LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+41 41 0
Published 2 years ago with 5 Comments
Additional Contributions:

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • Gozzin
    +3

    I still think giving everyone a living wage and not allowing landlords to price gouge renters would be the way to go.

  • MAGISTERLUDI (edited 2 years ago)
    +2

    "Is vast inequality necessary?" Of course it is not "necessary".

    However Krugman avoids the question of, does it deter others or have a negative effect on the economy as a whole?

    That's because it doesn't. Even he realizes that there is no set amount of money/wealth, and no matter the wealth of others, there is the same opportunity(s) for everyone else to create their share, on which there is no cap.

  • Appaloosa
    +1

    "And there’s no reason to believe that it would. Historically, America achieved its most rapid growth and technological progress ever during the 1950s and 1960s, despite much higher top tax rates and much lower inequality than it has today." Very sweeping statements....directed at who...did the black community benefit from this? The drafted soldiers sent to die in Vietnam have an equal stake in the game?

    • spaceghoti
      +4

      Poverty and inequality were strongly affected by government policy in the 1950s. As a general observation, high taxes earmarked for public programs to address poverty have been demonstrably more successful than free market initiatives. This is contrary to the conservative talking point that high taxes and government programs increase poverty.

      As for the soldiers drafted in war, I'm not sure how that relates to the topic. Nobody is claiming that there haven't been civil rights nightmares or that the system has been perfect. The evidence points to the fact that inequality goes down when the government transfers money from those who have a lot to those who don't have enough.

      • Appaloosa (edited 2 years ago)
        +3

        Sorry, what I meant was that high tax rates didn't stop the war or create the civil rights movements. Good link you added by the way.

        I have a bigger problem with the inversions and the turning of the US economy to one of debt, the money policy benefiting the very few, as well as the pre-depression era like coziness of government and big business.

Here are some other snaps you may like...