I don't like it when any pundit solely blames one party for economic (down) trends. When you consider the make up of the white house and legislature since 1973 - Krugman's take on it certainly seems to be one-sided.
No, you didn't deny it, you just took us on some irrelevant sidetrip about things that were not present in the original editorial - such as the conjured thesis that tax cuts depress real wages - and used them to discredit the thrust of the article - that the income inequality is increasing and that this increase is fraught with negative ramifications. Are you honestly arguing that Bush's tax cuts have not contributed to this disparity over the past 5 years? The facts are the facts - if you cut a tax that only affects ultra high income groups -like the estate tax, necessrily, you are going to exacerbate the disparity to some degree. It's simple math, langal. You don't need an econmics degree to understand that
But middle-class wages have been stagnant since 1973. Bush was probably snorting lines off a stripper's back in 1973. Krugman does mention the stagnant wage growth (22 percent growth since 1973 largely attributable to working moms and longer hours). I just think the reasons he outlines for this are too one-sided and wrong. My econ degree is catching dust in the attic somewhere. BTW - I'm not the super supply-sider that I may admittedly come off as. While I supported most of GW's tax cuts (especially for the poor and middle-class), I think he could have introduced some sort of "millionaire's" tax bracket to balance it out - targeted especially at the super-rich.
I am not sure simply tax the rich more is necessarily going to narrow the wealth gap. A person making 2 million a year is going to widen the gap between him/her and the person making 60k a year no matter what tax rate is at.
No it wouldn't really narrow any gaps that much. I just think for that taxing those making 1million+ a year andd using that to reduce the deficit would having a more profound effect on interest rates than the supply-side - trickle-down reasons.
The thing is people care about rich people getting richer a lot more than how much is the deficit. They are focused on the wealth gap where tax cut/hikes would have little impact.
I suppose capital gains tax cuts help the rich out more but going that way probably won't help out much either. I suppose one way to increase wages is to limit the labor supply (offshore or right here).
The biggest problem with deficit is spening. Everyone wants to spend and spend and spend. This president have never turned down any spending bill.
