Paul Krugman: We live in the most unequal society ever, and it’s only getting worse

[kpete]

Americans may be living in the most unequal society that has ever existed, said economist Paul Krugman.


.................

The Nobel Prize winner said this troubling trend began around 1980, when President Ronald Reagan was elected and began implementing supply-side economic policies that promised more wealth for everyone if tax burdens were lifted for the rich.

“The fact of the matter is, since inequality began soaring, around 1980, the bottom half of America has pretty much been left behind,” Krugman said. “There has not been a rising tide that raised all boats.”

......................

“If we could have modern politicians speaking forthrightly about the danger of high concentration of wealth, as Teddy Roosevelt did in 1910, we would be a long toward a good solution for this,” Krugman said, “and I guess I believe that America has a tremendous redemptive capacity and ability to take a look and say, ‘OK, in the end, what are our ideals? What do we want our society to look like?’”

.................................

“It’s an era of not just inequality, but increasingly what looks like inherited inequality, and I think people understand that,” Krugman said. “They’ll say, ‘No, we don’t want that to happen,’ and we can do things that are not draconian, not socialist, but in the American tradition to limit that rising inequality.”



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/17/paul-krugman-we-live-in-the-most-unequal-society-ever-and-its-only-getting-worse/

[hfojvt]

1. it's only too bad that Krugman himself

sometimes cheers policies that INCREASE inequality.

It might help if HE stopped doing that.

"Of course, that's just a suggestion." - Jim Brigman

[1StrongBlackMan]

5. Which policies does Krugman support (sometimes) ...

that increase income inequality?

Thanks.

[hfojvt]

9. mostly ATRA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2225110

Permanent tax cuts for the rich that he keeps dishonestly cheering as tax increases on the rich.

I cannot find the other place where he, once again, recently stated it backwards in his blog. Seems like it was only a week ago or so.

[1StrongBlackMan]

18. Only if you only look at ...

the ATRA for it's making permanent the Bush Tax cuts.

Perhaps you should look beyond that singular policy feature to what the ATRA, also does.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412730-Tax-Provisions-in-ATRA.pdf

By my reading ... and I suspect, Nobel Laurate and PhD Krugman's study of the topic ... indicates that at worst, the ATRA is inequity neutral, as it provides a lot for the working and middle-classes.

[Demo_Chris]

46. Free Trade, permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, insurance mandates...

He occasionally writes essays criticizing the inequality he has helped create, but that hardly makes him an ally.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. While ...

Free trade, arguable, is worker unfriendly; neither tax cuts for the wealthy (i.e., making the Bush Tax cuts permanent), nor insurance mandates, as written, affect the income inequity conditions. ATRA is inequity neutral, at worst, because there are plenty of provisions that increase benefits to the working and middle-classes, including having reduced the working and middle classes' tax rates. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412730-Tax-Provisions-in-ATRA.pdf

And, the insurance mandates doesn't even enter (or tangentially, at best) into the inequity discussion, anymore than the price of oil or tea or rice, does.

Further, depending on the regulations contained in the agreement, even Free Trade agreements can positively affect the income inequity problem. For example, Free trade agreements can establish collective bargaining right, minimum wage provisions, and other worker/workplace provisions ... and though not broadly discussed, these provisions are/might be included in the TPP, after having learned from NAFTA, etc.

[arely staircase]

71. Krugman lost his shine for some becuase he, though often critical, generally approves of Obama's

presidency. That doesn't sit well in some quarters.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Yeah ...

I know.

But I'm kind of glad that poster brought up Krugman's support of the ATRA up. Had he not, I wouldn't have researched the ATRA ... and I wouldn't have found the Urban Center's analysis of the ATRA ... and I wouldn't have known, and able to prove, the "ATRA increases the income inequity" problem argument is pure B.S. ...

Just as Krugman could.

Oh yeah ... Notice after my post with the link to the Urban Center's analysis ... the poster disappeared ... no "Wow, now I have to re-think my position", no "Okay, good catch" ... no "I was wrong", no nothing ... just poof!

