I am reposting this at Dan’s suggestion as it relates to the recent post by Steve Roth. I have edited it slightly along with a retitle to clean up some wording and hopefully have made it easier to read. For those new here, my posts started with income inequality and a thought that we changed our economy as to how we would make money starting in the 80’s. My one new thought is that the obvious political party to promote policy that addresses the issue noted in this post and it’s links still don’t fully get it. Yes, Sanders, Warren etc are talking policy, but even they are not discussing the philosophy and processes of an economy that allows the massed to “get it”. In simple terms it is the difference of references when talking about team work. The apparent accepted reference being sports…competition, win. The truth as I see it however, is that the appropriate reference for team work in a democratic society’s economy is that of a barn raising. When is the last time you heard anyone use that reference. Hell, even in my other outlet for relaxation, music, the concept of an orchestra or large band is dying and competition models are being applied. In Trump’s words “Sad”.
But then again, we’ve lost the idea of the rat race.
Daniel Becker | December 28, 2008 9:00 am
I should title this: Yeah, it is just like 1929 you freak’n see, hear and speak no inequality monkeys.
I have this pile of income data sorted out from Saez’s work (the GDP is BEA). My thoughts regarding our economy is that income inequality (or equality) matters. It matters so much, that it is the all defining focus of government in a democracy. Every policy made should be judged against this goal of ever greater equality as we use the tool called “economy” for the betterment of our lives.
For most (even the tippy-top earners), the biggest share of income is not earned from money, but from labor, whether physical or cognitive. Because of this, there must be effort as reflected in our policy toward regulation and initiatives that continually work to equalize the share of income. I am confident, that just as Mike Kimel showed there is a low and high to top marginal rates correlating with GDP growth rates, the same is true for share of income. That’s my thoughts.