Gotta love Krugman.. not as an economist but as a world class hypocrite rivaling Molière's Tartuffe. He's getting paid $25,000 a month to do zero work, while calling for the end of income inequality. <scoff> I wonder if he's ready to give up 70% of that to the federal government like he says all "wealthy" ought to do.

The headline might as well read, "Rich economist constantly holds forth on the evils of income inequality, while...." You get the point. Here's the back-of-the-envelope math on his recent windfall:

Not counting the $20,000 in non-transferable travel budget, moving bennies, etc. that they offered him, CUNY is paying Dr. Krugman a nine-month salary of $225,000. I presume he won't be working summer semesters, so let's say that's all his salary from CUNY for the year. Now normal tenured senior professors at CUNY make at most $116,364 a year. Adjuncts at CUNY make about $3,000 or so per course; you can teach at most 9 hours a semester. So let's say you're an adjunct maxed out at a 3/3 load; you make about $18,000 a year for that. So if Dr. Krugman wanted, he could pick out 6 adjuncts at CUNY and *double* their yearly income, just by giving away the amount of money he personally makes *over and above what the best-paid senior faculty make*. If he were willing to do the job (*) for a nominal fee (as you may know, Prof. Krugman has another line of work), he could literally pick some lucky adjunct at CUNY and double their entire year's income -- *every month of the year.

And honestly, @radx, what did the "progressives" expect would happen? This so-called "Democracy" can never be anything other than an "oligarchy," if not a governance by "mob rule" (and sometimes a combination of the two). If "Democracy" is the "least bad" kind of state/government possible as some (like Mark Twain) have claimed, then it's high time "the people" climbed out of the dark ages and lived without rulers, altogether.

The resultant "chaos" that would ensue would not be any worse (and in fact far better) than the kind of unintended chaos that results from the centralized power structures of state governance.

------

*Which, let's be clear, involves no teaching load, and seems to mainly mean that maybe he'll drop by the office every few months to share his brilliance with whoever happens to be there. The point for CUNY is almost certainly to purchase some of the aura from his name on the letterhead

The answer is perilously simple: Soccer. Look at oh, I dunno, Greenbay, and the money that goes into football there. Greenbay isn't exactly a thriving metropolis, but the pride the get from having a good team outweighs the income inequality between the football haves and the spectator have nots. And if you think Americans are nuts about football, it pales in comparison to what Europeans feel about their soccer team.

But you do bring up a very valid point; crime always will flourish in harder economic times.

I can see his point though. Founding fathers were far from perfect..and he's right, they are idolized. If we were to meet the founders right now, I'm sure they'd say some fucked up shit even the most conservative would now think of as barbaric. I think at the very least, they definitely favored landowners over non. They certainly didn't think women should vote. so they certainly weren't strangers to the idea that some people had more rights than others.

We make the same argument about weapons, that the founding fathers never could have foreseen how guns have advanced and proliferated in present day so we routinely argue that the 2nd amendment needs to be revisited. The left focuses on "well regulated" and the right focus on "shall not be infringed" No matter what side of the aisle you're on...it needs to be revised if only for clarity.

By that same token, I don't think the founders could have foreseen how powerful corporations have become or income inequality problem. Gov't used to have the power to revoke a company charter pretty much on whim...that ability is long gone

Do you think The Wire paid for their production assistants' healthcare? Did they make more than the $50/day for their 12 hour days (if they weren't working for free as "interns" for the 'privilege' of 'paying their dues' in 'the industry')?

Haha, of course, "liberals" get a pass from other "liberals", but no pass for the Kochtopus (even though the Kochs give way more money to charities than The Wire would even be able to). Plus, The Wire gets a PR benefit that they need in order to film in Baltimore in the first place so I assure you that their reasons aren't purely altruistic.

"but they continuously ran charity after charity, on top of the money the production poured into the local economy."

How does this top Koch? Or the Waltons? Or, the other David Simon? Or Perkins. Are you keeping track of who contributes to what or not and how much?

How is one David Simon "contributing" more than the other one?
And why should he get a hypocrisy "free pass?" (Especially when this hypocrisy amounts to just another PR stunt.)

"His point about a lack of guilt, the shamelessness on part of two mentioned individuals, still stands though."

Yeah? Like you know (the other) David Simon and can vouch for his "lack of guilt?" And "guilt" about what? Having money? Being successful?

"So if a privileged individual actively weakens society to further increase his own wealth"

Does he? Really? How? And how are you doing more for "society" than that? Who are you and what exactly is your great "contribution" to society?

Since the 'inequality' hobgoblin keeps making appearances, this article may help put that to rest.

Two main causes of inequality: profit (good) and central bank currency inflation (bad). When you (or anyone else) profit, you increase income 'inequality', in a good way. When central banks inflate currency, they create income 'inequality,' in a bad way. Let's not conflate one with the other. And anyone so misinformed as to ignore central banks as the overwhelming source of undesirable income inequality cannot really contribute much to the debate or to providing solutions. All other remedial measures that ignore the main cause will not only fail but create countless new problems.

depends on how you define "maximum nasty" @enoch

There was a time where I thought for sure we were heading towards another civil war. My assumption was that the gun nuts and other right wing lunatics would eventually take up arms against their country but ultimately lose.

