of the planet. And quite frankly capitalism is the force responsible for destroying the planet and the disgusting income inequality - so that is where our focus needs to be: getting rid of the capitalism.

Capitalism is not perfect, just better than other forms of economic order. What is required is to place the interests of society above those of the few.

I'm pushing the whole enchilada. New economic system. I don't think the "regulating" thing has worked out too great for the working folks of this country. Evidence that I am correct: The Walton family now controls more wealth than the bottom 40% of the country. Worldwide it isn't going so hot either. As Oxfam has stated - the 85 richest people in the world are as wealthy as poorest half of the world (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jan/20/oxfam-85-richest-people-half-of-the-world). That leads me to believe we need to organize.

It's way past due.

The people want action because it is a survival issue -- no income, no food.
Big guys are becoming interested in limited action because the poor no longer buy their products.
And politicians? Who knows. They seem to not care about anything except their own ag subsidies and K Bros checks. OOps. That sound a little caustic. Hmmmm

Economic Justice would be a better framing than income inequality. The latter can be distorted and belittled as far left socialism by Republicans. Most Americans don't think incomes should be remotely equal in our society. They buy into upward mobility and hard work being rewarded etc. etc. Economic Justice implies that all people should be fairly compensated for their hard work, which is a broader and more appealing message to most.

instead of a system that rewards cannibal capitalists like Romney devouring companies and outsourcing employment overseas. Economic justice also means not reducing social security after people have paid ion all their lives, etc. etc.

Writer of one of the two pieces used to set off this discussion here...

The framing you propose is just as easy to belittle by people who are in willful denial about inequality.

Perhaps historical perspective would help. My latest Newsweek piece is on how the Founders favored workers over owners in a 1792 subsidy law, wrote of their concern that inequality would doom our grand experiment in self-governance and wanted broad ownership of capital. You can read my piece "Why Thomas Jefferson Favored Profit Sharing" here: http://bit.ly/1lyQbWY

Likewise, the minimum wage issue is in need of different framing to reflect full economic theory and mountains of long-term empirical evidence, as I explain din my column this week for Al Jazeera America: http://alj.am/1fWCutH

Lots of great research and conclusions. Thanks for sharing them.

...but most people seem to blend them into one.

The first issue is that the superrich are quickly getting super richer. I believe that this is because they have rigged the game to increase the returns to those in control of the financial sector. This is increasingly leading to our being led by a plutocracy. This problem can be addressed politically.

The second issue is that there is a growing gap (gulf) between low earners and high earners. Middle income jobs are disappearing while low and high income jobs are growing. This problem is much harder to address. It isn't because of a policy. It is because technology is making some workers much more valuable and other workers much less valuable. The net result is that society is being split between people that can't ever hope to make $40,000/year and people starting their careers well above that.

I see examples of the latter in my personal life. My sister's three kids are in their early to mid-20s. The oldest has been in and out of college with no direction and no major. He's worked a series of retail and fast food jobs and has no prospects to earn a middle class income. Her second child finished college with a literature degree. She's working as an admin assistant and, barring marrying well, will also struggle to be in the middle class. The third child graduated with an engineering degree and started his career making in the low six figures. They will all live significantly different lives economically from how they were raised.

I.e. a disguised aristocracy.

You can't have real democracy until your livelihood is not held captive by someone else who happens to "own" the means of production.

When even the least have their needs attended to then inequality doesn't mean much. When the masses are starving it can ignite a revolution.

in the throes of a full-scale revolt against the very few who own so much.

who would consider it an "issue". You could find 2/3 or more of that number in our Socialist Progressives group.

The big issue of our times? Climate change and our collective response to it. Compared to permanent drought in major agricultural regions, food insecurity, lack of clean potable water for many millions of people, major risks to life and property and displacement of populations because of flooding, desertification, and rising sea levels? Income inequality is pretty insignificant. But of course very few politicians are even talking about this because addressing it means a major lifestyle change for most people. There's no political will to do anything; people may have some vague awareness of the realities of climate change, but it's an abstraction, they're more concerned with keeping the price of gasoline under $3 a gallon and achieving "energy independence" through fracking and shale oil, never mind the consequences.

Pethokoukis is no exception to this rule. CNBC has him and his AEI fellows on quite often.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute