Tell that to Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. And if there isn't real change in 2016, there will be revolution.For the moment, the political reality is that the Democratic Party does not have the stomach to seriously engage the issue of inequality, and remains far too conflicted to take on the concentration of power and income at the top. Those benefiting most from the system as it is will continue to determine the operative definition of optimal inequality.
Well, given that we're going to have a Clinton nomination in 2016, I hardly see change on the horizon. Warren has already publicly stated that she's not interested. I don't think revolution is a real possibility, but civil unrest? Perhaps. I'm a bit shocked that we haven't seen more organized protests against moneyed interests.
given that we're going to have a Clinton nomination in 2016, I hardly see change on the horizon
I'll keep dreaming about a Warren-Reich ticket. Ok, so serious question. Sure, I take your point that Clinton is a favourite (although I think she would be a disaster for the inequality problem). But let's say I get my dream and she loses to a progressive independent/democrat, whether that be Sanders, Warren, Reich, or someone else. Is there any serious contender from the Republican side? I personally can't see any of them coming up and winning a national election. Do you? And if so, who?
Hopefully, at the very least Reich, Warren et al can at least advance the conversation about inequality to a meaningful place, and not just something policy pundits discuss on Sunday news shows. Reich has been aggressively talking about inequality for a number of years now, and he's certainly the left's best authority on the subject. I also share your fears that Clinton is about as status quo as they come. It will be business as usual with her. As for the GOP, it seems like they've already anointed Jeb Bush, but there's a lot of time between now and then. I think it would be very interesting and awesome to see a Warren v. Rand Paul race. I can't say I agree with very many of Paul's policy stances (save for a few, such as his aversion to domestic spying and drone use), but to have a race between two outside-the-box thinking would be really good for the country (and probably for the world, by extension). I can't say I didn't slightly enjoy watching Chris Christie's monumental collapse.
Well they would tend to be organised over Facebook and the like, and we've seen that the American state has its finger in every pie in that regard.
I'd argue that the larger cause of no protests is that every mainstream news outlet that covered the Occupy protests did nothing but shit all over them in every possible way. They tore apart what the protests stood for, who the people participating in them was, and single handily destroyed the entire movement.
Written by three I.M.F. economists — Jonathan D. Ostry, Andrew Berg and Charalambos G. Tsangarides — the study found that “lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth, for a given level of redistribution.” And, most significantly from a policy perspective, the three I.M.F. economists argue that “redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth; only in extreme cases is there some evidence that it may have direct negative effects on growth. Thus the combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution — including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality — are on average pro-growth.” This is here in case anyone wants to talk about it. What fascinates me above all about economics is that you can take an idea like the equity-efficiency tradeoff (or top marginal tax rates, etc.) and find studies that are literally all over the map on it. Maybe someday we'll have enough experiential data to come down conclusively about inequality, but right now we're all just tossing around opinions. Inre: the above, this is worth a read. EDIT: starting to see Thomas Piketty popping up everywhere. Really need to look into his ideas.Some recent analyses dispute Mulligan’s findings, perhaps most important an International Monetary Fund study, “Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth,” published in February.
High tax rates and large subsidies to the nonworking poor can “dampen incentives to work and invest,” they write. But other steps can be highly beneficial: “Redistribution need not be inherently detrimental to growth, to the degree that it involves reducing tax expenditures or loopholes that benefit the rich or as part of broader tax reforms (such as higher inheritance taxes offset by lower taxes on labor income). More broadly, redistribution can also occur when progressive taxes finance public investment, when social insurance spending enhances the welfare of the poor and risk taking, or when higher health and education spending benefits the poor, helping to offset labor and capital market imperfections. In such cases, redistributive policies could increase both equality and growth.”
I think that pretty much most of the data support the thesis that the current level of inequality is far too uneven. The one study cited in this piece that has data showing that inequality is good for growth was published in '08, ya know, right before the house of cards collapsed. As for this: That's not a data-driven judgement; it's moralizing, projecting based on what the authors think might happen in their own idealized version of how economics works. Homo economicus has been debunked in study after study. Only the most ideological conservatives still believe in it.What fascinates me above all about economics is that you can take an idea like the equity-efficiency tradeoff (or top marginal tax rates, etc.) and find studies that are literally all over the map on it. Maybe someday we'll have enough experiential data to come down conclusively about inequality, but right now we're all just tossing around opinions.
High tax rates and large subsidies to the nonworking poor can “dampen incentives to work and invest,”...
How is it moralizing? Looking at that line alone, it says that the presence of A can lead to effect B. There is no value judgement. Suppose a nonworking, poor person receives a monthly check from the government. One of the following three cases must be true: 1) It will have no effect on his desire to work. 2) It will increase his desire to work. ("Hey, this extra money is really helpful. I should go earn some more!") 3) It will decrease his desire to work. ("Gotta go to work to make money and pay the bills. Oh, got free money, never mind.") Without consulting any data, my gut tells me #3 is most likely to be true. Does your gut tell you something different, or do you have some data to help us make a better judgement? Isn't it common sense that most people work mainly to get money?High tax rates and large subsidies to the nonworking poor can “dampen incentives to work and invest,”...
That's not a data-driven judgement; it's moralizing,
Oh sure, but since perfect equality is impossible we find ourselves needing to come to a stop on a gradient. That's where the fun starts.I think that pretty much most of the data support the thesis that the current level of inequality is far too uneven. The one study cited in this piece that has data showing that inequality is good for growth was published in '08, ya know, right before the house of cards collapsed.