But as I think about it more, for all their bluster and rhetoric. Chickenhawks are ultimately cowards and even gun-nuts really don't want to sacrifice their lives for their interpretation of the 2nd amendment. When it comes right down to it, most people don't want to fight and kill their fellow countrymen despite how much they want to try and demonize the "other"

The core issue as I see it that is preventing our political system from being more effective is private money in our politics and I don't think that's going to be fixed without a constitutional amendment prohibiting it. Thanks to the internet age, elections should be 100 percent publicly funded and lobbying and donations should be outlawed, because anyone can e-mail/blog and thus influence their elected officials without bribes or gifts or perks being involved. Money is not free speech

income inequality is going to get worse and worse until it reaches a tipping point that galvanizes the 99 percent but we're just not there yet. While I'm sure there will be some bloodshed during this process, I think on a national level it will be relatively bloodless and relatively peaceful.

as always, it's just going to be painful and it's going to take time. One of the problems with change is that you usually have to wait for people with bad ideas to die of old age before better ideas are implemented.

@newtboy said: "Equality [...] means being paid in accordance with your production / productivity."

Much of income inequality is due to supply and demand.

The engineers at Twitter who are being paid millions are valued at that much on the market because there are very few humans alive who have the experience they have, and the temperament to enjoy studying stuff that most humans find "boring."

If you point out to people how they can have greater financial security in their lives, most will argue against you. The default human is like the grasshopper in the classic Disney short.


(But you do make a lot of good points.)

Where do you think that bullying comes from though. Kids being told that they have to be tough and physically assault anything perceived as a threat even if that threat is so benign as "that kid made me look dumb so I'm going to beat him up when the teachers aren't looking"

I never had a dad growing up, so I never felt that pressure to "man up" so yeah, I felt that "conformist" pressure more.

It all just links back to income inequality though. Why do parents tell their kids to man up and be tough? probably because they're having a tough time with the job market and it becomes dog eat dog out there. but that mentality can lead to violence.

where does the conformist mentality come from. wealthier kids who have nicer clothes making poorer kids feel like shit. Let's just say I think school uniforms are a great idea to combat that inequality. kids are supposed to be expressing their mind at school, not mommy and daddy's pocketbook.

We're biologically hard wired to be competitive because a long time ago, we had to compete for food. We don't need to do that anymore, but the hard wiring still remains. It's going to take a while for that trait to regress.

@Trancecoach.. on the map darker colours = higher inequality.

First of all, you can't really equate developing countries with the first world. They have a whole different set of problems causing inequality.

Second, if you compare the US (deregulated) to Europe (more regulated) you will see that income inequality is lower in Europe.

Regulation is certainly not the only fix for inequality, but it is an important one.
And not just "more regulation" but the right regulation.

Yeah, everyone is poor except a few rulers and their cronies, so there is "less income inequality."

How do you read that map you sent?

China is highly regulated, yet there is a lot of inequality, having the second largest number of billionaires, and millions of dirt-poor people. Does this map equate to percentages?

North Korea, on the other hand, is as highly regulated as it gets, yet they have very few billionaires, so, in this case yes, most people are equally poor, and close to starving (or are otherwise dead).

My initial post wasn't clear, in that, rather than seeking "equality," a higher standard of living seems preferable.

(Is this about envy or about having food on the table?)

Socialism promotes equality: "it's only virtue is equal misery for all" (with the exception of the rulers, of course)

Saudi Arabia is quite regulated, you can't buy alcohol and women must wear veils, yet the income disparities between the sheiks and the average workers is quite considerable.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate and explain that unreadable map to me, so I can comment.

Edit: Oh, I see: According to this CIA map, there is apparently more "inequality" in the U.S. than there is in India. And a lot more in South Africa (but I didn't know South Africa was a land of no regulations, whatever that means). And Greece apparently has considerably lower inequality (so what are they all complaining about?!) And supposedly there is no data about communist countries like Cuba and places like Saudi Arabia (why is that?). Mongolia and Canada have about the same level of inequality. I'm still trying to decipher the purpose that this map serves...

So it's just a coincidence that countries with low income inequality tend to be more regulated?

Look it up if you don't believe me. start here

Sarcasm option doesn't work it seems...

But in all honesty I think there is less opportunity now in the US with high income inequalities and low social mobility. The american dream is pretty much a dream now for most people.

Even if you honestly do believe a CEO deserves 380x the pay of the average worker, they're certainly not working 380x harder. it would be physically impossible.

The reality is that the CEOs do less, yet they earn more. They were typically either born into their wealth or they lucked into it or they simply know other wealthy people.

Social mobility in the US, (in other words, the notion that if you "work hard" that you'll succeed and climb the ladder") is abysmal. I forget the number but we're ranked pretty low amongst other civilized/industrialized nations.

You can't blame this on Obama, you can't blame this on Bush, It's bigger than government. we allow the 1 percenters to have an unfair amount of influence over our gov't so as @Trancecoach mentioned, the game is rigged against you.

In all reality though. Income inequality would not be so much of a problem if everyone's necessities were met. All things being equal, I could give a shit that the 1 percent had so much wealth, but the problem is for most people, the instant you have a major illness, you're instantly bankrupt.

I've got no problem with capitalism when it comes to things that are not necessities to living a healthy life. Want the latest Apple trinket? sorry, you need to work harder and get a better job for that. But I shouldn't have to become a CEO just so that I don't have to worry if I or my loved ones has an accident and is hospitalized. It shouldn't matter if I'm an engineer or a janitor when it comes to healthcare. In case you've forgotten, we're supposedly all equal and deserving of the same life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Occupy has made income inequality a front page issue, it's on everyones mind now. We need to keep pushing, this is for the sake of our democracy and our freedom.

Are you not able to see extreme income inequality as a problem? Do you think it is good for a society to allow a tiny percentage of the population to siphon off and horde so much wealth while so many suffer? Times are a changing. Your economic philosophy has failed and failed badly.

TED = Technology, Engineering, Design.

The cause of income inequality has little to do with those 3. TYT isn't getting the point. In fact, they're using his speech for political purposes, therefore, TED is right to take issue with it.

Watched the speech. TED's right.