[CTyankee]

8. Huh? I've been reading Krugman since he started writing for the Times back in

the early 2000s and I've never heard/read anything by him that cheers inequality. Do you have a specific instance in mind?

[hfojvt]

10. see above, about ATRA

And it depends what he means by "inequality" is inequality in our society about the Fab 400? about the top 1%.

Or does it have to do with the fact that the top TEN percent gets 50% of the national income?

If it is about the top 10%, then permanent tax cuts for the top 10%, something that Krugman has cheered and mis-stated - will increase inequality. So on the one hand he cheers that policy, and mischaracterizes it, and on the other hand he complains about inequality.

I am not saying he is wrong to focus on inequality, just that he needs to be more consistent.

[CTyankee]

12. hmm, I've not heard/read the comments about his liking the permanent tax cuts for the top

10%...where did those comments appear?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. And even if he had ...

The policy seems to be inequity neutral, as despite making the cuts permanent, it also provides a lot for the working and middle-classes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412730-Tax-Provisions-in-ATRA.pdf

[hfojvt]

72. it's only inequality neutral

if you don't look at how the tax cuts are distributed, which your link seems to say nothing about.

Whereas this link http://ctj.org/pdf/bidenmcconnelldistribution.pdf

shows 19% of the permanent tax cuts going to the bottom 60%
and 36% of the permanent tax cuts going to the top 5%.

But how many times has Krugman used his pulpit to talk about THAT?

Instead he keeps saying "ATRA raised taxes on the rich" when actually "ATRA permanently cut taxes for the rich".

But inequality is A-OK when Krugman sweeps it under the rug.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. Okay ...

I can't open the PDF on this computer; but I suspect there is a reason you fail to account for the remaining 45% of the tax cuts.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Yep ...

Just as I suspected: 64% of the tax cuts go to those earning less than $129,000, i.e., the working and middle-classes. Further, if one includes incomes up to $287,500 (still within the ranks of W-2 wage earners), that percentage jumps to 82%.

So, as I said, making the Bush Tax cuts permanent through the ATRA is inequity neutral, as it provides a lot for the working and middle-classes, i.e., W-2 wage earners.

A "liberal/progressive" should know ... the income inequity fight isn't about income grouping versus income grouping; rather it's all about W-2 wage earner versus Schedule E earners/reporters ... that is where the income inequity problem lies.

[hfojvt]

80. right, sure it is

so people who make $250,000 a year are equal, just another working class schlub like the 60% of the population making less than $60,000 a year.

That's your idea of equality?

Here's a liberal group talking about inequality http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3860

And they talk about the top 20% versus the bottom 20%.

But I am guessing that you yourself are in the top 20% and quite happy to direct the conversation so that policies put more money in your pocket and do jack/squat for those in the bottom 60%.

$250,000 is not equal to $25,000 just because they both come from W-2s. The first person is rich and the second person is working class.

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. Okay. eom.

[Major Nikon]

20. Seems a bit disingenuous

You are saying that because Krugman pointed out that ATRA will reduce income equality relative to the full effect of the Bush tax cuts that he must be cheering on the tax cuts for the rich that didn't get rolled back. I'm pretty sure Krugman is and always has been against tax cuts for the rich.

[1StrongBlackMan]

56. Exactly ...

BUT ... THE WEALTHY GOT TO KEEP THE BUSH TAX CUTS!!!!

I find this argument interesting, as after read an analysis of ATRA, suggests that it is inequity neutral, at worst. Yes ... it leaves the Bush tax cuts in place for the wealthy; but it also, leaves them in place for the working and middle classes ... And it increases targeted wealth taxes, while decreasing benefits for the working and middle classes.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412730-Tax-Provisions-in-ATRA.pdf

[hfojvt]

69. seems far more disingenuous for Krugman to say it that way

Why should making the Bush tax cuts permanent be the BASELINE when the stupid things were set to expire autofriggingmatically?

Oh, maybe because politicians wanted to keep most of those tax cuts for the rich?

Maybe they should be called out for that, instead of praised for ending SOME of them.

