SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Today the trend to greater equality of incomes which characterised the postwar period has been reversed. Inequality is now rising rapidly. Contrary to the rising-tide hypothesis, the rising tide has only lifted the large yachts, and many of the smaller boats have been left dashed on the rocks. This is partly because the extraordinary growth in top incomes has coincided with an economic slowdown.
The trickle-down notion— along with its theoretical justification, marginal productivity theory— needs urgent rethinking. That theory attempts both to explain inequality— why it occurs— and to justify it— why it would be beneficial for the economy as a whole. This essay looks critically at both claims. It argues in favour of alternative explanations of inequality, with particular reference to the theory of rent-seeking and to the influence of institutional and political factors, which have shaped labour markets and patterns of remuneration. And it shows that, far from being either necessary or good for economic growth, excessive inequality tends to lead to weaker economic performance. In light of this, it argues for a range of policies that would increase both equity and economic well-being.
Five minutes to midnight, marginal productivity theory "needs urgent rethinking."
[Wikipedia: Joseph Eugene Stiglitz is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and the John Bates Clark Medal. He is a former senior vice president and chief economist of the World Bank and is a former member and chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. --Ed.]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Whoever on Saturday July 29 2017, @03:35PM
I don't think the idea that increasing economic inequality reduces overall growth is a new idea. I remember reading studies that showed this years ago.
I do think that the objective of the super-wealthy is increasing inequality rather than personal wealth. They would prefer to have 10% of a 1 pound pie than 7% of a 2 pound pie. This may seem irrational at first, but I think that there may be sound reasons for it.
Firstly, recognize that the super-wealthy have more money than they will ever spend. Increased money for them does not affect what they can and will buy: they already have too much money.
But a larger portion of the pie may give them more influence, which may mean that they are better able to hold onto their positions of wealth and power. In other words, 10% of a 1 pound pie is more stable than 7% of a 2 pound pie. That's their key objective: holding onto their position is society.