showing what is essentially the grift that goes on in other exchanges - what it costs investors to trade on those versus on an exchange like IEX that is actually trying to level the playing field and not give high-frequency traders an advantage. The game is going to be getting that information now.I didn't know what the reaction to "Flash Boys" was going to be, because although I have written other Wall Street books, I'd never written one that threatened to take away money from people. And it's still unclear how big those sums of money are, but it's clearly billions of dollars a year. Now I know what happens when you do that - you generate essentially an opposition political campaign against a book. It was as fraudulent as many political campaigns are.<table class="float_right" dir="ltr" border="0"><tbody><tr><td>WATCH: Lewis explains how Wall Street has changed<div></div></td></tr></tbody></table>And the truth is, this isn't my war to fight. It's Brad Katsuyama's war to fight - I am an interloper. I came in because I was really interested in a pretty simple thing: what happens when someone tries to introduce moral considerations into Wall Street, what happens when someone wants to actually demand of himself and those who work with him that what they do is not just profitable but good and useful.I feel a little bad for Brad Katsuyama and the people at IEX - they're on their own doing this - but I think it's going to be OK. It may take a little while, but I think they're going to be a very, very big part of the stock market.Feloni: Polls increasingly show <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/harvard-mbas-dont-want-to-go-into-banking-anymore-2015-8">Wall Street doesn't have the pull it used to for top talent fresh out of college</a>. What does Wall Street look like to you now compared to when you were in it in the '80s?Lewis: What's happened to Wall Street since "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Liars-Poker-Norton-Paperback-Michael/dp/039333869X">Liar's Poker</a>" came out in '89 is that its relationship with the rest of society has become much more problematic. It's become cagier, more guarded, closed, and afraid of how it seems to the wider world. More political. But it's not clear to me it's become less profitable!If you're the kind of kid who thinks that all that's important in life is making money, it's probably still the place to go, especially now that Trump's elected. In Wall Street now, you have to hide what you're doing. It's more fun when you don't have to do that. But I don't think its sense of purpose has changed at all.<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>Now, the exception is that there are disruptors who are trying to fix the financial system with entrepreneurship, like Brad Katsuyama. You find great purpose there, but you may not find great profits when the game you're playing is making a living by reducing the size of Wall Street, sucking some of the revenues out of it, and reducing the tax the financial-sector levies on the rest of the economy. You're not going to get rich doing that like you get rich figuring out how to increase the tax.Feloni: You discuss in the introduction to "The Undoing Project" the legacy of your book "Moneyball" and its protagonist, former Oakland A's General Manager Billy Beane. Since the book was published in 2003, the analytics approach to building a pro sports team has become standard. How can scouts be useful in this environment?Lewis: I thought about this back when "Moneyball" was published. Billy Beane, he didn't ask for my opinion, but I told him, you've got this army of scouts, and they're not doing what they should be doing. They're eyeballing the players and judging if they can be big-league players based on small sample sizes, the games they happen to attend. You get a much better picture of their professional potential when you're dealing with a big body of data.What scouts should be doing is figuring out if these players have a drug problem, if they may have a difficult time living away from home, if they have weird problems with their teammates, if they don't listen to their coach, or if they're hiding an injury. What you should do is basically hire a bunch of young journalists to go figure out who these people are, because some of that information will be helpful.The trick is figuring out what the algorithm does well and what people do well.<table class="float_left" dir="ltr" border="0"><tbody><tr><td>WATCH: Lewis weighs in on Trump's election<div></div></td></tr></tbody></table>Feloni: One of the narrative arcs that shows up often in your work has an outsider - maybe this person was laughed at by people in positions of power - and then this person goes on to shake things up and influence the people who once mocked him. Does Trump fit into one of these Michael Lewis stories?Lewis: [Laughs] The problem is my characters are actually usually pretty smart and admirable and I don't think he's either. So the answer is "unlikely"! You never know. Look, just because you've been successful and just because you've disrupted an environment, doesn't mean you're a role model or that you actually have anything to teach anybody. There's an awful lot of luck and accident in the world, and maybe you were just on the receiving end of that.The thing I'm most afraid of is what happens when these people who voted for Donald Trump realize he's not going to do anything for them and that he's not an antidote to what ails them. His whole movement runs on anger, and if it doesn't have anger, it doesn't go anywhere. Where is that anger going to turn when they all of a sudden realize that he's running an administration to empower rich people?Feloni: You've said you're concerned about which <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-big-short-author-michael-lewis-says-this-is-where-you-should-put-your-money-2016-12-07">financial regulations may be rolled back in the coming administration</a>.Lewis: The idea that it's smart to allow Wall Street firms, with this "too big to fail" imprimatur, to become hedge funds again - it's unconscionable. You're essentially saying we're going to take some elites in our society and let them roll the bones in the marketplace, and if it works out they get rich, and if it doesn't work out the taxpayer comes in again. That seems absolutely crazy to me. That seems to be where they're headed. I mean, maybe they're not and I'm wrong. Maybe they'll do sensible things. It's hard to know! There doesn't seem to be a plan. <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/tools-of-titans-tim-ferriss-common-success-principles-2016-12">'The 4-Hour Workweek' author Tim Ferriss reveals 2 common principles he's found in successful people</a></h3> <div> <div> <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="5ucHE0ODE6nRBepN1k7VBVr2oRaq18AY" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div> </div> </div> </div>

