http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/the-price-of-inequality
But most Americans today are worse off – with lower real (inflation-adjusted) incomes – than they were in 1997, a decade and a half ago. All of the benefits of growth have gone to the top.
the “recovery” of 2009-2010, the top 1% of US income earners captured 93% of the income growth. Other inequality indicators – like wealth, health, and life expectancy – are as bad or even worse.
Second paragraph is ludicrously dishonest. No shit they "captured" most of the growth, they also lost the most income during the downturn. What a shocker, a crowd whose income is extremely dependent on stock prices varies greatly with stock prices.
The argument is strong enough without being dishonest. There's no need for that kind of shit and it reduces the quality of analysis from good to typical ideological crap.
Source them having lost most of the income? The biggest players in the stock market are pension funds which represent the savings of the whole of society, not just the top 1%.Second paragraph is ludicrously dishonest. No shit they "captured" most of the growth, they also lost the most income during the downturn.
Or are we not counting pensions as assets here?
Assets don't count at all, we're talking about income.
That said I would be surprised too if the top 1% of income earners are the ones that lost the most. It depends on if you define the top 1% from right before the crash or starting from the recovery, but either way I'm not sure I'd believe it.
Are we thinking not getting bonuses, and now they are or something like that? I could maybe see that, but I'd still need a source to buy it.
You guys are missing forest and arguing about leaves. He is ideological, as much as Krugman is. This is not a secret. I am also ideological, otherwise I would have titled this thread differently. That is all on the table. It also is not the point.
American people have been sold very hard that policy that benefits the top of the income distribution is better for everyone. Policy has generally moved in this direction and it seems to be the opposite case. The middle is doing worse.
Stiglitz is arguing the case, policy in the past three decades has amounts to greater degrees of rent seeking for those at the top of the income distribution. I would go further to say that this is largely that this is policies advocated mostly by the right of center. I'm fairly sure stiglitz would agree with me. I am wagering that United States and Brazil will look about the same in 20 years.
Being ideological is perfectly fine. But you don't convince people with ideology, with name-calling and broad generalizations and emotionally charged rhetoric about which side is moral or not.
You convince people with facts. Krugman has some facts. Stiglitz has very few. He's almost doing the work of a popular preacher here, and while I imagine some academics like what he's doing, I can't imagine any academic actually relying on Stiglitz as their primary source. You must be frigging kidding me.
Assets don't count at all, we're talking about income.
He must be doing the same thing Krugman always does. Count dividends and interest (and maybe even realized capital gains) as income, then imply that incomes of the top 1% seem too high to be justified by their labor. No shit. The 1% also just risked trillions of their own money investing in companies that are employing all of the pot-smoking high school dropout kids. But apparently they should just give them their money instead of a job.
It's great to be irate about inequality. Now, get more irate at public school unions for failing to equip our kids with sufficient skills. But wait, you'd never do that. You'd just blame the "rich" and the "1%". Your side has the power to close the inequality gap, but you'd probably never sacrifice your rent-seeking public school employees to do it.
The fact that d95f's post - which is completely factual, perfectly relevant and has no implicit value judgment or ideological connotation in it whatsoever - received 5 "no good" votes, shows how impossible it is to have an honest discussion about economic inequality.
If anything, the fact that inequality is such an important issue should make us pay more serious attention to understanding it. But so many people - liberals and conservatives alike, but mostly liberals in the academia - are comfortable with just broad generalizations, half-truths and moral tales about good vs. evil.
Alright, I've had it with you retarded, downvoting piece of shits. Give me ANY evidence that d95f's claim - that the richest lost proportionately more of their income - is not indisputably true. Otherwise, you can all go f**k yourselves. You'll never amount to anything more than a joke because you don't even have the f**king guts to even offer a counterargument. What a bunch of f**king pseudointellectuals.
