An interesting feature of income inequality

Ezra Klein today has an interesting chart showing the share of income controlled by the top one percentile, going back to 1913.




What's interesting isn't just the raw numbers, deplorable as they may be, but the volatility. There are a couple things of note here. First of all, obviously, the top one percent grab a much higher share of income under a more laissez-faire, pro-business style of government like we have in the 1920s or today. But at the same time, their share is much more cyclical. The crash of 1929 is clearly visible on the chart, as is the post-Internet bubble/9-11/Enron et al market trough. But the recession of the late '60s is just a blip, and the early-80s crash doesn't show up at all. Presumably, the income of the highest percentile is much more heavily dependent on stocks and other cyclical investments, so it falls quickly relative to the other 99.

Odd way to think about presidential financing

I realize that I should probably start out the blog with something a little more interesting and original than dismay over campaign, finance, but Jesus:

At the center of [Giuliani's] efforts: a massive fund-raising push to bring in at least $100 million this year, with a scramble for at least $25 million in the next three months alone.

Think of it this way: let's say that next week, his team raised $1.5 million--enough to finance a pretty good House race, or thirty years worth of work from a middle-class earner. That week would be considered a failure. They would have to step up their game. And we think that this sort of thing doesn't shape policy?

I'll have more to say about the strategy memo that the article is citing later on. And it'll be slightly original!

Testing, Testing

1
2

3

4

5