Left Behind Economics

No Economist's View, um excerto de um artigo de Paul Krugman acerca da distribuição do rendimento nos EUA:

I’d like to say that there’s a real dialogue taking place about the state of the U.S. economy, but the discussion leaves a lot to be desired. In general, the conversation sounds like this:

Bush supporter: «Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.»

Informed economist: «But it’s not a great economy for most Americans. Many families are actually losing ground, and only a very few affluent people are doing really well.»

Bush supporter: “Why doesn’t President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.” ...

(...)

Here’s what happened... The U.S. economy grew 4.2 percent, a very good number. Yet ... real median family income — the purchasing power of the typical family — actually fell. Meanwhile, poverty increased, as did the number of Americans without health insurance. So where did the growth go?

The answer comes from the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez... They show that even if you exclude capital gains from a rising stock market, in 2004 the real income of the richest 1 percent of Americans surged by almost 12.5 percent. Meanwhile, the average real income of the bottom 99 percent of the population rose only 1.5 percent. In other words, a relative handful of people received most of the benefits of growth.

(...)

In short, it’s a great economy if you’re a high-level corporate executive or someone who owns a lot of stock. For most other Americans, economic growth is a spectator sport.