In a confluence of events (most importantly the
special report on the subject in The Economist of two weeks ago), the theme of inequality has gained unprecedented traction lately.
Here's Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz's take on the subject.
Excerpts:
[...] That American inequality is at historic highs is undisputed. It’s not just that the top 1 percent takes in about a fifth of the income, and controls more than a third of the wealth. America also has become the country (among the advanced industrial countries) with the least equality of opportunity. Meanwhile, those in the middle are faring badly, in every dimension, in security, in income, and in wealth — the wealth of the typical household is back to where it was in the 1990s. While the recession has made all of this worse, even before the recession they weren’t faring well: in 2007, the income of the typical family was lower than it was at the end of the last century. [...]
Inequality in “market incomes” — what individuals receive apart from any transfers from the government — has increased as a result of ineffective enforcement of competition laws, inadequate financial regulation, deficiency in corporate governance laws, and “corporate welfare” — huge open and hidden subsidies to our corporations that reached new heights in the Bush administration. When, for instance, competition laws are not enforced, monopolies grow, and with them the income of monopolists. Competition, by contrast, drives profits down. [...]
The Romney campaign, however, has defended inequality or brushed it aside. To do so, it has employed a handful of economic myths. Here are a few of the most important:
(1) America is a land of opportunity. While rags-to-riches stories still grip our imagination, the fact of the matter is that the life chances of a young American are more dependent on the income and wealth of his parents than in any of the other advanced countries for which there is data. There is less upward mobility — and less downward mobility from the top — even than in Europe, and we’re not just talking about Scandinavia.
(2) Trickle-down economics works (a k a “a rising tide lifts all boats”). This idea suggests that further enriching the wealthy will make us all better off. America’s recent economic history shows the patent falsehood of this notion. The top has done very well. But median American incomes are lower than they were a decade and a half ago. Various groups — men and those without a college education — have fared even worse. Median income of a full-time male worker, for instance, is lower than it was four decades ago. [...]
I don't need to tell you where on the political spectrum Mr. Stiglitz is situated, it should be pretty obvious. However, that does not make many (though not all) of his points any less valid and some any less indisputable. So don't count on me to give them the "fair and balanced" treatment/rebuttal.
[ Off on a philosophical tangent (here are the musings my blog's title demands!):
This might sound glib and simplistic but even a good faith attempt at being balanced and nonpartisan can, pushed to its logical extreme, lead to an absurd situation. Here's how:
if you systematically offer a rebuttal to each argument made by somebody whose politics you think you know so as to appear politically neutral, you might end up offering a false idea as a valid argument against a true idea. Many in the media and in politics do this all the time, some don't even realize it. Partly as a result, the concept of truth has been politicized through and through. Sad, but that's the world we live in. ]
