• Sara Rimer

    Senior Contributing Editor

    Sara Rimer

    Sara Rimer A journalist for more than three decades, Sara Rimer worked at the Miami Herald, Washington Post and, for 26 years, the New York Times, where she was the New England bureau chief, and a national reporter covering education, aging, immigration, and other social justice issues. Her stories on the death penalty’s inequities were nominated for a Pulitzer Prize and cited in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the execution of people with intellectual disabilities. Her journalism honors include Columbia University’s Meyer Berger award for in-depth human interest reporting. She holds a BA degree in American Studies from the University of Michigan. Profile

    She can be reached at srimer@bu.edu.

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 3 comments on Why Money Flows Uphill

  1. An interesting study but I think Dr. Fisman might have focused more on economic opportunities (vs economic inequality) and income redistribution. There will always be economic and income inequality in America (and elsewhere) as proven throughout history. We are lucky to be living in a country that had enlightened Founders that saw the difference and structured a Constitution and laws that provided certain liberties and freedoms that enabled Americans the means for economic opportunities.

  2. “Kill everyone better than you are, then everyone will be equal. All equally dead.” T.H. White, The Book of Merlin. No one aspires to have their child have an equally bad meal as a child living on the streets of Buenos Aires. Equality is a false objective that many want to impose on others, but they won’t accept for themselves.

  3. I think we’ve run up against a weakness in testing here, though perhaps just a weakness of extremely weak testing.

    The question asked here was “Are you willing to give up your space in the lifeboat with no assurance that anybody else will be saved in your place, and given that nobody else is giving up theirs?” Unsurprisingly, not a lot of thoughtful people went for the proposition.

    The whole point of policy, as opposed to individual posing, is that it affects the whole polis. The policy question here was “Are you in favor of overall policies in which the lifeboats go to women and children first?” The phrasing of that question here was “Are you a Democrat or a Republican?” and Democrats, the egalitarian policy position, won.

    No contradiction here. Different questions got different answers.

    The wider question, for the economic profession and for the Trustees of Boston University, is whether the “academics” who couldn’t keep these differences straight shall be punished for their ignorance, carelessness, and consequent deception inflicted on the public?

    My guess is the answer will be no.

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *