Use this link to answer below- https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/08/opinion/paul-krugman-inequality-is-a-drag.html

 

We've learned that the US has one of the highest inequality rates among developed (rich) nations, most of them in Europe. There are many historical and cultural reasons for that, but for better or worse (depending on your perspective), the US consistently prioritizes economic growth over reducing inequality.

One could argue that inequality is, in fact, part of our growth strategy. By reducing taxes on corporations and wealthy households, for example, two things happen: growth is spurred, and inequality is increased. Corporations and wealthy families are left with more money to invest, contributing to growth. That's the argument in favor of top-tier tax reduction. Second, doing this requires the government to limit spending on education, health care, transportation, and infrastructure, all of which help expand opportunities and reduce inequality. That's the argument that persuades most other wealthy nations to do the opposite of what we do. They tax corporations and wealthy households at higher rates, roughly the same as we did until the 1970s. Then, they use those tax revenues to reduce inequality by spending on education and other opportunity-building programs.

We should acknowledge that if many Americans are inclined to agree with the US approach (high growth, high inequality), it's possible that this is because they're Americans. They've been socialized in a place with strong cultural values around individualism. Another possibility is that some of those who agree with the US approach are under the misconception that high growth reduces inequality. That's possible in some cases, but it hasn't been the case in the US for the last four decades when the strategy for achieving high growth shifted away from large public expenditures (on science and technology R&D, building highways, fully funding public education, etc.) toward top tier tax reductions and cuts to social spending. It was during that period that inequality rose in the US.

What can also be said is that regardless of how one feels about the question of high growth vs. reducing inequality, there's nothing all that problematic about the fact that Europe and the US do things differently - that most of Europe prioritizes equal opportunity over high growth, but the US does not. Europe isn't telling us what to do, and we're not telling them what to do. And Europe and the US are prosperous. If there is more poverty in the US than in the wealthy nations of Europe, that's not because the US can't do anything about it. It just chooses not to. As a wealthy, sovereign nation, the US has the right to make that choice when it's supported by its democratic processes, which it has been. Democratically elected leaders campaign on these ideas, win elections and pass laws that cut taxes and social spending.

But then we come to the question at hand, the question we've been thinking about for a couple of weeks now: Should the US require poor nations to adopt the same high growth/high inequality approach as a condition for accepting development aid through the auspices of the IMF and World Bank?

1) explain your reasoning in detail and specifically cite information and arguments from Krugman's essay.