If Krugman is against tax cuts for the rich, then he should be against ATRA, because that's what ATRA is, it's permanent tax cuts for the rich.

And for some reason, some liberals want to defend it.

[pragmatic_dem]

84. re: And for some reason, some liberals want to defend it...

I notice conservative democrats defending it, but not liberals.

You know the ones defending it - "i'm an economic conservative, but socially liberal"

Tough love, austerity democrats.

It means that they think it's time to put social security on the table and raise the retirement age, but they are generally ok with gay marriage (as long as it is a civil ceremony) but undecided on abortion. Even more frightening is their view on spying and defense policy.

[merrily]

83. I don't follow him closely, but nothing I've seen or heard (on TV) from him

seems to acknowledge that our current situation is the fault of Democrats as well as Republicans.

[The2ndWheel]

2. Civilization is a wealth/resource concentration process

It's made humans the 1% of the planet. We inherit that inequality. We don't want to share the planet with the rest of life on it either.

[pampango]

42. Europe is quite "civilized" (some would argue much moreso than the US) and

income is much more fairly distributed there than it is here.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. I don't think I agree with that.

I'm thinking about France before the revolution and Russia during the period when serfdom existed. I think Americans today are better off than the French peasants and Russian serfs. Things are bad, for sure, but people have lived through worse. I would agree that it's the most unequal American society we've ever had, but not the most unequal in world history.

[enlightenment]

4. Have to agree.

That "ever existed" part of the statement is not very accurate as written.

[1StrongBlackMan]

6. Agreed ...

And I would add, just about any of the colonized African nations, where there was no pretense of equality, economic or social.

ETA: nations instead of countries.

[Doctor_J]

36. he's talking about the US, genius

Yipes

[LuvNewcastle]

39. He should have qualified his statement, then.

And there's no need to be ugly about it.

[Gormy Cuss]

68. Krugman said it in the context of the U.S.

Looking at the quote out of context is why it seems over-the-top.
As is often the case, context is necessary to parse the words as intended.

[Demeter]

40. Ignoring, of course, 300+ years of slavery and the Jim Crow era that followed, or the natives

please, try to think of the whole nation, not just your part of it.

[CJCRANE]

44. It would be interesting to see the proportion of billionaires and millionaires

thorughout history and the relative wealth of the rest of the population.

[Art_from_Ark]

85. I would argue that society in the antebellum South was probably more unequal

than today, and perhaps society during the Gilded Age as well.

[raccoon]

7. No way ours is the most unequal society that ever existed. You don't even have to go back into

history. You just have to go to a Third World nation.

Now, if he'd said, the most unequal society among First World nations, I might agree.

[HangOnKids]

11. So you guys are smarter than Krugman?

Good to know.

[oldhippie]

16. I am ...

.... when he makes such an erroneous statement.

[HangOnKids]

32. No sorry just NO.

Keep thinking that if it makes you feel better.

[oldhippie]

35. Thank you, I will

Not sure what I should be sorry about, but have a nice evening anyway.

Still would like to hear what your definition of involuntary servitude is, if you ever feel like expressing it.

Time for dinner and some wine.

[raccoon]

24. I reckon so. ROFL nt

[HangOnKids]

33. You reckon wrong.

Care to flash your expertise? You know a degree or two or three? Thanks!

[Demeter]

41. Lots of really stupid people get degrees, you know

It's more a question of being able to sit in class for that many years, than genius.

[oldhippie]

61. I've heard that George W. Bush has degrees ....

.... from Yale and Harvard.

(Just making your point. I have to be careful nowadays.)

[oldhippie]

62. I have a degree or two or three ......

Engineering and a couple of MBAs. I guess I must be smart, huh?

[KurtNYC]

76. Your logical fallacy is....

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

[Major Nikon]

21. It was pretty clear to me that Krugman was talking about the US and not other nations

YMMV.

[CTyankee]

23. that sounds right to me, too.

And he was talking about income inequality, not other forms of inequality. The guy has a freakin' Nobel Prize fer cryin out loud...

