The Dialogue Project - Income Inequality: Robert Kuttner, Tyler Cowen & Jeff Greenfield

[@ajaypande6391]

It's extremely telling that the key statistic that the EPI and Kuttner keep citing (that productivity and wages have diverged) was called out as fake by Cowen, and Kuttner made no response! Either the chart is cooked up using two different price deflators or it's not. Kuttner must know, so he must either acknowledge it (and promise to correct it) or say that Cowen's accusation is false. Given his silence, we know which one it is.

[@richardshipe4576]

Felt like a conversation between an calm economist and the avatar of a slightly smarter front page Reddit

[@felsonj]

Tyler Cowen as usual, a tour de force. The other guy is a lightweight by comparison though just about everyone is so I don’t hold it against him. Tyler is just too smart for these ideological hacks.

[@killa3x]

100%.

[@ladarmyth]

I always wish Cowen had better interlocutors. I'm beginning to think they don't exist.

[@cordobes]

I don't disagree, but to be fair, Kuttner was never a heayvweight but he's now 82.

[@majozishow]

So, it's two against one? Well done Tyler! Big fan from South Africa. You are the sensible one in this dialogue.

[@taleiran]

It is very surprising that Gini index was not discussed nor even mentioned during this debate. Also, 30:16 Robert Kuttner sounds very certain about why different groups of people voted for Trump. Either he really understands that, thus being perhaps the only one in the world to have a clear picture of this very complex issue, or he exhibits a pronounced Dunning-Kruger effect. A bit of humility would go a long way. In contrast, Tyler Cowen said a number of times that he was not sure he understood certain issues well enough to offer s solution, and these were indeed complicated issues.

[@jeffmrn]

Please, more structured discussions like this. Im glad Jeff Greenfield brought up the memory of William F. Buckley. He would have heartily approved.

[@ohedd]

Its not really fair to put an economist against a guy basically just rehashing progressive talking points

[@wolflarson71]

Income inequality is a red herring since luck, ambition, and many other factors will create natural inequality. You want income mobility most of all.

[@InternetParker]

Per FRED (“Real Median Personal Income in the US”), real wages have mostly done well as Tyler argued… 1980 $26k, 1990 $30k, 2000 $35k, 2010 $35k, 2020 $41k…. Though “a few pp per year” as he claims is too optimistic

[@ohedd]

A few pp per year was only since 2019

[@InefficientCustard]

These debates are so frustrating like they amount to like one guy citing a bunch of statistics, then the next guy saying "hold on a moment those statistics are totally wrong mine are much better!" then around again and again in a loop. I really wish we had a transcript with citations or they would just do it in a written format instead

[@ladarmyth]

Cowens point starting at 17:49 is very important to consider. A certain kevel of inequality is required for dynamism to exist.

[@JAClary]

While I support Tyler Cowen's worldview, I wish they had gotten someone like Brad Delong to argue the other side of the matter. I feel like Tyler had this man outgunned, and I think it would have worked better if they had someone who could have pushed back more. Of course, part of Tyler's genius in these debates, is that he is not dogmatic, and does not get caught arguing about things that only weaken his argument, so maybe it would have still been less impactful.

[@josephniehaus9082]

I had the same thought. DeLong is one of the best there is when it comes to articulating the consequences of Neoliberal economic policy and its implications for society writ large. Would be a much more productive conversation.

[@Richard_Stroker]

Robert Kuttner is a fantastic confabulator

[@riffking2651]

Yeah, this was a good discussion. I think that one of the key driving forces in this issue is social inequality, rather than wealth. People don't have access to social status, and the ability to get on a ladder that affords them a pathway to greater success and fulfilment. Lots of downward pressure in society to get a job and not break the rules, but not much in the way of uplifting people with social support structures in a way that is intelligible to most people. I think we'd do well to have some kind of alternative to religious community groups, without the unjustifiable truth claims, and some kind of institution level structure and support. Getting people together to weave life long relationships, getting a diverse mix of perspectives from all age groups, being exposed to some kind of interest-based, non-political knowledge base, general life wisdom, a bit more of an explicit discussion of implicit things that people from well-off backgrounds know and grow up with. Personally, I'm a fan of a lot of the thinking in the Hanzi Freinacht books. Would like society to develop some kind of developmental framework like the Model of Hierarchical Complexity, and build institutions which facilitate the development of people within society with the various checks-and-balances laid out in the 6 institution sketch ideas. Can't really blame people for fighting and trying to break things down when we're not heading more in the direction of a society structure that is really built for people, with the kind of modern understanding that we have of the human animal, and all of our various needs and games.

[@ethanmackler1160]

Tyler's right of course, but even if he wasn't, Kuttner isn't really his opposite number capable of effectively contesting the case.

