Paul Krugman is right about one thing, "We are, finally, having a national discussion about inequality." This thanks to liberals such as himself who have dragged the issue front and center, using as their springboard statistics suggesting wages aren't rising as fast as profits or productivity.
At the end of his subscription-required column of today, Whining Over Discontent, Krugman indulges in a bit of 'bring it on bravado', claiming that "[we liberals have] got the arguments, and the facts, to win this debate."
But just which debate is he talking about? Let's assume, arguendo, that Krugman & Lefty Co. can prove that inequality is increasing. As we would say back in the old days in the Bronx: "nu?" So what?
Krugman apparently believes he wins the argument simply by proving that inequality is increasing. He never says just what is wrong with inequality. Our country was founded on the principle that we have been endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That implies equality of opportunity. In no way does it suggest equality of outcomes. To the contrary, it leaves it up to each individual to define happiness for himself. One man might prize leisure time, another material gain.
But Krugman apparently won't be satisfied until there is at least rough equality in material outcomes. Rather than life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Krugman would apparently posit dialectical materialism as his operating principle.
If it's all the same to you, Paul, I'll stick to the Declaration of Independence. If, as is apparently the case, you disagree, please tell us why.