Thursday, May 29, 2008
Some Astonishing Numbers from an Important New Book
In my judgment, one of the most important questions about American society is the relationship or compatibility between capitalism and democracy -- the extent to which one threatens or precludes the other. Thus I was drawn to a new book by the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels, which is described here and discussed here, and which has received a lot of criticism in the blogs of conservative economists, although (as best I can tell) mostly on fairly trivial and unpersuasive methodological grounds. One of them (Will Wilkinson) described the Bartels book as "Krugman for serious people." What I find most striking are the following numbers, which show that the usual descriptions of growing income inequality in the US since 1981 vastly UNDERSTATE the growth at the high end of the income distribution. For example, while the real income (that is, measured in constant dollars) of taxpayers at the 99th percentile doubled between 1981 and 2005 -- a much greater increase than for Americans below that level -- the real income of taxpayers at the 99.9th percentile TRIPLED, and the real income of taxpayers at the 99.99th percentile -- "a hyper-rich stratum comprising about 13,000 taxpayers" -- QUINTUPLED. Bartels argues that this growth was produced primarily by the tax cuts pushed by Republican administrations, and stresses that the fivefold increase was not the average for the 99.99th percentile, but "the LOWEST income of taxpayers in this group," so presumably the rate of increase was even larger for the wealthiest of this highest-income 13,000 households. For the three decades after World War II, "the REAL income cutoff for this hyper-rich stratum was virtually constant, but around 1980 it began to escalate rapidly, from about $ 1.2 million to $6.2 million by 2000" (constant dollars).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I'm not really sure what those numbers alone are supposed to mean. In the excerpts linked, the author seems to talk a lot about the growing wealth of the highest echelon and the disproportionate influence of the wealthy on politics.
He doesn't say WHY he believes the influence is still so disproportionate, even after McCain-Feingold, or how that could be remedied. It just seems like a bunch of statistics to get us up in arms to....do what? Chase the CEOs with pitch forks? What's the point?
I think the magnitude of the numbers makes at least two rather obvious points: (a) what we call "democracy" in the US obviously poses no threat of any kind whatsoever to those with extreme wealth, thus clearly proving either that all of Madison's working assumptions in Federalist #10 are flatly wrong OR American politics is not at all democratic; (b) whenever we get to the point that the US must increase revenues, there would be a very strong case for taxing wealth as the primary policy (although almost no chance that it will be adopted). "Chasing the wealthy with pitchforks" seems only to lead to a Bonaparte or a Stalin, and I doubt people have forgotten those instructive lessons. How the reported result has been produced is discussed at much more length in the book, but minimally it obviously says McCain-Feingold has been utterly ineffectual, as would be almost any campaign finance "reform" other than the public funding of elections that has been adopted in Maine and Arizona. Someone told me that North Carolina was considering or had made this step, but I haven't been able to find out anything about that... Any info?
I also heard that NC was considering it, but I'm not sure what's happened with it.
So, taxing the wealthy means what? Capital gains? A new tippity-top bracket?
What kind of threat should democracy be posing to the wealthy, exactly? I'm failing to see your point. Another way to phrase this is: what kind of democracy are you envisioning? Should it prevent people from becoming that much wealthier than others?
Post a Comment