单选题：根据下面资料，回答题 Rising Inequality Is Holding Back the U.S．Economy

根据下面资料，回答题
Rising Inequality Is Holding Back the U.S．Economy
[A] In aImouncing his run for the presidency last month, Jeb Bush has set an arabitious goal of 4percent real growth in gross domestic product (GDP)．This goal has been greeted with substantialskepticism from parts of the economics establishment, while some economists have praised it as a"worthy and viable aspiration" that could be achieved with growth-oriented policies．Our recentresearch implies that a 4 percent growth goal for first term of the next President is not onlypossible, but is what we should strive to achieve．Like Hubbard and Warsh, veteran Republicaneconomic policymakers, we agree that the U．S．needs policies that raise labor force participation,accelerate productivity growth and improve expectations．Where we part ways is the tactics.
[B]Their recommendations focus on supply-side policies, such as tax reform, regulatory reform,reduced trade friction and education and training．Our research implies that a weak demand sideexplains the sluggish ( 萧条的 ) recovery from the Great Recession, with the rise of incomeinequality as a central factor．Consequently, our policy prescriptions revolve around increasing thetake-home pay of the majority of American households．The Great Recession, which began inDecember 2007, was the most severe American economic downturn in three-quarters of a century.Most economists did not anticipate ahead of time that this kind of thing could happen, although wewarned that "it could get ugly out there" in October 2007.
[C ] But as the severity of the recession became apparent in the dark days of late 2008 and early 2009,many economists predicted a swift bounce-back, reasoning from historical evidence that deepdownturns are followed by rapid recoveries．Sadly, that prediction was also incorrect．The growthpath following the Great Recession has been historically sluggish．Our recent research, supportedby the Institute for New Economic Thinking, helps explain why: The economic drag from decadesof rising income inequality has held back consumer spending.
[ D]Our work studies the link between rising income inequality and U．S．household demand over thepast several decades．From the middle 1980s until the middle 2000s．,American consumers spentliberally despite the fact thai income growth stagated ( 停滞 ) for most of the population．Weshow that the annual growth rate of household income slowed markedly in 1980 for the bottom 95percent of the income distribution, while income growth for the top 5 percent accelerated at thesame time．The result was the widely discussed rise of income inequality.
[ E ]It is also well known that household debt grew rapidly during this period．Our work points out thatthe buildup of debt relative to income was concentrated in the bottom 95 percent of the incomedistribution．Debt to income for the top 5 percent bounced around with little clear trend: When thefinancial crisis hit, our work shows that the bottom 95 percent of Americans could no longer getthe rising debt they needed to continue to spend along the trend they established in the yearsleading up to the crisis．The result was a sharp cutback in household demand relative to incomethat caused the collapse of the Great Recession.
[F]What about the recovery? Household demand in 2013 (the most recent observation we havebecause our computations incorporate data that are released with a lag and are available at anannual frequency only) was a stunning 17.5 percent below its pre-recession trend, with no sign ofrecovering back toward the trend．What happened? Our research implies that the cutoff of creditfor the group of households falling behind as income inequality rose prevented their spending fromrecovering to its pre-recession path.
[ G ] While there is no reason to necessarily expect that consumer spending will follow a constant trendover long periods of time, the practical reality is that the U．S．economy needed the pre-recessiontrend of demand to maintain adequate growth and at least a rough approximation of fullemployment prior to 2007．In the middle 2000s, there was no sign of excess demand in the U．S.economy．Inflation was tame and interest rates were low．Wage growth was stagnant．Althoughsome gradual slowing in long-term U．S．growth might have been predicted as the large baby-boomgeneration ages, the overall labor force participation rate was actually rising prior to the recession,so there was no reason to expect any significant decline in labor resources in the years immediatelyfollowing 2007.
[H] Yes, the way many Americans were financing their demand was unsustainable, but there is noindication that businesses could not sustainably continue to produce along the pre-recession trendif they had been able to sell the output．Our interpretation of the evidence is that the demand dragthat could be expected as the result of rising inequality is, after a delay of a-quarter century, finallyconstraining the U．S．economy．Intuition, theory and evidence predict that high-income peoplespend, on average, a smaller share of their income than everyone else does．So as a higher shareof income goes into the pockets of the well-to-do, the household sector as a whole is likely torecycle less of its income back into spending, which slows the path of demand grouch.
[I] A possible problem with this prediction for the U．S．in recent years is that income inequality beganto rise in the early 1980s, but household demand remained strong through 2006．Our argument isthat the demand drag from rising inequality was postponed by the buildup of debt: The bottom 95percent borrowed rather than cut back their spending when their income growth slowed．But as thecrisis hit; lending to households collapsed, and the trend of rising debt could not continue.
[J] The effect of rising inequality has hit the economy hard． As a result, today's economy isunderperforming．No one can know precisely how much of the stagnation in household demand isdue to the rise of inequality, but our estimates imply that the current path of total demand in theeconomy is at least 10 percent below where it would have been with the income distribution of theearly 1980s．Where demand goes, so follows output and employment．This analysis links to the callfor 4 percent growth．Considering conventional estimates of the long-term trend growth of theeconomy, a 4 percent growth rate through the next U．S．President's first term would go a long waytoward closing the gap in output that opened with the collapse of household spending in the GreatRecession and has yet to be filled.
[ K] How can we move toward this goal? Our research strongly implies that the main problem is on thedemand side, not the supply side．The U．S．needs to find a way to boost demand growth byarresting, and hopefully reversing, the dramatic rise of inequality． The basic argument isexceedingly simple: The economy continues to be held back by insufficient household spending,and if the income share of Americans outside of the top sliver rises, household spending willincrease．Policies that raise the minimum wage and reduce the tax burden of low- and middle-income households would help.
[L] In our view, however, the best method to achieve this objective would be to restore wage growthacross the income distribution as ocdhrred in the decades after World War II．Meeting this objectiveis challenging for a variety of reasons, including the fact that there remains no clear consensusabout what has caused the rise of American economic inequality．But the need to address inequalityis not just a matter of social justice ; it also is in~portant to get the economy back on the right trackafter more than seven years of stagnation．We can do better.
Americans were free with their money though their income growth mostly remained still from thelate 20th century to the early 21st century.