Inequality and Crises: Coincidence or Causation?
Vložit
- čas přidán 4. 05. 2017
- On June 28, 2010, Paul Krugman presented this Keynote Lecture titled Inequality and Crises: Coincidence or Causality? His lecture headlined an international conference, held in Luxembourg, called “Inequality and the Status of the Middle Class: Lessons from the Luxembourg Income Study. The slides that accompanied the lecture can be found here: www.lisdatacenter.org/wp-conte....
The papers delivered at the conference were published in a book: Income Inequality: Economic Disparities and The Middle Class in Affluent Countries, 2013, edited by Janet C. Gornick and Markus Jäntti. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
One thought in regards to education is regardless of funding, the dropping of standards, especially in the basics of reading and math, and not holding kids back until they attain reasonable standards is just nuts in my opinion. That way kids in worse districts have the tools to read books and self learn on their own, to supplement whatever their district lacks. I think that alone, could alleviate some of the mortgage pressure.
It's ironic that he came to these political economic realizations in 2010 and yet supported the 2016 presidential primary candidate whose husband helped create these problems with de-regulations (a la repeal of Glass-Steagel, etc.). Sanders was the obvious democratic candidate to help turn back income inequality and yet Krugman joined the neo-liberal candidate whose positions he acknowledges caused many of the problems we're facing. That was either incredible political cowardice or incredible foolishness (since we all know the result).
As globalization increases so does inequality.
Nonsense. That is assbackwards. Globalization has resulted in a massive DECREASE of inequality. Chinese and Indian peasants once earned only 2 or 3 % of a middle-class American or Europeans. Now many of them earn 30 - 50% .
People are BORN with massive inequality, inequality of talent, inequality of skill, inequality of ambition, etc. How could all that innate inequality NOT manifest itself as inequality of productivity, which translates to inequality of income and inequality of wealth.
Of course, Krugman is the archetypal 'political' economist, so his solution is always redistribution from the more productive to the less productive (high earners to low earners).
Very very few people object to the existence of *some* inequality of income and wealth (especially that resulting from inequality of talent, skill etc, rather than, say, accident of birth, or corruption). It is the *degree* of inequality that is at issue: For example, there is a huge difference between CEOs of large companies earning (say) 10x more than their median employee vs 1000x more.
@@guthfrithyrlingsson4935 If productivity is the criterion, then 1000x is totally reasonable. If 'fairness' is the criterion, then not so much. Unfortunately however, 'fair' is an arbitrary concept. 'Fair', like 'beauty', lies in the eye of the beholder. The laws of economics don't know from 'fair'.
@@clarestucki5151 What I know of economics can be written on a grain of rice, but I am pretty sure 'fairness' is a concept that serious economists engage with and build into theory and so forth (at least that is what google tells me...). If it is an arbitrary concept (and I am not sure I agree that it is as arbitrary as 'beauty' in fact), it is nonetheless a very useful concept, I suspect.
OBVIOUSLY CAUSATION . PWW
Factor in the propaganda from the rich to brainwash the poor.