"Brink Lindsey has written a paper criticizing Paul Krugman's view that the period from 1950-1970 was a sort of golden era for economic policy, because it involved high economic growth with relatively little inequality. Lindsey instead sees the immediate postwar era as one of lazy cartels, in which firms faced too little in the way of competition or creative destruction to warrant bidding up the price of executive talent.
"view that the period from 1950-1970 was a sort of golden era for economic policy, because it involved high economic growth with relatively little inequality. Lindsey instead sees the immediate postwar era as one of lazy cartels, in which firms faced too little in the way of competition or creative destruction to warrant bidding up the price of executive talent."
1) If high economic growth and relatively little inequality aren't good, what are they?
2) It sounds like we should be in favor of lazy cartels.
At best, Lindsey says that the times weren't as great as Krugman believes. But, given the last thirty years, many people might conclude that these have been even worse economically, although not socially. My own belief is that small government advocates need to focus on income inequality and income growth for the entire population. I think that this is an essential problem to work on if we want less government.
Only under conditions where the middle class believes that it is a middle class, and not one tiny step over serious problems, and the lower class believes that it is not being ignored, will less government ever be truly possible. Without addressing those concerns, I believe that Krugman's arguments will prove very popular.