Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Income inequality’s sick joke: A rising tide only lifts luxury yachts"
Income inequalitys sick joke: A rising tide only lifts luxury yachtsby Sean McElwee at Salon
http://www.salon.com/2014/10/04/income_inequalitys_sick_joke_a_rising_tide_only_lifts_luxury_yachts/
"SNIP......................
For a long time, the right has argued that we shouldnt worry about inequality because the true concern is the reduction of poverty. Conservatives also maintained that higher levels of inequality were unimportant because a rising tide would lift all boats, and high levels of inequality propelled the economy forward. New research by Branko Milanovic and Roy van der Weide decimates these myths. Milanovic and van der Weide find that inequality doesnt fuel growth for the whole economy, but rather, just the rich.
Before we get to the research of Milanovic and van der Weide, its important to understand how mainstream thought on inequality and growth has changed recently. For a long time, mainstream economists didnt spend much time worrying about distribution. Nobel laureate Robert Lucas declared, Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution.
Once rampant inequality did become an increasingly mainstream concern, Martin Feldstein insisted that the question is not inequality but poverty. Economists believed that redistribution slowed down economic growth, and that attempts to reduce inequality would, as a result, only worsen poverty. The reasoning had at least two strands of thought: First, since the poor tend to consume most of their income, it was good for the rich to have more wealth to invest in the future inequality would increase savings. Second, inequality provided incentives for individuals to work harder to take home more of the pie.
There is now a burgeoning literature showing that these assumptions arent true, and that inequality actually reduces growth. Thats because the reasons for accepting inequality were actually backward. Instead of motivating the rich to invest, higher inequality meant that the poor took on more and more debt, destabilizing the economy. Without enough poor and middle-class families consuming their products, businesses had fewer customers, and less revenue. Further, instead of providing the poor and middle class an incentive to better their lives, higher inequality gave the rich a reason to pull up the ladder, leaving the poor behind. Instead of working harder, the rich sit back on their wealth. The poor and middle class, disenchanted by lack of opportunity, have less money to invest in their own education (and are therefore are increasingly burdened by debt). Inequality thereby reduces growth by reducing both demand and upward mobility.
.......................SNIP"
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 967 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post