bigtexxx - are you seriously taking the position that income inequality/wealth concentration has not substantially accelerated in either the near or long term? Not a very smart one to take, I don't think.
Not when they control a disproportionate amount of the wealth, and that is increasing under this administration.
The point is that he's comparing it to the very small percentage of people in the top .1%, who are making a disproportionately huge gain, greater than 15% a year.
We should be celebrating the successes of these people making all this money. Instead, Krugman chooses to vilify them. Liberal demagoguery at its finest. Rich people suck! Rock on! yours truly, Krugman
Wealthy people use their resources to protect and accumulate more wealth. They use their wealth to buy education increasing their earning power, they invest their excess wealth for passive growth and they use their wealth to buy political influence and promote political policies that benefit themselves. It's not evil, it's just human nature. Americans have long recognized the potential for inequity and have allowed for it with programs such as the progressive income tax, but with there are ebbs and flows in political power. Right now the few wealthy are exerting more control but the pendulem can swing and the poorer masses will take back some ionfluence. I think it's becoming harder though with the explosion in mass communcations and it's power to influence the game. Rich people can own the media and use it to get the people to think the way they want. Abortion and economic issues aren't nescessarily linked but in a two party system one party can control the hot button issues and the people, perhaps to the peoples on economic detriment. But eventually the Po folks will probably get pissed enough to create a grass roots groundswell. At least in the USA we don't have to take over with bloodshed.
Uh - when you write an article about oligarchy - it stands to reason that one would focus on the very top. It would be "absurd" not to do so.
Sam, you're a treat. My issue is with his focus on these 0.0001. The fact that he wrote a silly article about his that tries to draw conclusions on the rest of the economy is absurd. You've been particularly surly today Sam.
He didn't "draw conclusions on the rest of the economy," he made a conclusion that the ultra-rich are seeing their incomes rise FAR faster than the rest of us, a conclusion that he documented with hard data showing that in 30 years, the real incomes of the majority of us have risen 34% while the incomes in the top .01% rose 497%. In other words, most of us see ~1% per year increase or less while the richest among us see an increase of over 15% PER YEAR. The article was about an emerging American oligarchy, not about the economy in general. Learn how to read.