'The Big Short' author Michael Lewis tells us about his unusual new 'love story,' and how it can add insight into Trump's election and a changing Wall Street

<ul class="summary-list"><li><keyword id="6806544" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="Jason-Stanley">Jason Stanley</keyword>, a philosophy professor at <keyword id="6378934" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="yale-university">Yale University</keyword>, argues that Trump's deployment of federal agents in cities such as <keyword id="92788" type="COMPANY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Portland">Portland</keyword> could serve to reduce voter turnout.</li><li>Research suggests that voting declines in communities that have the most exposure to law enforcement.</li><li>"One thing we need to worry about is CBP and ICE being used to intimidate people at the polls," Stanley said. "I'm not predicting it will happen. I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying that we have to worry about it."</li></ul>The deployment of federal agents in cities such as Portland, Chicago, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/new-mexico-democrats-condemn-federal-deployment-in-albuquerque-2020-7">and Albuquerque</a> serves one purpose, from the perspective of President Donald Trump's reelection campaign, one expert believes: it shows the president of the United States taking the "law-and-order" fight to the left and people protesting police brutality, in cities led by Democrats."It's not obvious that it's working," Jason Stanley, a philosophy professor and expert on <keyword id="6563127" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="fascism">fascism</keyword> at Yale University, said in <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/is-trump-fascist-jason-stanley-says-it-is-wrong-question-2020-7">an interview with Business Insider</a>. Trump is less popular now than he was before civil unrest rocked major cities. That, however, presents another concern."If it doesn't work," Stanley said, "we also have to worry about the security of the election."Author of the 2018 best-seller, "How Fascism Works: The <keyword id="6358883" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="politics">Politics</keyword> of Us and Them," Stanley already sees an anti-democratic side benefit to "flooding these cities with federal agents": "When people encounter law enforcement, they're much less likely to vote — to participate civically," he said citing Amy Lerman, a political scientist and professor at the University of California, Berkeley.That's supported by data. As <a href="https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/criminal-justice-systems-civic-engagement-loses-voters">Next City reported</a>, Lerman and Yale political scientist Vesla Weaver analyzed survey data and found that "the probability of voting declined by 8% for respondents who had been stopped and questioned by the police."A 2018 paper from Northwestern University political scientist Traci Burch likewise found that people in communities with the highest rate of police contact "were 50% less likely to vote than in neighborhoods with no residents enmeshed in the criminal justice system."The mere presence of law enforcement in a community is enough to depress voter turnout. Republicans in New Jersey, for example, "recruited off-duty police officers wearing 'National Ballot Security Task Force' armbands to monitor polling places in Black and Latino neighborhoods," <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/18/us/Voting-republicans-trump.html">The New York Times noted</a> earlier this year.Stanley believes we should be on the lookout for such efforts to be carried out with the imprimatur of the state. The president, already "performing fascism," in Stanley's view, has repeatedly claimed to be the victim of phantom voter fraud while seeking to preemptively discredit a vote in 2020 that the polls currently project him losing."That's one nice thing about Trump: he's transparent," Stanley said. "When he talks about mail-in votes, it's clear that he doesn't want to leave a paper trail. There doesn't seem to be any sanction in place, if foreign governments interfere in our elections."Having deployed DHS agents to arrest US citizens in Portland, Stanley thinks we should worry that Trump could be tempted to do so more broadly come November."One thing we need to worry about is CBP and ICE being used to intimidate people at the polls," Stanley said. "I'm not predicting it will happen. I'm not saying it will happen. I'm saying that we have to worry about it."Have a <keyword id="6355005" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="100" keywordseo="news">news</keyword> tip? Email this reporter: <a href="mailto:cdavis@insider.com">cdavis@insider.com</a>

