<story><title>The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>andrenth</author><text>If inequality goes down because the rich become less rich, is that a win?</text></item><item><author>Daishiman</author><text>Well they &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; increase the amount of public spending and increase the tax rates for the top brackets and it has been historically in periods where rates of income inequality have gone down.&lt;p&gt;But no, for some ridiculous reason those ideas seem to be unacceptable with the Overton Window defined by mass-media (conglomerate-owned, of course) and economists who propose small-state solutions.</text></item><item><author>dnautics</author><text>Is that surprising?  Economic expansions are largely driven by monetary (stimulus, QE&amp;lt;N&amp;gt;) and fiscal policy (bailout, contracting), as a part of deliberate politics (&amp;quot;we &lt;i&gt;need&lt;/i&gt; to create jobs&amp;quot;, e.g.).  As these events are derived from centralized, hierarchical organizations (Fed, us gov&amp;#x27;t, ECB, EC), the benefits will disproportionately flow to those that have access; part of the reason why the richest are the richest is because they have had success in the past obtaining exactly that access.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s rather ironic that the keynesian perspective in the article is that the policies &amp;quot;aren&amp;#x27;t targeted&amp;quot; but in reality they couldn&amp;#x27;t be anything but.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>analog31</author><text>In my view, the answer could be yes, not by itself but only depending on the side effects. Some possibilities:&lt;p&gt;1. Redistribution of wealth carries a corresponding redistribution of political power.&lt;p&gt;2. The quality of life for the bottom quartile (or choose your threshold) is increased by more than the corresponding decrease for the rich.&lt;p&gt;3. Redistribution increases consumer spending, which stimulates growth, if for instance the economy is in a state of poor demand.&lt;p&gt;Needless to say, these are all speculative on my part.</text></comment>
<story><title>The Benefits of Economic Expansions Are Increasingly Going to the Richest</title><url>https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/27/upshot/the-benefits-of-economic-expansions-are-increasingly-going-to-the-richest-americans.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>andrenth</author><text>If inequality goes down because the rich become less rich, is that a win?</text></item><item><author>Daishiman</author><text>Well they &lt;i&gt;could&lt;/i&gt; increase the amount of public spending and increase the tax rates for the top brackets and it has been historically in periods where rates of income inequality have gone down.&lt;p&gt;But no, for some ridiculous reason those ideas seem to be unacceptable with the Overton Window defined by mass-media (conglomerate-owned, of course) and economists who propose small-state solutions.</text></item><item><author>dnautics</author><text>Is that surprising?  Economic expansions are largely driven by monetary (stimulus, QE&amp;lt;N&amp;gt;) and fiscal policy (bailout, contracting), as a part of deliberate politics (&amp;quot;we &lt;i&gt;need&lt;/i&gt; to create jobs&amp;quot;, e.g.).  As these events are derived from centralized, hierarchical organizations (Fed, us gov&amp;#x27;t, ECB, EC), the benefits will disproportionately flow to those that have access; part of the reason why the richest are the richest is because they have had success in the past obtaining exactly that access.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s rather ironic that the keynesian perspective in the article is that the policies &amp;quot;aren&amp;#x27;t targeted&amp;quot; but in reality they couldn&amp;#x27;t be anything but.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>luckydata</author><text>I would say by now you have a pretty good idea of what people around here think but... yeah, if the rich get a little less rich things are a lot better for everyone. It&amp;#x27;s the unbalance, not the total that makes life hell for the less well off.</text></comment>