Krugman sees new Gilded Age

Peter K. peterk at enteract.com
Mon Oct 21 19:02:48 PDT 2002



>>New York Times Magazine, Oct. 20
>>In Part 1 of a two-part piece on social class, Times columnist Paul
>>Krugman says we've entered a new Gilded Age, in which the rich again
>>wield as much wealth and power as they did in Gatsby's time. In the
>>1980s, the experts looked for economic explanations for the increase
>>in inequality. Now there's a growing consensus that the change was
>>cultural: a new "permissiveness" that condoned huge executive
>>compensation packages.


>
>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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list