Trump's deployment of federal agents could suppress voter turnout, argues Jason Stanley, an expert on fascism at Yale University

Josh Edelson/Getty ImagesUC Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman is the author, along with his colleague Emmanuel Saez, of "The Triumph of Injustice."<ul class="summary-list"><li>Gabriel Zucman is an economist at UC Berkeley, and the coauthor with Emmanuel Saez of "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Injustice-Rich-Dodge-Taxes/dp/1324002727">The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay</a>."</li><li>Zucman and Saez helped craft wealth tax proposals for top Democratic presidential candidates Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, with the intention of reducing inequality and funding programs like <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/medicare-for-all">Medicare for All</a>.</li><li>Zucman's academic career began in 2009, under <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/thomas-piketty">Thomas Piketty</a>, and his research of the best decade has been foundational to the rising awareness of inequality in America, and the growing call to address it.</li><li>This analysis piece is part of Business Insider's project "<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/toward-a-better-capitalism">The 2010s: Toward a Better Capitalism</a>."</li><li>The <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/category/better-capitalism">Better Capitalism</a> series tracks the ways companies and individuals are rethinking the economy and role of business in society.</li><li><a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet">Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.</a></li></ul>When Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts brought up taxes at her massive rally this past September in New York's Washington Square Park, a loud faction of her thousands of supporters began chanting, "Two cents, two cents, two cents!"At Des Moines, Iowa, several weeks later, fans presented her with a <a href="https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1190377701946875906">giant inflatable of her golden retriever, Bailey</a>, with two pennies on his collar.The pair of coins is a reference to Warren's signature policy proposal of the past year, <a href="https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/ultra-millionaire-tax">a 2% wealth tax</a> - i.e., a tax on assets, such as property and retirement savings - for every dollar of net worth above $50 million. That increases to 6% for everything above $1 billion. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont responded with <a href="https://berniesanders.com/issues/tax-extreme-wealth/">an even larger progressive wealth tax</a>, rising to 8% for a household's net worth over $10 billion. In both cases, the candidates are touting the tax as a way to reduce America's rampant inequality and fund ambitious programs like Medicare for All. Warren expects her policy to raise $3.75 trillion over 10 years, and Sanders expects his to raise $4.35 trillion over the same period.One of the people behind this idea, which polling has found <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/majority-americans-approve-elizabeth-warren-wealth-tax-plan-2019-1">popular with a majority of Americans</a>, is Gabriel Zucman, a 33-year-old economist at the University of California, Berkeley. In an interview with Business Insider, Zucman said that even Sanders' campaign told him during the senator's 2016 presidential run that the idea of a wealth tax in the United States was too radical. But then the election of Donald Trump and the 2017 Republican tax cuts inspired a mass movement toward what Warren calls "big, structural change."Zucman told us, "what's happening today is that more and more people are realizing the contradictions that exist in the current system," in regards to the uneven distribution of economic growth. "We are at a turning point now."And Zucman, whose academic career began in 2009 amid the fallout of the financial crisis, has been one of the key figures of the past decade helping to shape the conversation around recognizing mass inequality in the US and doing something about it.<h2>What studying offshore wealth taught him about politics</h2>Zucman pursued his Ph.D at the Paris School of Economics, where his doctoral adviser was Thomas Piketty, the author of one of the defining economy books of our time, "<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Twenty-First-Century-Thomas-Piketty/dp/0674979850">Capital in the 21st Century</a>." Zucman focused on the ramifications and causes of growing inequality around the world, and eventually discovered that an estimated 8% of global financial household wealth was held in offshore tax havens.When he approached his research, he said the prevailing idea was that nothing could be done to address this. But when the US passed the <a href="https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/summary-of-fatca-reporting-for-us-taxpayers">Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act</a> in 2010, requiring foreign financial institutions to report on Americans' assets held overseas to the IRS, he saw a ripple effect throughout Europe, as other countries passed similar laws. It taught him that policies can change behavior when it comes to how the wealthy hold their money."The point is not that tax evasion has disappeared, that there is no hidden wealth anymore - that's far from true," he said. "But it does strike something that is important, which is that tax evasion, to a large extent, is a policy choice."