Sometimes one part of a science grows important enough that it merits recognition on its own. From Geology there emerged the branches of Geophysics, Hydrogeology, Stratigraphy, and others. Physics has Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and more.
The sciences evolve, branch, and adapt based on increased understanding and changing circumstances in the world around us.
Giniography, the study of wealth distribution, is positioned to become recognized as a foundational part of the larger dismal science of economics, and a critically important part of our national conversation.
The arrival of giniography has occurred despite deliberate and determined efforts to keep the topic outside the bounds of polite conversation.
Paul Krugman notes:
Some economists (not to mention politicians) tried to shout down any mention of inequality at all: “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution,” declared Robert Lucas Jr. of the University of Chicago, the most influential macroeconomist of his generation, in 2004.
An additional confounding factor is that the topic is inherently complex. It involves serious math, which is hard to follow and is easy for people to obscure if they choose.
While most mainstream academic and politicians shied away from the topic last they be accused of being socialists or "worse", two forces have brought the question of distribution to the forefront.
First was Occupy. Regardless of the outcome with respect to a given demonstration or encampment, Occupy forever pushed the concept of the One Percent into general awareness. You don't need to be able to calculate a Gini Coefficient to develop an understanding of the excess that is accumulating at the top.
The second is the book
Capital in the 21st Century by Thomas Piketty. This tome is destined to be talked about far more times than it is actually read, but it accomplished in academic circles what Occupy did in the mainstream conversation. A topic that had been off limits was brought out into the daylight. In the case of Piketty's book, it was done with such rigorous study and data that the work could not be dismissed as being politically motivated, despite the unmistakable perspective that the author brings.
As quoted in a book review in The Guardian:
This is the "central contradiction of capitalism", which [Piketty] summarises with a Marxian turn of phrase: "the entrepreneur inevitably tends to become a rentier, more and more dominant over those who own nothing but their labour. Once constituted, capital reproduces itself faster than output increases. The past devours the future."
Here in 2015, it's especially important to consider the effects of unequal wealth distribution because of momentous decisions we face regarding our climate and what remains of the natural world. As described in
This Changes Everything by Naomi Klein, the single biggest factor stopping effective action on climate is the deeply vested interests of the powerful in the system that is causing so much destruction.
There's a backlash, of course, from the people who don't want us to talk about such things. Any talk about the current distribution of wealth, they warn, is a precursor to redistribution.
But right there is a key point - redistribution is always happening and always will - because the rules are all made up. At any given time, the redistribution might be going upward, or downward, but it is always occurring. And the unfortunate fact is that when the wealthy get to make the rules, those rules will tend to push wealth upward.
So the question is not whether to redistribute (it's happening!), but rather what type of distribution best matches our concept of our country - and our conscience.
New rule: Distribution of wealth is on the table. No matter what you think is the right set of rules, it is a valid and meaningful topic, across the entire spectrum of academics, politics, and national discourse.
References:
Bus Graphic from Oxfam
Wealth distribution chart from The Understatement.com
Global Distribution of Wealth graphic by James S. Henry, 2012,
Picture of bull guarded by police from Wall Street Journal.
Check out Paul Krugman's review of Capital in the 21st Century
A Gini Coefficient is a statistical measure of economic inequality. The scale runs from 0 (total equality) to 1 (maximum inequality).
For anyone who Googled "Giniography", now you know that I made it up. But it's a word now! Kind of like Lucraphrenia.