Interesting review of Richard Reeves' new book in The Nation. Reeves makes an important point that not all inequality is the result of the 1% hogging all the benefits from economic growth. He demonstrates that the upper middle class has also benefited to a great extent. The significance is that this class has a great deal of power, political economic and social, and uses that power to preserve its privileges. Think protecting zoning laws and neighborhood schools; think tax benefits for educational savings accounts; think support for "balanced budgets" to preclude tax increases.
Reeves analysis is worth considering when formulating responses to inequality. The upper middle class is a major force behind the neoliberal "solutions" to inequality, arguing (as unfortunately Reeves himself seems to do) that making competition "fairer" by providing a few rungs to the ladder of success is all we need to do. But doesn't competition always lead to winners and losers? Changing the class, race and/or gender of the winners does nothing to overcome the basic inequality of a system that reserves almost all of its rewards for the few winners.
Yes, competition may drive growth, but growth itself should NOT be the goal of economic activity. Should our society serve the economy, or should our economy serve society? And how can we change the narrative from a liberal (or neoliberal) perspective to a progressive one?
No comments:
Post a Comment