<h2>Realizing inequality in America was worse than expected</h2>Zucman then headed to California in 2013 for his post-doctoral studies at Berkeley, where he collaborated with a fellow French academic and Piketty associate, Emmanuel Saez, and eventually became an associate professor.The two studied tax returns and surveys of Americans to infer how much wealth they owned. They produced estimates of wealth distribution dating back to the creation of the federal income tax in 1913, and found a sharp increase in the 1980s, during President Ronald Reagan's era of sharp tax cuts and financial deregulation.Zucman and Saez discovered that the top 0.1% wealthiest Americans own about 20% of wealth in the US, "which is as much or almost as much as what the bottom 90% owns," Zucman said. Back in 1980, ahead of the shift, the top 0.1% owned about 7% of national wealth."And immediately, it became quite well known," Zucman said. The English translation of Piketty's "Capital," a massive treatise on inequality, became an unexpected bestseller in the US, and when paired with his friends' work over in California, inequality was officially a buzzword among politicians and the public, even those who scoffed at Occupy Wall Street and their rallying cry of "We are the 99%" a few years earlier.Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman/taxjusticenow.orgThe wealth owned by the top 1% of earners in the US has sharply accelerated since the 1980s, while the wealth of the bottom 50% of earners has stagnated.<h2>Synthesizing into the wealth tax</h2>By 2015, Zucman was sure of two things: tax enforcement was a policy choice, and American wealth inequality was at levels not seen since ahead of the Great Depression and during the Gilded Age of the late 19th century. He began considering what policies, then, could bring the benefits of economic growth to more Americans. He turned to a wealth tax, which he called the most "powerful way to directly tackle the rise of wealth concentration."Zucman said that what's foundational to his and Saez's work in this area is that the US has actually had a more robust history of progressive taxation than even Europe, despite popular stereotypes used in messaging.He told us, "One type of reaction I get is, 'Oh, look, you come from France. You are trying to import some kind of French socialist ideas to America.' And that completely misses the point!" In addition to advising the Warren and Sanders campaigns, Zucman and Saez recently published a book, "The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make Them Pay," for a mass audience."What we're trying to do in the book is to help the US public reconnect with America's own tradition of tax progressivity," he said. "France never had a 90% top marginal income tax rate. Just never."Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman/taxjusticenow.orgIn 2018, for the first time, the bottom 50% of earners paid a higher percentage of their income on taxes than did the 400 richest Americans.<h2>The potential of a turning point for taxes</h2>They've added urgency to their message by showcasing in their book the way that in 2018, for the first time in US history, the bottom 50% of earners in America paid a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the top 400 earners in the country. Zucman and Saez collaborated with Piketty again on the <a href="https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-full-report-english.pdf">2018 World Inequality Report</a>, which showed that the top 1% of American adults captured 20.2% of US national income in 2016, and the bottom 50% captured 12.5%. In 1980, the top 1% captured 11% of the national income, and the bottom 50% captured just over 20%.For Zucman and Saez - and, in turn, Warren and Sanders - the wealth tax is a crucial way of slicing off a chunk of wealth in a way that does not get rid of multibillionaires. Instead, it's meant to restore a healthier form of growth while paying for programs that can help lift working class Americans (about half of the population) like Medicare for All and affordable housing.Emmanuel Saez, Gabriel Zucman/taxjusticenow.orgSaez and Zucman helped craft Sen. Elizabeth Warren's wealth tax proposal. This char shows how it would affect the tax rates of the wealthiest Americans. Sen. Bernie Sanders' wealth tax proposal would tax a larger chunk off the top.A typical criticism of the wealth tax, and significantly higher taxes in general, is that countries around the world have been lowering theirs for years, and we live in an increasingly globalized society. Zucman sees that simply as the effect of the neoliberal world order, of low taxes and free markets, since the '80s, and that there is a recognition that it hasn't been working. And even though the 2017 tax cuts were just a couple years ago, polls throughout this year have consistently found the majority of Americans support a wealth tax.Zucman said he expects there's "going to be a massive change compared to the last four decades," in regards to both corporate tax rates and wealth taxes. "We are going to see a change in the other direction, instead of a race to the bottom." <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/wealthiest-men-poorest-half-world-billions-income-inequality-2017-1">The wealth of these 8 men equals the bottom 50% of the entire world</a></h3>

