Her er et par udplug:

“Courses in macroeconomics examine how government debt affects interest rates, capital accumulation, trade deficits, and so on. But the starting point for all that analysis is a transfer of income between generations. In their personal capacity, parents cannot choose to live beyond their means and leave negative bequests to their children. As voters and citizens, however, parents can do exactly that, and Americans are now doing so in a big way.”

“There are only five ways to stop this upward trajectory. They are (1) extraordinary
economic growth, (2) government default, (3) large-scale money creation, (4) substantial cuts in government spending, and (5) large tax increases.”

“I wouldn’t be shocked if the United States continued along the path of a gradually
rising debt-to-GDP ratio for another 15 years. But I also wouldn’t be shocked if the bond vigilantes suddenly attack much sooner. Cracks in the fiscal foundation have already started to appear. In May of this year, Moody’s downgraded US government debt below AAA status, citing large deficits and rising interest costs.”

“Putting the federal government on a sustainable path is, from a purely economic standpoint, relatively simple. If a random group of NBER research associates could be appointed as a committee of monarchs, they could solve the problem in a long weekend.
In the real world, the solution must come from our elected representatives, who
know that any solution will impose significant pain on the current generation of voters. For most politicians, getting reelected is their highest priority. Enacting good policy is farther down the list. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that a solution won’t come until the financial markets leave policymakers with no other choice. That scenario would be unpleasant for nearly everyone.”

Man kunne føje til, at situationen i Europa nogle steder ikke ser bedre ud. Tværtimod er den underliggende vækst lavere, de demografiske udfordringer for de offentlige finanser større og spillerummet for skatteforhøjelser mindre. Hertil kommer, at de europæiske politikere ikke alene kan sende regningen til kommende generationer, men også til hinanden. Det skaber et free-rider-problem, de amerikanske politikere trods alt ikke har.

Mankiws forelæsning kan ses i videoen eller læses her.

Men er der egentlig nogen sammenhæng mellem debatten og den faktisk udvikling?

Det har den amerikanske økonom Greg Mankiw skrevet lidt om på sin sjove og fremragende blog, som man bestemt skal følge med i.

Og svaret er nej. Der er ingen sammenhæng, i hvert fald ikke i USA. Hvilket fremgår tydeligt af nedenstående to figurer over dels udviklingen i de famøse 1 procents indkomstandel og dels omtale af ulighed. Som Mankew gør opmærksom på, skal man tilbage til 1866 før man har en debat om ulighed, der bare  nærmer sig en lille bitte smule hvad man har set de senere år i USA. Og den gang handlede den om The Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Omtalen af ulighed er baseret på hvor mange gange ordet “inequality” optræder i New Yourk Times gennem tiderne.

Antal gange ordet “inequality” optræder i New York Times

Som Mankiw skriver:

One thing that commentators sometimes fail to notice is that the big increase in the one percent’s income share came between 1980 and 2000. Since 2000, it has fluctuated but without much of a trend.  Why, then, are we all talking about income inequality only now? I am not sure. One hypothesis is that we don’t worry about inequality when everyone is doing well. Another hypothesis is that we now have a president with a political ideology that sees inequality as especially pernicious.

Noget kunne tyde på at Mankiw har mere end en pointe.

Og så skal vi jo ikke glemme, at den globale ulighed har været faldene de seneste 35-40 år, efter at have været stigende de forudgående 200 år.

Følg Mankiw her – det er både oplysende og underholdene.