Film at 11.
What surprise me is that they use the capital vs. workers narrative.
That said, I often wish the mainstream left would diversify their own font of knowledge. Especially given most don't read him.
On the other hand the basic concept of labour and capital as market objects with values controlled by supply and demand makes a lot of sense.
The mounting inequality itself is however not just an opinion.
> They are free to ignore the mounting criticism
But they're not ignoring it as such, and IMHO it's gotten to the point where it would be foolish to do so. So now they're supplying an alternative political position on what to do - i.e. don't worry, markets will sort everything out.
But how much inequality is a problem is an opinion, I'm afraid.
At least that you are OK with total inequality (or with a systemic collapse) we should start to look at this carefully.
And this is what the article deal with, what is saying is: "the trend is going to reverse because it was born from demographics, nothing to do with the Washington Consensus, the dismantling of worker protections and other small details."
Of course, this is from a right-wing magazine, so they could just be making it up to appease their owners or something.
And it also depends on the definition of poverty. Is it absolute or relative? As soon as you start talking about relative poverty, you are effectively arguing for wealth redistribution.
//EDIT: swapped poverty in for inequality above//
Just to weight in with an alternative view: http://mainlymacro.blogspot.fr/2014/11/redistribution-under-...
Do you think that's a positive recommendation? Because it's not clear and I don't.
I used to follow him on twitter for a while, and I'm not convinced of that.
His first book was a well-thought out contrarian polemic. His tweets struck me as off-the-cuff random contrarian outbursts.