This 33-year-old economist hasn't just helped shape one of Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' boldest policies - he's been changing how you think about wealth, whether you know it or not

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li>With income inequality skyrocketing over the past 30 years, even the people that have benefitted most from the system are calling out its flaws.</li><li>Billionaires like JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio have sounded the alarm on the threat the rising levels of inequality will pose for the country while Salesforce founder Marc Benioff recently pumped millions into studying the causes of homelessness.</li><li>At the prestigious Milken conference, where billionaires and multi-millionaires trade ideas in Beverly Hills, several panelists warned of the dangers of ignoring the threat of the growing wealth divide.</li><li>"<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/global-elite-at-milken-cant-stop-talking-about-populism-2019-4">If you have no capital, why be a capitalist?</a>"</li><li>Read more stories like this on the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/?hprecirc-bullet">Business Insider homepage</a>.</li></ul>Billionaire Marc Benioff recently put his vast wealth to work on a cause that is plaguing his hometown of San Francisco, donating $30 million to the University of California-San Francisco to study the causes of homelessness.The city has experienced a boom in wealth thanks to the massive tech companies that are headquartered there yet homelessness has skyrocketed as rents continue to climb, leaving an estimated 7,500 people in the city without a home.While Benioff <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/05/02/tech-billionaire-donated-million-try-solve-san-franciscos-homelessness-problem/">said</a> in a statement that he hopes to find "a North Star for truth on homelessness," the underlying question is what if billionaires, and the system that allowed Benioff and his peers to accumulate this wealth, are the true reason for the US's staggering levels of wealth inequality.&#xa0;With income inequality rising to the same levels as the Gilded Age of the 1920s, which was of course followed by the Great Depression, even billionaires are sounding the alarm on the possible side effects coming from when so few people control so much wealth. According to a <a href="http://fortune.com/2019/02/13/us-income-inequality-bad-great-depression/">recent paper</a> by University of California-Berkeley professor Gabriel Zucman, the top 1% in the country own 40% of the country's wealth."<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ray-dalio-says-the-economy-poses-an-existential-threat-for-the-us-2019-4">I think the American dream is lost</a>," said Bridgewater Associates founder and billionaire Ray Dalio on a recent CBS broadcast. Dalio, who was the highest-grossing hedge fund manager in 2018, pulling in $2 billion in total compensation, and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon have said populism and a trend toward more extreme political stances are inevitable results of this inequality.At the star-studded Milken Conference in Beverly Hills, there was a growing sense of concern over the rise of populist politicians pushing agendas on the left.<div class="KonaFilter image-container float_left"><div class="image on-image"></div></div>"<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/global-elite-at-milken-cant-stop-talking-about-populism-2019-4">If you have no capital, why be a capitalist</a>?" asked Sir Micheal Hintze, a billionaire and founder of London-based hedge fund CQS, during the conference.&#xa0;One attendee, Guggenheim Partners' Alan Schwartz, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/0f9cf638-6c28-11e9-80c7-60ee53e6681d">said</a> "what's really coming is class warfare."The rise of Democratic Socialism is marked by the popularity of freshman congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez from New York, who unseated long-time incumbent Joe Crawley in a primary with a message of changing the system entirely. She has made waves pushing for a Green New Deal in Congress, and several candidates running for the Democratic nomination for President have pitched wealth taxes to soak the super-rich.&#xa0;"I don't want to be a tone deaf CEO; while the company is doing fine, it is absolutely obvious that a big chunk of [people] have been left behind," Dimon said at an event in March unveiling a new $350 million program by the bank to help people in underserved communities get jobs.&#xa0;While President Donald Trump rode the support of people struggling to make ends meet to the White House, his policies have only been exacerbated the divide between the haves and the have-nots, experts say, with his tax reform being the primary point of contention. Major corporations like Dimon's have used the savings they have gotten from the tax bill not to pay workers' higher salaries or create new branches, but to buy back stock, boosting their share prices and helping the minority of the American population that is invested in the stock market.&#xa0;No billionaire is calling for a regime change yet. The biggest cheers at Milken reportedly came when a video of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher played, where she said "to be free, you must be a capitalist."In fact, the 44% of millennials that would prefer to live in a socialist country are "people who don't know history," according to Citadel founder and billionaire Ken Griffin, who purchased <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/ken-griffin-most-expensive-home-ever-sold-us-nyc-penthouse-2019-1">the most expensive apartment sold in American history earlier this year</a>.&#xa0;His comment led to some on Twitter to question Griffin's selective knowledge of history, put succinctly by New York Times contributor and best-selling author Diana Henriques."Plutocrats who sputter about class warfare without addressing inequality need to brush up on the 1920s."&#xa0;<div></div><div></div> <div class="margin-top"> <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reporter-calls-out-claim-that-fbi-was-happy-comeys-firing-sarah-huckabee-sanders-white-house-press-briefing-2017-5">This video shows the moment Sarah Sanders lied to a room full of reporters about FBI agents telling her they were happy Trump fired Comey</a></h3> <div> </div> </div>

