Just watched a Bloomberg taped interview featuring a Standard & Poor's economist making the case that income inequality slows economic growth. Then read Paul Krugman bouncing up and down atop that bandwagon in today's New York Times.
The S&P economist stressed education as one answer to this perceived economic problem. Krugman, on the other hand, goes right for the jugular with the no-brainer "solution", tax the rich (a place the S&P economist didn't go, by the way). Not, mind you, the "no-brainer" in the sense that it's the obvious "solution", but in the sense that raising taxes on those who made and maintain their fortunes by producing the goods and services the masses most desire, and filtering that take through the fingers of politicians who---with all their personal incentives---produce virtually nothing of value, is an utterly brainless proposition.
You don't need a PhD in economics to understand that if we raise taxes on producers we get less production. And if we get less production, we get less opportunity for everyone, especially those at the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Apparently, in fact---in that Krugman has a PhD in economics---it takes something more. Like truly caring about those in need (which would inspire a thoughtful PhD to offer up legitimate strategies that might help them become productive)---as opposed to caring only about promoting your personal stock by bolstering the biases of your audience.