I largely agreed with Joseph Stiglitz’s article in Vanity Fair, which my colleague describes as an example of self-refutingly absurd liberal ideology. To sum up the basic thrust of what I agree with in Mr Stiglitz’s piece: I think the rich are getting much, much richer, while regular people (in the developed world, which is what we’re talking about here) are at best treading water. I think that wealth brings power, and the fact that the rich are getting much, much richer relative to everyone else means that the rich also exert increasing influence over the economy, government and society. I think income mobility and equality of opportunity have declined in America over the past 40 years, to the point where America is now more segregated by class divisions than many European countries. I think a major reason for these shifts has been the increasing dominance, since the Reagan era, of an ideology that is indifferent to or actively celebrates inequality of income.

jobs, but from where?

April 16, 2011

We should put the recovery on solid footing by increasing wages and employment, not needlessly slashing government spending.

Just as everybody seems to be understanding the full implications of the UK government’s approach to fiscal policy, we may be on the verge of embracing it here in the US. This a very negative development.

Yes, we should eliminate wasteful and unnecessary spending (we can start with a large proportion of the defense budget). But when we are experiencing a shortage of aggregate demand (the total spending, private and public, that supports employment and output), it makes no sense to introduce further cuts by…

If no stimulus benefits the rich, and stimulus benefits the rich what can we do?