[oldhippie]

55. How was that pretty clear?

I don't see it.

[Major Nikon]

58. Because there are nations today which have far worse income equality than the US

Historically there have been civilizations which are far worse. Krugman is unquestionably aware of this. For that reason alone it's easy to tell Krugman was talking about the US. It would be completely ridiculous otherwise. In the very first sentence he's talking about where we live. If you hadn't figured it out by the 8th paragraph...

He said current conditions were much worse than the notorious “Gilded Age” of the late 19th Century that ushered in an era of progressive reforms to start the 20th Century.

Context is important.

[oldhippie]

63. " It would be completely ridiculous otherwise."

That's what I thought.

[Major Nikon]

64. Which means either Nobel laureate Krugman is a complete idiot or his comment was misinterpreted

My money is on the latter.

The expectation that context should be thrown to the wind and all statements have to be interpreted in a strict literal sense in all situations is not a good one. There's volumes of information out there for those who can read between the lines. It would be a shame for someone to miss out on it.

[maddiemom]

51. We should only be comparing ourselves to our better periods in our own history.

What we were capable of achieving for our own citizens and what obviously went wrong. We still had a long way to go, but started going far astray around 1980.

[Cal Carpenter]

13. Says the guy who is getting paid $25,000 a MONTH by an inequality institute.

http://gawker.com/income-inequality-institute-will-pay-paul-krugman-25-0-1563245534

Just came across that this morning, jumped to mind when I saw this post.

[laundry_queen]

14. Peanuts compared to CEOs. And CFOs and BOD members. And so on.

Some of us are not opposed to people making big salaries when they are at the TOP of their specialty. *I* know people who $300,000/year (and I'm some poor single mom). They are not the problem - those who are hoarding hundreds of millions and billions, however, ARE the problem. Attacking Krugman for making money while being the expert on inequality is akin to attacking Al Gore for boarding an airplane.

[Cal Carpenter]

15. I attacked no one

How about reading a post at face value rather than assigning some fucked up motive to other posters? Is that even possible on DU anymore? It was ironic, and it was lighthearted.

Said Krugman in regard to the offer -- “I admit that I had to read it several times to be clear ... it’s remarkably generous.”

Pointing out the irony of the position, which he seems to recognize as well, is not an attack. The fact that you see it as an attack says more about you than it does of me or Krugman. FFS.

[laundry_queen]

26. You used a tactic

that repukes often use again Gore. Don't like being called on it, don't use it. "I was just saying" is also not a defense.

[Cal Carpenter]

27. Oh bullshit

I find it odder that this inequality institute at a public institution is willing to shell out money like that for a nominal position regardless of who is being paid, and if I had expressed an actual opinion about any of this, it would have been from that angle. Fact is, the headline was ironic/funny when I saw it, and seeing a thread like this brought it to mind, and I shared it.

Anything else you see is only going on in your own head. And you can take your implication that I am using republican tactics somewhere else tyvm.

Last word is yours. Have fun.

[elias7]

43. Ironic using "last word is yours" from o'reilly on du

[Cal Carpenter]

48. Huh, I'm used to being red-baited on DU

But I think these accusations of being a republican may be a first in all these years.

[YOHABLO]

66. It's not about obtaining wealth .. sometimes enormous wealth .. but it is about >>

CEOs making 1000% more than their employees. It's about mulit-millionaires paying Social Security taxes on only $117,000 dollars .. It's about a pay wage that is not enough to live on. Paul Krugman is entitled to make as much money as he can .. but he damn well better be paying his share for common good of our society. I think Krugman knows that.

[Major Nikon]

22. So Krugman should live in a van down by the river before he has any credibility on the subject?

[Cal Carpenter]

25. See post #15

I can't say anything on this site anymore without being assigned motives and implications that never crossed my mind. Truly absurd. I give up.

[Major Nikon]

28. If you don't want to defend your own statement, that's fine by me

The institute in question feels the need to pay large sums of money to attract the talent they need to address the issue. That's what's called living in the world most call reality.

[HangOnKids]

34. Please do give up

Thanks!

