Are economists concerned about inequality?

Discussion in 'Economics & Trade' started by haribol, Oct 7, 2015.

  1. haribol

    haribol New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    679
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Until recently there was no strong voice and advocacy for reducing inequality in the US and around. After the great recession of 2008 -2009 economists that include Paul Krugman have been relentlessly advocating for a more liberal economy with government regulation going blatantly against the ideologies of Milton Friedman who had dominated the American economy for a long time. The philosophy that markets are rational and intervention will be unintelligent prevailed until the recessions. Competition is no doubt a prerequisite to economic developments and yet today looking at the market all over the world there is oligopoly, syndicates, lobbyism that influence government decision making, foreign policy, industrial policy. That is why there is no fair market competition; there is market manipulation. As such they do not produce public goods that give them moderate profit gains. They shift their business to offshore areas for tax havenve. There is no doubt that government bodies have corrupt bureaucrats but the corruption of big business tycoons that lobby with government in their self interests are more corrupt.
     
  2. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's a fallacy to believe that more government regulation and reducing inequality go hand in hand. In fact in many cases, more government regulation and involvement in the economy results in more inequality. Money is taken from the middle class and used to buy expensive things from large corporate contractors, and all the little businesses cannot keep up with all the countless regulations.

    Surely there must be other strategies besides more regulation and rules. Some people want to take the easy way out because they are not very creative, or not willing to take a drastically different approach.
     
  3. OldManOnFire

    OldManOnFire Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2008
    Messages:
    19,980
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps real economists know that 'income inequality' and 'wealth inequality' cannot be solved by government meddling. After all, both terms are 100% political and have no real meaning. Since the beginning of time and earned income, there has always been a wide disparity between the lowest and highest achievers...this is human nature and logical! It is improbable/impossible that humans in any endeavor will all have equal results. Pitting the lower achievers against the higher achievers is 100% political pandering to the naive for votes and/or creating social policy. Forcing government/political nonsense into the private sector can never solve the so-called inequality issue! I doubt the political whiners can even clearly and concisely define a root problem when comparing lower achievers to higher achievers? Joe-Blow earning $7.25/hour and Bill Gates earning $1 billion/year is not a root problem. IMO the question should be why does the US today have so many people who are relegated to median income and less? What precisely is keeping Joe-Blow from achieving more...certainly not Bill Gates? Even if Bill Gates gave the government $1 billion per year in additional taxes, this would not positively or negatively effect Joe-Blow's situation. If Joe-Blow is not pleased with $7.25/hour, there are very effective steps to take to do better...
     

Share This Page