I’d suggest that equality is a less important goal than maximizing income at the lower end and allowing the greatest possible opportunity for economic mobility. By limiting the economic rewards of work at the top in the pursuit of equality, we risk reducing economic opportunity and limiting investment that could lift the bottom. While we certainly don’t want to promote incomes at the top at the expense of incomes at the bottom, inequality is to some extent a cost of a prosperous, dynamic economy. A rising tide that lifts all boats is preferable to a stagnant economy that lifts none.
You’re right, deficits do have potential macroeconomic impacts that can negatively effect growth…
Taylor Griffin

Most thinking on the wealth gap does not call for equality as a solution. Most economists concerned w/ this problem would be very happy to simply reverse the trend (actually going back a number of decades — part of numerous cycles through history).

The last 8 yrs. in particular have seen a marked increase in that gap. Parity is impossible. But there has been little done in the last several decades to finance the demand side of our economy in the same way as the supply side.

Government’s primary responsibility is the greater happiness of the majority of the people. An increasing wealth gap increases unhappiness. If government is serious about reducing the wealth gap (under Trump I have serious doubts), the most efficient way of addressing that problem is to directly finance those who are most responsible for consumer spending. That may involve quite a number of initiatives that I could not at the moment define.

The American consumer is the greatest American economic resource, yet that resource has been neglected.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.