American Inequality - At Least It's Not Socialism

Last Sunday, Nicholas Kristof compared US inequality to that of Latin America.  This was the second Op-Ed last week concerning US income gaps (“Fast Track to Inequality,” Herbert) followed by another this week (“Who Will Stand Up to the Superrich?,” Rich).  For years inequality has grown steadily in America.  Commentaries constantly complain of this negative change: concentrated wealth leads to slower growth; a diminished middle class hinders innovation; underclass anger creates political unrest.  All are very real threats to the US and rightfully deserve recognition.  While many complain about inequality, few attend to its symptoms.

Deregulated, small government and over-reliance on free-market solutions caused our current state.  As Kristof noted, inequality began to skyrocket in the 1980’s.  During this time Reagan fell in love with Milton Friedman and neoliberal economic theory.  Although average citizens want to reverse the inequality trend, the greater population appears to be against counteracting policies.  Proposals that would restrict market dominance or redistribute wealth via taxes are attacked as un-American and socialist or are said to hinder economic growth.  But as Kristof correctly noted, the beneficiaries of GDP growth since the ‘80s have largely been the richest 1% of the population.  While voters seem unable to recognize destructive policy, America is failing to fix fundamental problems. 

As neoliberal economic theory grew so ingrained in American minds, its ideals became “too-big-to-fail.”  We all know how quickly “too-big-to-fail” can burn down this country.

This editorial goes hand-in-hand with Nicholas Kristof’s “Our Banana Republic” and my previous post “Failed Latin American Policies Applied at Home.”

American Inequality - At Least It's Not Socialism