11–20 of 27 posts
Krugman channelling his inner Piketty. They're not wrong though. The greatest growth did come when there was the least inequality, and the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, I couldn't agree more. Generational passing-down of wealth (largely a result of rents that can extracted from resources kept within one's family) is completely elided in the article.
Intergenerational wealth transfer accounts for almost none of today's inequality. The vast majority of it is gone within a generation or two.[0] [0] http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/
Krugman channelling his inner Piketty. They're not wrong though. The greatest growth did come when there was the least inequality, and the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth...
There was equality but not mandatory equality . There is an important difference.
http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5
http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/Tax_Rates...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There was equality but not mandatory equality . There is an important difference.
Not actually true. Tax rates on high incomes were much, much higher in the 1950s and 1960s. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5 http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/Tax_Rates...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not actually true. Tax rates on high incomes were much, much higher in the 1950s and 1960s. http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates-2012-5 http://s158.photobucket.com/user/OnlyObvious/media/Tax_Rates...
That seems more relevant than it is. The US tax code used to be riddled with loopholes - nobody actually paid the top rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems more relevant than it is. The US tax code used to be riddled with loopholes - nobody actually paid the top rates.
The effective tax rates back then were still higher than today. You're right, they weren't 92%, but they were higher.
Krugman channelling his inner Piketty. They're not wrong though. The greatest growth did come when there was the least inequality, and the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth...
Wasn't it?
n the quarter century following the war, America’s economy grew at the fastest rate ever in the history of the country. In the half century between 1870 and 1920, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing jumped almost 450%, climbing from 2.5 million to 11.2 million. This created a vacuum that encouraged immigration and, during the same period, 27.5 million immigrants came to the United States. In order to support the country’s burgeoning population, farmers increased the number of acres under cultivation by an astonishing 234%
http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/HIST31...
Krugman channelling his inner Piketty. They're not wrong though. The greatest growth did come when there was the least inequality, and the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth...
the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth... Wasn't it? n the quarter century following the war, America’s economy grew at the fastest rate ever in the history of the country. In the half century between 1870 and 1920, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing jumped almost 450%, climbing from 2.5 million to 11.2 million. This created a vacuum that encouraged immigration and, during t…
This is exactly my point. Fastest ever growth. 1945-1970.
> In the half century between 1870 and 1920, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing jumped almost 450%, climbing from 2.5 million to 11.2 million. This created a vacuum that encouraged immigration and, during the same period, 27.5 million immigrants came to the United States. In order to support the country’s burgeoning population, farmers increased the number of acres under cultivation by an astonishing 234%
This is simply population growth. Economic growth, as a metric that actually matters to quality of life, is defined as Real GDP per person.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.5671.pdf
If you look at the main chart in this paper, you will see the growth was, relatively speaking, rather flat throughout the gilded age, which was also characterized by wild swings in the economy. Growth becomes higher and more constant after WWII (largely due to the rather left-wing policies at play that started with the New Deal, and later the restrictions imposed during the war, and high tax rates immediately after the war).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the gilded age wasn't exactly a time of phenomenal economic growth... Wasn't it? n the quarter century following the war, America’s economy grew at the fastest rate ever in the history of the country. In the half century between 1870 and 1920, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing jumped almost 450%, climbing from 2.5 million to 11.2 million. This created a vacuum that encouraged immigration and, during t…
> n the quarter century following the war, America’s economy grew at the fastest rate ever in the history of the country. This is exactly my point. Fastest ever growth. 1945-1970. > In the half century between 1870 and 1920, the number of Americans employed in manufacturing jumped almost 450%, climbing from 2.5 million to 11.2 million. This created a vacuum that encouraged immigration and, during the same period, 27.…
They are talking about the Civil War.
>This is simply population growth. Economic growth, as a metric that actually matters to quality of life, is defined as Real GDP per person.
First, it's not just "simply" population growth. Try ferrying 27 million immigrants to current Southern Europe and see how the GDP fares.
But more importantly, I just don't get the idea that GDP per capita inside the country is the only metric that matters to quality of life. Dozens of millions of people were able to increase their income by coming to the US, that doesn't count?
What you're essentially saying is that if a country has ten people earning $100 each, and then ten more people who were earning $2 in other countries now join the first ten (whose income is unaltered) but earn only $5, the quality of life has been reduced.
To me this is simply nonsense unless one doesn't care about the quality of life of immigrants.