[PasadenaTrudy]

81. Really..

At least Krugman deserves and earns what he makes...

[herding cats]

30. What he makes isn't the problem.

It's that more people aren't making more money that is the issue here. This type of thinking is designed (I'm not saying it was your intention, but it is something being brandied about when Krugman's point is brought up today) to derail discussion from the fact that too many people in this country are not making but a fraction of what they need to be in order to sustain a viable middle class, while the richest are no longer having to pay their fair share of taxes and thus getting too much of the pie. All this while placing an unfair tax burden on those who can least afford it. The implementation of supply-side economic policies have destroyed the 'American Dream' for most Americans at this point. It's also had the disturbing effect of rewarding the wealthy for paying below a living wage and then forcing the (underfunded) government to pick up the tab of these peoples well being.

It's much more than that overly simplistic synopsis, but you get the point.

[seveneyes]

49. Alse, he is not expected to teach or supervise students

After his first year, Krugman will be required to host a single seminar.

I wonder if CUNY will need to increase tuition to cover the new hire?

[maddiemom]

50. A $300,000 yearly salary is big time in comparison to the typical CEO today??

[QC]

52. A typical community college president is paid more than that.

Krugman is a Nobel Laureate and one of America's most important public intellectuals.

He's a bargain at $300k.

[ErikJ]

17. Solve inequality by cutting taxes and deregulating corporations.

Which is how we got here. The Republican solution for everything.

[pampango]

45. Well said. Achieving greater income equality is not rocket science.

Countries with fairer income distributions all have higher, more progressive taxes and stricter regulations on corporations.

[Warpy]

29. Fire in the lake, the center cannot hold

and revolution of one sort or another is now inevitable.

Let's hope it's a peaceful one. Violent ones never work as advertised.

[Initech]

31. When does the revolution start?

[CFLDem]

47. As soon as the people

light the torches and grab the pitchforks.




*i actually don't think a revolution would be very successful, but it would be interesting to watch*

[Doctor_J]

37. I seem to remember that the Bush tax cuts were going to expire

Dang. Too bad we didn't have a democratic congress at the time

[Enthusiast]

38. It was especially discouraging. Really pumped up the midterm turnout too.

[nolabels]

53. Raygun and his fool posse could only have wished to have been so influential

Truth is that it all started the day they had JFK murdered. It was the day the shadows realized they could run the country by proxy and we have yet to recover the franchise

[taught_me_patience]

57. They guy who never met a free-trade agreement he didn't like?

Yeah, he's a big supporter of one of one of the biggest contributors to inequality.

[alarimer]

59. You might be thinking of Friedman.

Who IS a big free trade guy.

[Romulox]

75. No. Paul Krugman was a huge NAFTA shill in the '90s. Paul just doesn't like to own up to it.

As recently as this year, Krugman said the TPP was "no big deal".

[tclambert]

65. The tide of Reaganomics DID lift all boats*. It just didn't help people who can't afford boats*.

*When I say boats, I exclude canoes, kayaks, rowboats, one-masted sailboats, speedboats, and yachts under 30 feet long.

[DallasNE]

67. Inherited Inequality

You mean like Mitt Romney being able to put $100 million in his kids accounts without them paying a dime in inheritance tax nor a capital gains tax -- just free and clear. While Mitt himself only pays about a 14% rate on his $20 million annual income. Now I get the picture.

[arely staircase]

70. while I feel unqualified to do so, le me help mr. krugman out with some specifics

“The fact of the matter is, since inequality began soaring, around 1980, the bottom half of America has pretty much been left behind,” Krugman said. “There has not been a rising tide that raised all boats.”

I am gonna go with January 20th 1981

[KurtNYC]

77. So more unequal than slavery or massive labor/death camps?

To make the kind of statement that we are now more unequal than societies which denied rights to women and minorities, had no voting, no free speech, societies with state prescribed religion, societies that enslaved and worked to death millions of their own citizens seem hyperbolic and perhaps insensitive.

[WinkyDink]

79. Our "ideals" are a fiction on par with GW's cherry tree.