US

Piketty on Inequality

The most powerful force pushing towards greater wealth inequality in the US since the 1970s is the gap between the after-tax return on capital and the economic growth rate.

Responses weighted by each expert's confidence

Participant University Vote Confidence Bio/Vote History
Acemoglu
Daron Acemoglu
MIT
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Theoretically and empirically the case that r-g is a major determinant of inequality or even top inequality is weak.
-see background information here
Alesina
Alberto Alesina
Harvard Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Altonji
Joseph Altonji
Yale
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Auerbach
Alan Auerbach
Berkeley
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Autor
David Autor
MIT
Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Not clear yet if wealth inequality has risen in U.S: different data sources give different answers. Premature to identify cause of non-fact!
Baicker
Katherine Baicker
University of Chicago
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
Banerjee
Abhijit Banerjee
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Bertrand
Marianne Bertrand
Chicago
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Brunnermeier
Markus Brunnermeier
Princeton Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Chetty
Raj Chetty
Harvard
Uncertain
6
Bio/Vote History
Chevalier
Judith Chevalier
Yale
Uncertain
10
Bio/Vote History
There are certainly a host of other factors related to technical change, other government policies and globalization.
Currie
Janet Currie
Princeton
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Many other factors affect inequality including technological change, globalization, increasing returns to education, and others.
Cutler
David Cutler
Harvard
Strongly Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Deaton
Angus Deaton
Princeton
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW IT IS HIGH INCOMES THAT IS INCREASING WEALTH INEQUALITY.
Duffie
Darrell Duffie
Stanford
Uncertain
4
Bio/Vote History
Edlin
Aaron Edlin
Berkeley
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Eichengreen
Barry Eichengreen
Berkeley
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Don't find r-g a partiularly useful summary of anything (doesn't really capture role of technology, training, tax policy)
Einav
Liran Einav
Stanford
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
Fair
Ray Fair
Yale
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Finkelstein
Amy Finkelstein
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Goldberg
Pinelopi Goldberg
Yale Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Goolsbee
Austan Goolsbee
Chicago
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Greenstone
Michael Greenstone
University of Chicago
Disagree
2
Bio/Vote History
lower taxes on K surely play a role. i disagree based on "most powerful" phrase. more research is necessary
Hall
Robert Hall
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
A glance at the biographies of the truly rich shows most came from upper middle class families. Good luck and some skill produced the wealth
Hart
Oliver Hart
Harvard
Uncertain
5
Bio/Vote History
I would imagine there are many factors: labor-saving technology, globalization,the decline of unions,lower tax rates.
Holmström
Bengt Holmström
MIT Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Hoxby
Caroline Hoxby
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Argument has poor theory & negligible empirics. Read pp7-9 of Acemoglu & Robinson. You need not even buy into their institutional arguments
-see background information here
-see background information here
Hoynes
Hilary Hoynes
Berkeley
Agree
7
Bio/Vote History
Judd
Kenneth Judd
Stanford
Strongly Disagree
9
Bio/Vote History
Kaplan
Steven Kaplan
Chicago Booth
Strongly Disagree
10
Bio/Vote History
Technology has been the primary driver.
Kashyap
Anil Kashyap
Chicago Booth
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Argument nicely destroyed by Justin Wolfers (and many others). Too bad for the t-shirt makers
-see background information here
Klenow
Pete Klenow
Stanford
Disagree
5
Bio/Vote History
Levin
Jonathan Levin
Stanford
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Saez-Zucman: wealth inequality shot up post 1986. Big cause: savings creates 0.4% annual wealth growth for bottom 90%, 3.4% for top 1%.
-see background information here
Maskin
Eric Maskin
Harvard
Disagree
7
Bio/Vote History
Interest and growth rates are equlibrium phenomena--so even if they are important, there must be something deeper at work.
Nordhaus
William Nordhaus
Yale
Disagree
6
Bio/Vote History
Is this an inside joke? BEA estimates show little change in rate of return.
Saez
Emmanuel Saez
Berkeley
Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Income and savings inequality increases are now fueling US wealth inequality. Down the road r-g will be central as predicted by Piketty
Samuelson
Larry Samuelson
Yale
Uncertain
1
Bio/Vote History
Many forces at work, both economic, social and political, making it difficult to identify one as most important.
Scheinkman
José Scheinkman
Columbia University Did Not Answer Bio/Vote History
Schmalensee
Richard Schmalensee
MIT
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
The rapid rise in very high labor incomes seems to be much more important in the US.
Shapiro
Carl Shapiro
Berkeley
Disagree
4
Bio/Vote History
Perhaps technological change, globalization, and fiscal policy matter quite a bit?!
Shimer
Robert Shimer
University of Chicago
Strongly Disagree
8
Bio/Vote History
Trends in U.S. wealth inequality are accounted for by trends in income inequality. See Section 3 of Krugman's review of Piketty.
-see background information here
Thaler
Richard Thaler
Chicago Booth
No Opinion
Bio/Vote History
A bug in the system prevents me from stating that I am 100% sure that I don't know the answer to this question.
Udry
Christopher Udry
Northwestern
Disagree
1
Bio/Vote History
Difficult claim to evaluate, because both the return and the growth rate depend on savings, and on the distribution of wealth.
-see background information here