[@lolo_VanGogh]

Wealth inequality would be a better discussion lol

[@edwardjones856]

There is a big difference between income inequality and wealth inequality. Wealth inequality is getting worse and is the problem

[@lilgarbagedisposal9141]

why is it a problem

[@erwind917]

@@lilgarbagedisposal9141 Wealth inequality undermines economic stability, social cohesion, and democratic governance. When wealth is concentrated among a small elite, it reduces overall economic efficiency. High-income individuals save more and spend less relative to their wealth, leading to weaker aggregate demand. This stifles growth and limits opportunities for innovation, particularly when lower-income groups face barriers to capital and credit. Inequality also erodes social mobility. Access to quality education, healthcare, and career opportunities becomes concentrated in wealthier households, perpetuating privilege across generations. This creates a rigid class structure, where success is determined by inheritance rather than merit, diminishing societal dynamism. Politically, wealth inequality distorts representation. Concentrated wealth translates into outsized political influence, allowing elites to shape policies that protect their interests, such as tax loopholes or reduced labor protections. This undermines public trust in institutions and fosters political instability, as disenfranchised groups turn to populist or radical movements in response. Public goods and social programs also suffer under extreme inequality. Wealthy individuals and corporations often use their influence to avoid taxation, reducing revenue for essential services like education, infrastructure, and social safety nets. This further entrenches inequality while exacerbating social divisions. Societies with extreme wealth disparities experience higher rates of crime, reduced life expectancy, and weakened social trust. Economic systems also face greater risks, as inequality drives speculative financial bubbles and forces lower-income groups to rely on unsustainable debt. While some inequality can incentivize productivity, excessive disparities undermine economic growth, destabilize democracies, and fracture societies. Addressing wealth inequality is essential to fostering a fairer, more resilient, and prosperous future.

[@FemFlorida]

I don't believe the debate was fair. I think there are people who are simply better activating and better at taking ad hoc questions than others some people just are quicker on their feet but that doesn't mean that their ideas are better or that their arguments are better

[@sereno5220]

thats just the nature of debate. each side of the argument is entirely dependent on the wits of its representative

[@FemFlorida]

@@sereno5220 I guess I prefer a more scholarly type of discussions, an opportunity learn. if I wanted a compititon, I'd watch ESPN

[@pldevries]

Tyler Cowen has built his career as an apologist for neoliberal ("free market") economics. He is pretty good at it. Cowen sights a series of "facts" which no one can verify in real time. Many of his "facts" are irrelevant (e,g. the median household income of certain groups of immigrants) and cherry picked to advance his argument. Current income equality in the US is the result of a bifurcated economic system in which there is socialism for the rich (e.g. bail out of the banks and financial firms in 2008, lower effective tax rate for the wealthy) and free market capitalism for the poor (NAFTA, WTO). If Cowen were more honest and a better economist, he would concede that. As an academic economist, Cowen is undistinguished. Over all, a pretty pointless debate. In the end, extreme wealth inequality inevitably leads to revolution.

[@red_Sun24]

why pretend like you have any idea what you're talking about when you think "cites" is supposed to be "sights". you're regurgitating the lowest tier of internet opinion possible, (socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, wow so original i bet tyler cowen has never heard that one before) and saying it with all the confidence of someone who has no idea how little he knows. you don't know what neoliberal even means, you think it's just a synonym for free markets? just for the points you've made: 1) wealth inequality doesn't inevitably lead to revolution, history and the modern day are both filled with extremely unequal societies that haven't experienced revolutions. 2) NAFTA is not just for the working class, the same free trade agreements that are bad for workers from certain industries are also bad for companies from certain industries. you should humble yourself and learn about economics instead of just criticising someone for being "undistinguished" who is a thousand times more distinguished than yourself. learn the limits of your knowledge rather than exposing them for everyone to see

[@pldevries]

@@red_Sun24 "sights" instead of "cites" was a typo. I am an economist. You're comments are silly. It's not possible to provide a complete argument in a few sentences. in a KZbin comment. Historically, high concentrations of wealth in the hands of a small minority have lead to revolutions time and time again (from the French Revolution in the 18th century to communist revolutions in the 20th century). There are many books discussing this topic. NAFTA and the WTO had many purposes. In the end they evolved into massive exercises in labor arbitrage that hurt US workers. In recent history, large increases in wealth created by the US economy have not benefited the vast majority of American workers. That is a problem. As for Tyler Cowen, his understanding of economics is childish, simplistic and unrealistic to the point of being cartoonish.

[@red_Sun24]

@ you are not an economist. if it's not possible to provide an argument in the comments was your intention to just boo the speaker? if you think his understanding of economics is childish, give one counterargument. but in the real world, tyler cowen is a pretty respected professor who has advised for government agencies, and you're a random in a comment section. so why assume that your word has any credibility. make an argument or don't pollute the comments. your replies aren't exactly short either so you have space to make a point concisely

[@richardshipe4576]

For undistinguished he sure is invited by top publications to comment on the modern times. Take a hint, academia is no sign of the quality of one’s argument.

[@raincadeify]

💯

[@raincadeify]

Tyler Cowen probably thinks every thing's fine with healthcare too. He implied as much.

[@macgarnicle]

Or you can read the many, many things he's written on the topic and see that he doesn't think that. You choose.

[@raincadeify]

@@macgarnicle I don't think I need to read all his books to know that he's a libertarian and thinks capitalism/privatization is the answer to everything. He's out of touch and useless.

[@macgarnicle]

@ Strong opinions for someone who brags that they’ve read nothing from him.

[@theviklink2044]

Good job critizicing the one public intellectual libertarian who advocates for state capacity in certain areas. ​@@raincadeify

[@raincadeify]

@@theviklink2044 Seriously? You've clutching your pearls because somebody is criticizing Tyler Cowen? You know what team all the libertarians are on? Team CEO.