Greg Mankiw argues, “wealth inequality is not a problem in itself”. Wealth inequality is the unequal distribution of income and assets in society. Inequality is inevitable in any society, but there are conflicting views on if wealth inequality is a problem for our democratic society or a natural and necessary part of freedom and capitalism. As discussed in the plenary, conservatives view wealth inequality as a good thing, arguing it reflects freedom, fairness, and efficiency of the free market system and a meritocracy system. On the other side of the spectrum, liberals view wealth inequality as an unfair system, favoring the rich and powerful and blocking opportunity for those in poor and middle classes. Authors Cowan and Friedman argue that
…show more content…
Wealth inequality incentivizes people of all classes to work hard to achieve their goals and pursue their dreams and it allows people to fulfill the American Dream by moving up in social class. I agree with authors Cowan and Friedman on the idea that opportunity and wealth inequality are not connected because one can only have the opportunity to move up in society if there is inequality. Our government should focus on providing opportunities for education, social programs, and welfare so people have the ability to achieve. However, wealth inequality becomes a problem when there is not an equal distribution throughout the classes and when the government spends more money on the rich than the poor and middle class. In our society, 1% of the people take in almost a quarter of the total income, which continues to grow (Stiglitz). Income inequality to a certain point is not a problem in itself, but when you have so much of the wealth sitting in a small fraction of people, no matter how much mobility and opportunity society has, the poor and middle class are unable to move up in society or achieve. I agree with Mankiw’s statement in that inequality is not a problem in itself to a certain point, but in our society today, wealth inequality needs to be reduced to normal distribution so opportunity can be …show more content…
Authors Cowan and Friedman agree in this sense arguing that wealth inequality is not the issue, but lack of opportunity is the issue and the government should focus on mobility and “equality of opportunity. On the other hand, Reich, Bernstein and Spielberg, and Stiglitz argue the opposite, saying that wealth inequality and opportunity are intrinsically connected, and that wealth inequality is also an issue because it gives power to the rich. Personally, I agree with Mankiw, in that wealth inequality is not bad because economic diversity is important, however, I feel that the wealth inequality of our society today has far exceeded a healthy gap and needs to be redistributed before focusing on equality of
Wealth inequality incentivizes people of all classes to work hard to achieve their goals and pursue their dreams and it allows people to fulfill the American Dream by moving up in social class. I agree with authors Cowan and Friedman on the idea that opportunity and wealth inequality are not connected because one can only have the opportunity to move up in society if there is inequality. Our government should focus on providing opportunities for education, social programs, and welfare so people have the ability to achieve. However, wealth inequality becomes a problem when there is not an equal distribution throughout the classes and when the government spends more money on the rich than the poor and middle class. In our society, 1% of the people take in almost a quarter of the total income, which continues to grow (Stiglitz). Income inequality to a certain point is not a problem in itself, but when you have so much of the wealth sitting in a small fraction of people, no matter how much mobility and opportunity society has, the poor and middle class are unable to move up in society or achieve. I agree with Mankiw’s statement in that inequality is not a problem in itself to a certain point, but in our society today, wealth inequality needs to be reduced to normal distribution so opportunity can be …show more content…
Authors Cowan and Friedman agree in this sense arguing that wealth inequality is not the issue, but lack of opportunity is the issue and the government should focus on mobility and “equality of opportunity. On the other hand, Reich, Bernstein and Spielberg, and Stiglitz argue the opposite, saying that wealth inequality and opportunity are intrinsically connected, and that wealth inequality is also an issue because it gives power to the rich. Personally, I agree with Mankiw, in that wealth inequality is not bad because economic diversity is important, however, I feel that the wealth inequality of our society today has far exceeded a healthy gap and needs to be redistributed before focusing on equality of