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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
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 ForumsUS Inequality Is Simply a Function of Political Power
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/27-9Scott Sumner has become famous in the internet world and elsewhere as monetarisms most capable defender. Sumner has a lot of things to say, but one is illustrative for my purposes here. Sumner argues that advocates of fiscal stimulus often make the mistake in their arguments of assuming away monetary policy as static or accommodating. His point is that you cant do that because the efficacy of fiscal policy always depends on what monetary policy is doing in the background.
This same basic point also needs to be driven home for those who want to talk about how this or that thing will affect the distribution of income in society. Matt Yglesias review of Tyler Cowens new book gives us an excellent jumping off point for what I mean. In his book, Cowen apparently argues that coming technological changes will have certain negative effects on median incomes. Yglesias rightly points out (as does Cowen) that this outcome will only come if we fail to implement certain policies that will cause income to be distributed in some other, more desirable way.
When we talk about how economic changes, technological swings, and even education will affect the distribution of income in society, we always sort of assume away our governments distributive policy as if it will or must remain static. But thats not true at all. At any time we can change the huge set of policies that direct the distribution of income in society to something else.
The last few decades of median income stagnation didnt have to happen. Even if you say it was caused by international competition or technological change or whatever else, the point is that if we had put a different set of distributive institutions into place, we could have avoided the maldistribution of income that we have seen. It is not like the median incomes stagnated because the economy as a whole stagnated. Quite the contrary: the economy is much larger on a per capita basis now than it used to be. If we had wanted to make sure median incomes continued to rise, we could have done that. We would have just needed different distribution policy.
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)
2 replies, 643 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 (12)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
US Inequality Is Simply a Function of Political Power (Original Post)
xchrom
Sep 2013
OP
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)1. Ironic or tragic that SCOTUS at one time secured equality,have
made it so there will never be equality as far as Voting, buying selling, and basically living without the fear of government, or lack thereof .
cprise
(8,445 posts)2. Abolish Gerrymandering. n/t