General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSome Are More Unequal Than Others -by JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
Some Are More Unequal Than Others
JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
New York Times Campaign Stops Blog
October 26, 2012, 12:20 am
This election has rightly been characterized as one that will deeply affect the future direction of the country: Americans are being given a choice with potentially large consequences. One arena in which there are profound differences that has not been adequately debated is the future course of inequality.
Mitt Romney has been explicit: inequality should be talked about only in quiet voices behind closed doors. But with the normally conservative magazine The Economist publishing a special series showing the extremes to which American inequality has grown joining a growing chorus (of which my book The Price of Inequality is an example) arguing that the extremes of American inequality, its nature and origins, are adversely affecting our economy it is an issue that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice.
This perhaps provides part of the explanation for why inequality and poverty should suddenly appear as part of the Romney-Ryan makeover, as they attempt to portray themselves (to use a phrase of some 12 years ago) as compassionate conservatives. In Cleveland on Wednesday, Paul Ryan gave a speech that might lead one to conclude that the two Republican candidates were really concerned about poverty. But more revealing than oratory are budget numbers like those actually contained in the Ryan budget. His budget proposal guts programs that serve those at the bottom, and little could have done more to enrich those at the top than his original tax proposals (like the elimination of capital gains taxes, a position from which he understandably has tried to distance himself). Every other advanced country has recognized the right of everyone to access to health care, and extending access was central to President Obamas health care reform. Romney and Ryan have criticized that reform, but have said nothing about how or whether they would ensure universal access. Most important, the macroeconomic consequences of the Romney-Ryan economic program would be devastating: growth would slow, unemployment would increase, and just as Americans would need the social protection of government more, the safety net would be weakened.
Wed all do well to pay a bit closer attention. That American inequality is at historic highs is undisputed. Its 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 werent faring well: in 2007, the income of the typical family was lower than it was at the end of the last century. While Obama may not have done as much as he should to counteract the steep downturn he inherited from George W. Bush upon taking office and he underestimated the depth of the problems that had been passed along to him he did far more than his predecessor. And he could have done far more, as the dimensions of the problem became clearer to everyone, had he not faced such strong opposition in Congress...
................
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/stiglitz-some-are-more-unequal-than-others/
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)encouraging it. I keep coming back to Aaron Sorkin's line from The American President, "They drink the sand because they don't know the difference".