Comments on: Unequal Democracy

By: Hillary Clinton Fan

Hillary Clinton Fan — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:22:43 +0000

I’d be interested to see any evidence of anything in this post or in this book. No offense, but before you start reviewing the arguments of a book, try to get past page 3 if you can. Otherwise, you’ll be like Bill O’Reilly, berating what people say three seconds into their argument and not fully understanding what they’re saying. I have not read this book, but I bet the answers to the questions you raised can be found in the remainder of it.

By: Joseph Hertzlinger

Joseph Hertzlinger — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:19:48 +0000

Has there been any similar research on the effect of the party affiliation of governors?

By: Dain

Dain — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:31:34 +0000

If indeed the presidency alone is THAT important to the lives of 300 million people, does anyone find this to be a problem in itself?

By: Paul Zrimsek

Paul Zrimsek — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:21:22 +0000

Actually, ahjay, he said it was the fault of the Democratic Party. Though your confusion is understandable.

By: ajay

ajay — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 09:03:03 +0000

Economic growth is presumably a function of overall savings and investment in the economy, so it seems unlikely that redistributing income to a particular stratum would lead to a higher rate of income growth in that particular stratum.

Not very unlikely. Isn’t it conceivable that putting the marginal $1 in the hands of the poor, who will spend it domestically, might have different economic effects than leaving it in the hands of the rich, who would invest it, possibly abroad?

“Congress writes the laws, not the president” is Civics 101, but ignores a) that laws need the president’s approval to pass, unless Congress can overturn a veto, which rarely happens and b) that the executive has a good deal of input into economic policy through channels other than legislation.

a great deal of the increase in inequality has been an effect of Republican approaches to taxation and redistribution. I’m simply not convinced that this is pernicious.

You’re living in a country where the real wage of the bottom 60% of the population hasn’t increased since 1970 - has in fact declined slightly - while the top 1% has become immeasurably richer, and you don’t think that’s pernicious?

I do think economic stratification is pernicious, but that has more to do with the Democratic Party standing in the way of fundamental structural reform in education as it has to do with Republican tax cuts for rich people, doesn’t it?

So you’re looking at these figures and your immediate reaction is “this must be the fault of the teachers’ unions”? Good grief.

By: Glen

Glen — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:09:48 +0000

Hmm. Economic growth is presumably a function of overall savings and investment in the economy, so it seems unlikely that redistributing income to a particular stratum would lead to a higher rate of income growth in that particular stratum. I wonder if what’s really going is something like this:

Suppose that, with three consecutive Republican presidents, incomes for some stratum would follow this path: 10, 11, 12. This translates to 10% growth and then 9.1% growth, and 20% growth from beginning to end.

But now insert a Democrat in the middle term. The Democrat transfers some income to this stratum. As a result, the path is: 10, 11.5, 12. This translates to 15% growth and then 4.3% growth. From beginning to end, it’s still 20% growth.

In other words, the Democrat has no real effect on growth; he just transfers wealth during his term. But this creates the impression of a higher rate of growth during his term AND a lower rate of growth during his Republican successor’s term!