Even billionaires are acknowledging that the system that created their crazy amount of wealth is unsustainable

If you want to perform at your best, both at work and at home, you have to get enough <keyword id="6372996" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="sleep">sleep</keyword>. That’s why Thrive Global, a behavior change platform, is focused on lowering stress and increasing well-being and productivity—and sleep is a huge part of that equation. The company, founded by <keyword id="554193" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Arianna-Huffington">Arianna Huffington</keyword>, creates lasting change in people’s lives by giving them sustainable, science-backed solutions to enhance their performance and overall well-being. Building on the success of Huffington’s best-selling book The Sleep Revolution, Thrive Global has made sleep a key part of its DNA, helping individuals and organizations give sleep the respect it deserves, with all the benefits that brings. This includes putting a spotlight on all the ways we’re failing to make sleep a priority—and how we can change that. The phrase “I’ll sleep when I’m dead,” for example, perfectly captures our collective attitude toward sleep. We tell ourselves that we have to banish sleep from our lives, or at least get a lot less of it than we’d like, in order to be productive, effective and successful. With so much to be done, created, and achieved, why shortchange ourselves by sleeping our lives away? But we’re paying a price for this collective delusion. A mountain of research tells us this simple truth: when it comes to sleep, we’re just not getting enough. (Adults need 7 to 9 hours per night.) And the consequences affect every aspect of our lives, from our health and <keyword id="23080" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="productivity">productivity</keyword> to our relationships and happiness. By skimping on sleep, we actually shortchange ourselves – and when we do, it’s much harder for us to attain peak performance at work, build meaningful relationships and tap into our creativity and ingenuity to solve big problems. The ripple effect of our collective lack of sleep is global, transcending borders, languages and cultures. And it connects to something even bigger: a global epidemic of stress and burnout, driven in large part by our relationship to technology. We’re more connected than ever, plugged-in and reachable 24/7. And even beyond the demands of work, we’re addicted to our devices. When we’re unable to set boundaries with technology, our sleep suffers. That blue light given off by your electronic devices? It suppresses melatonin, making it much harder to fall asleep. And when huge numbers of people are actually <a href="http://fortune.com/2015/06/29/sleep-banks-smartphones/">sleeping with their smartphones</a>, it’s a problem – and one that will only get bigger as<a href="http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/02/22/smartphone-ownership-and-internet-usage-continues-to-climb-in-emerging-economies/"> smartphone ownership increases</a> around the world. The good news is we’re at a turning point in our relationship with sleep. It’s no exaggeration to say we’re living through a sleep science renaissance. Study after study confirms that far from being empty time, sleep is a period of intense renewal that exponentially enhances the quality of our waking hours. So for anyone who’s ever bragged “I’ll sleep when I’m dead,” here are 7 findings that emphasize just how closely sleep is linked to performance – at work and at home, in every phase and aspect of our lives. 1. <keyword id="72481" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Sleep-deprivation">Sleep deprivation</keyword> is catastrophic for your productivity. It’s easy to assume that as long as we’re not pulling all-nighters, we won’t suffer any adverse sleep-related consequences. But a study published in the journal Sleep found that participants who were restricted to six hours of sleep a night for a two week period functioned as poorly as those who were made to stay up for two days straight, as Fast Company<a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/3057465/why-six-hours-of-sleep-is-as-bad-as-none-at-all"> reported</a>. 2. Sleep deprivation makes it almost impossible to excel – at anything. Whatever profession you’re in and however you define success, you have to be able to think critically, connect with others and build productive, meaningful relationships. But when we don’t get enough sleep, all of those areas suffer.<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17765011"> One study</a> found that insufficient sleep can temporarily reduce a range of performance-related abilities including emotional intelligence, impulse control and empathy. 3. Sleep’s importance is apparent even before you’re born. In adults, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep is when dreaming occurs and memories are stored. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley’s <a href="https://walkerlab.berkeley.edu/">Sleep and Neuroimaging Laboratory</a> found that fetuses start exhibiting what looks like REM sleep beginning in the<a href="https://journal.thriveglobal.com/the-science-of-how-sleep-changes-your-brain-from-infancy-to-old-age-3ca4a6857e27"> third trimester of pregnancy</a>. 4. We may be able to learn new things while we sleep. A small but intriguing<a href="https://www.thriveglobal.com/stories/11613-neuroscience-says-you-might-be-able-to-learn-while-you-sleep"> recent study</a> found that our brains can create new memories while we sleep. “We proved that you can learn during sleep, which has been a topic debated for years,” study author Thomas Andrillon, a neuroscientist at PSL Research University in Paris,<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/08/08/your-brain-can-form-new-memories-while-you-are-asleep-neuroscientists-show/?nid&amp;utm_term=.95b92752aa05"> told</a> the Washington Post. 5. Fifty-eight percent of Indians believe lack of sleep is negatively affecting their work. And 15 percent wake up in the night because of work-related stress,<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/World-Sleep-Day-93-Indians-are-sleep-deprived/articleshow/46547288.cms"> according to</a> The Times of India. 6. There is such a thing as a “power nap.” Next time someone questions why you take naps, you can direct them to all the research that shows how naps strengthen some of our key cognitive functions, including memory. In one study, researchers at Germany’s Saarland University had participants learn single words and word pairs. Then, half of the group watched a DVD and the other half napped. Members of the napping group retained significantly more word pairs than their DVD-watching counterparts, resulting,<a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150320091315.htm"> as the lead author put it</a>, in “a five-fold improvement in information retrieval from memory.” 
	
