>
>The thesis is not stupid--and is frighteningly plausible. In my
[clip]
>The thing that sends me running screaming into the night...
>
>[Nah. I can't continue this. I have to work today. And it's too depressing.]
>
>
>Brad DeLong
The Slate summation doesn't really get it. The change wasn't completely cultural. Krugman starts with that but then ends the first part with the idea that the rich have been recycling their money back into think tanks and political parties which in turn have been shifting things to the right. It's the political economy. So, it's money versus people and movements and their votes, etc.
I'd just point out that maybe inequality has reached 1920s levels, but many other things have gotten better as Doug and Chomsky have recently pointed out. For instance Chomsky would probably argue it would be an uphill battle to reduce civil liberties to their 1920s levels. And race and gender relations are certainly better which bodes well for the people side of the conflict.
Peter