Since you retards are so incapable of finding simple economic data, here's it:
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/NewTop1.png
See? Top 1% lost disproportionately more of their income in the recent recession. In fact, this happens in every recession. It's essentially due to them having more of their income from unstable sources.
Notice that there isn't any value judgment in this statement. Notice there isn't even any political argument here. It's just a simple economic fact, which showed that Stiglitz deliberately misrepresented the data. And if simple facts are enough to make you go into a no-gooding frenzy, here's some advice, bro: You're not fit for this profession. There's a reason why we're ACADEMICS and not f**king political pundits. We give a damn about facts.
The fact that d95f's post - which is completely factual, perfectly relevant and has no implicit value judgment or ideological connotation in it whatsoever - received 5 "no good" votes, shows how impossible it is to have an honest discussion about economic inequality.
Please. Spare me. He tries to dismiss the entire article, by using an ad-hominem attack "dishonest" because Stiglitz did not attribute a specific cause to the reason rich attributed absorbed most of the growth. That is not a non-ideological judgement.
The point which misses the substance of the article. Stiglitz doesn't talk about a trend that happen over night. He doesn't attribute inequality to the financial crisis (he does say its exacerbated it further).
You are right its impossible to have an honest discussion about inequality. There isn't a single substantive comment about inequality. There is not a single post here that even attempts to discuss the fact that median Americans today are worse off than they were 15 years ago. Instead we get "oh the reason that rich get more growth from a rebound is their income is volatile". Its common knowledge that by empirical measures inequality has been rising in the u.s. The gini coefficient today is higher than it was 25 years ago. The gini coefficient on wealth is the 5th highest in the world. Yet there isn't a single post discussing any of this, not counting my own comments.
but mostly liberals in the academia - are comfortable with just broad generalizations, half-truths and moral tales about good vs. evil.
isn't it hypocritical that you use a generalization yourself. Of course you'll conveniently ignore the fact we have about 10x's more threads on this forum that make broad generalizations about leftwing as well as the existence of dedicated mainstream outlets. Of course claim your unbiased since your post said both liberals and conservatives.
[quote]
There's a reason why we're ACADEMICS and not f**king political pundits. We give a damn about facts. [/quote]
Oh for f**ks-sake, just because most of us are academics doesn't mean we are intellectually honest. Don't pretend that the best in our profession don't paint facts too support their own conclusions.
You only need to clip OP ed columns from people like stiglitz, rodrick, barro, chrocane, williamson, andofatto too see that they act the same as any pundits without a new york times column.
Do you even understand what "consumption" even means? More Americans today have indoor plumbing, cable television, high-speed internet, cheap prescription pills at $4 from Walmart (which I presume you despise), cell phones, cameras, food supplies, medication, branded shoes, luxury clothing, overseas vacations, cruises, etc. than they did 15 years ago. They're also enjoying more leisure time and have never worked less than at this point in time.
Tell me one significant thing that the average American consumed more of 15 years ago. I dare you.
There is not a single post here that even attempts to discuss the fact that median Americans today are worse off than they were 15 years ago.
You guys are really voting good on that random unlabeled shit graph that a blogger made and OP found on google?
How about this, read the f**king paper if you want to talk "academically" about it:
http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2010.pdf
There we go. Top 1% income did infact fall more proportionally - it fell three times more. However the top 1% have also recovered 13 times more so far; which makes it so that overall the lower 99% has lost a bigger proportion of their income through 2011 (i.e. the income share of the top 1% is higher now than it was pre-crisis).
Also worth mentioning, from 2002 through 2010 the top 1% of income has grown 15% while the bottom 99% has fallen 5.4%
Punchline: the recession has disproportionally hurt the incomes of the bottom 99% relative to where they were pre-recession.
Do you even understand what "consumption" even means?
Name one significant thing that the average American is consuming less of compared to 15 years ago. I dare you.
There is not a single post here that even attempts to discuss the fact that median Americans today are worse off than they were 15 years ago.