	


 7. Sleep deprivation is fueling a global burnout epidemic And in extreme cases, it can be deadly. In fact, death from overwork even has its own word in Japanese (karoshi), in Chinese (guolaosi), and in Korean (gwarosa). In India, <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/93-deprived-of-sleep-11-fall-asleep-at-work-study/articleshow/5340853.cms?intenttarget=no">according to one study</a> of 25 cities across the country, an astounding 93 percent of respondents reported being sleep deprived. This article is authored by Gregory Beyer

7 Science-Backed Reasons To Rekindle Your Relationship With Sleep

<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div></div></div>AMONG the most controversial of Thomas Piketty's arguments in his bestselling analysis of inequality, "Capital in the Twenty-First Century", is that wealth is increasingly concentrated in the hands of the very rich. 
Rising wealth inequality could presage the return of an 18th century inheritance society, in which marrying an heir is a surer route to riches than starting a company.
 Critics question the premise: Chris Giles, the economics editor of the Financial Times, argued earlier this year that Mr Piketty's data were both thin and faulty. Yet a new paper suggests that, in America at least, inequality in wealth is approaching record levels.*
Earlier studies of American wealth have tended to show only small increases in inequality in recent decades. A 2004 study of estate-tax data by Wojciech Kopczuk of Columbia University and Emmanuel Saez of the University of California, Berkeley, found an almost imperceptible rise in the share of wealth held by the top 1% of families, from about 19% in 1976 to 21% in 2000.
A more recent investigation of the Federal Reserve's data on consumer finances, by Edward Wolff of New York University showed a continued but gentle increase in inequality into the 2000s. Mr Piketty's book, which drew on this previous work, showed similarly modest rises in wealth inequality in America.
A new paper by Mr Saez and Gabriel Zucman of the London School of Economics reckons past estimates badly underestimated the share of wealth belonging to the very rich. It uses a richer variety of sources than prior studies, including detailed data on personal income taxes (which the authors mine for figures on capital income) and property tax, which they check against Fed data on aggregate wealth.
The authors note that not every potential source of error can be accounted for; tax avoidance strategies, for instance, could cause either an overestimation of the wealth share of the rich (if they classify labour income as capital income in order to take advantage of lower rates) or an underestimation (if they intentionally seek out lower yielding investments for their tax advantages). Yet they believe their estimates represent an improvement over past attempts.
The results are enough to make Mr Piketty blush. The authors examine the share of total wealth held by the bottom 90% of families relative to those at the very top. Because the bottom half of all families almost always has no net wealth, the share of wealth held by the bottom 90% is an effective measure of "middle class" wealth, or that held by those from the 50th to the 90th percentile. In the late 1920s the bottom 90% held just 16% of America's wealth--considerably less than that held by the top 0.1%, which controlled a quarter of total wealth just before the crash of 1929.
From the beginning of the Depression until the end of the second world war, the middle class's share of total wealth rose steadily, thanks largely to collapsing wealth among richer households. Thereafter the middle class's share grew along with national wealth thanks to broader equity ownership, middle-class income growth and rising rates of home-ownership. The expansion of tax breaks for retirement savings also helped. By the early 1980s the share of household wealth held by the middle class rose to 36%--roughly four times the share controlled by the top 0.1%.
From the early 1980s, however, these trends have reversed. The ratio of household wealth to national income has risen back toward the level of the 1920s, but the share in the hands of middle-class families has tumbled (see chart).
