Edward Conard

Top Ten New York Times Bestselling Author

Upside of Inequality Unintended Consequences
  • “…serious thinking for serious thinkers. …a thought-provoking blueprint for growing middle- and working-class incomes.” - Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts
  • Macro Roundup
  • Highlights
  • Blog
  • OpEds
  • Reviews
  • About
    • About the Author
    • About the Books
    • Read Excerpts
    • Read the Reviews
    • Debates
    • Media and TV
  • Topics
    • All Media Appearances
    • Productivity
    • Monetary Policy
    • Banking
    • Politics
    • Upside endnotes
    • Stuff Ed’s Assistant Thought He Might Like
  • Contact
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • youtube
  • linkedin
  • Advanced SearchChoose Categories To Search Within
    • Close Advanced Search

Advanced Search

Krugman Steps Closer Toward Conceding Case Against Income Inequality Is Mistaken

Earlier this week Paul Krugman took another step closer to conceding that the case against income inequality is mistaken. He said, “I’m actually a skeptic on the inequality-is-bad-for-performance proposition. … [I’m] worried that the evidence for some popular stories is weaker than I’d like.”

Krugman laid some of the groundwork for his growing concession in his review of Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century where Krugman voiced cautious skepticism for Piketty’s core thesis—that increased cronyism was driving the income growth of the 1%. Krugman complained:

“…there is one thing that slightly detracts from [Piketty’s] achievement [in Capital in the Twenty-First Century]—a sort of intellectual sleight of hand. … [The] rise [of America’s 1%] has happened for reasons that lie beyond the scope of Piketty’s grand thesis [i.e. the growing accumulation of capital]. … What we have seen in America…is something “radically new”—the rise of “supersalaries.” Now, to be fair, [Piketty] …advances a possible economic analysis of changing norms, arguing that falling tax rates for the rich have in effect emboldened the earnings elite….[to] behave differently [i.e. to exploit cronyism despite prior social norms to the contrary]. There’s a lot to be said for this diagnosis, but it clearly lacks the rigor and universality of Piketty’s analysis of the distribution of and returns to wealth.”

“Also, I don’t think Capital in the Twenty-First Century adequately answers the most telling criticism of the executive power hypothesis: the concentration of very high incomes in finance, where performance actually can…be evaluated. … Their rise can’t be attributed solely to power relations.”

“Overall, I’m more or less persuaded by Piketty’s explanation of the surge in wage inequality. … But as I said, his analysis here lacks the rigor of his capital analysis.”

Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

© Copyright 2023 Coherent Research Institute · All Rights Reserved