<div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table click-to-enlarge"><div><div class="image on-image"><a title_source="The Economist" title_caption="" class="zoomin" href="https://static-ssl.businessinsider.com/image/545fa33e6da811946d0c7936-960/screenshot 2014-11-09 12.22.34.png"></a>The Economist</div></div></div>
Tepid growth in middle-class incomes is partly to blame; real incomes for the top 1% of families grew 3.4% a year from 1986-2012 while those for the bottom 90% grew 0.7%. But Messrs Saez and Zucman reckon the main cause of falling middle-class net worth is soaring debt. Rising home values did little to raise middle-class wealth since mortgage debt also soared. The recession battered home prices but left the debt untouched, further squeezing middle-class wealth.
<h3>The really, really rich get much, much richer</h3>
On the other side of the spectrum, the fortunes of the wealthy have grown, especially at the very top. The 16,000 families making up the richest 0.01%, with an average net worth of $371m, now control 11.2% of total wealth--back to the 1916 share, which is the highest on record.
Those down the distribution have not done quite so well: the top 0.1% (consisting of 160,000 families worth $73m on average) hold 22% of America's wealth, just shy of the 1929 peak--and exactly the same share as the bottom 90% of the population.
Meanwhile the share of wealth held by families from the 90th to the 99th percentile has actually fallen over the last decade, though not by as much as the net worth of the bottom 90%.
The outsize fortunes of the few would not be too worrying were they largely the product of entrepreneurial activity: riches amassed by hardworking billionaires who are as likely as not to give their bounty away through philanthropy. Messrs Saez and Zucman find some evidence for this dynamic. Wealthy families are younger than they were a generation or two ago, and they earn a larger share of the country's income from labour: 3.1% in 2012 versus less than 0.5% prior to 1970.
Yet one should not yet rule out the return of Mr Piketty's "patrimonial capitalism". The club of young rich includes not only Mark Zuckerbergs, the authors argue, but also Paris Hiltons: young heirs to previously accumulated fortunes.
What's more, the share of labour income earned by the top 0.1% appears to have peaked in 2000. In recent years the proportion of the wealth of the very rich held in the form of shares has levelled off, while that held in bonds has risen.
Since the fortunes of most entrepreneurs are tied up in the stock of the firms that they found, these shifts hint that America's biggest fortunes may be starting to have less to do with building businesses, just as Mr Piketty warned.
Click <a href="https://subscriptions.economist.com/nwcd">here</a> to subscribe to The Economist

You Searched For "Bestselling Berkeley author" and got 9 results

April Read: Try These 7 Books To Usher In A Summer Of Change

Sanghamitra Mandal

Milo Yiannopoulos announces 'grand comeback tour' at UC Berkeley

David Choi

'The Big Short' author Michael Lewis tells us about his unusual new 'love story,' and how it can add insight into Trump's election and a changing Wall Street

Richard Feloni

Trump's deployment of federal agents could suppress voter turnout, argues Jason Stanley, an expert on fascism at Yale University

Charles Davis

This 33-year-old economist hasn't just helped shape one of Elizabeth Warren's and Bernie Sanders' boldest policies - he's been changing how you think about wealth, whether you know it or not

Richard Feloni

Even billionaires are acknowledging that the system that created their crazy amount of wealth is unsustainable

Bradley Saacks

7 Science-Backed Reasons To Rekindle Your Relationship With Sleep

BI India Partner

FORGET THE 1%: It Is The 0.01% Who Are Really Getting Ahead In America

Michael B Kelley

24 podcasts picked by industry leaders, successful executives, and business school professors that are almost as good as getting an MBA

Robin Madell

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides