Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 17 Share on Twitter 1 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H3'ed 1/15/20

Trump is the kid caught with his hand in the cookie jar

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages) (View How Many People Read This)   6 comments
Author 47089
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Robert Reich
Become a Fan
  (128 fans)

From Inequality Media

Trump on Apprenticeship and Workforce Initiatives
Trump on Apprenticeship and Workforce Initiatives
(Image by YouTube, Channel: Bloomberg Politics)
  Details   DMCA

Trump doesn't understand a basic reality of today's global economy: the profitability and competitiveness of American corporations aren't the same as the well-being and competitiveness of Americans.

American corporations have no particular obligation to the United States. They're obligated to their shareholders.

About 30% of the shareholders of large American corporations aren't even American. As global money sloshes ever more quickly across borders, that percentage is growing.

The 500 largest corporations headquartered in the United States are steadily becoming less American. A full 40% of their employees live and work outside the United States.

In 2017, GE announced it was increasing its investments in advanced manufacturing and robotics in China, which it termed "an important and critical market for GE."

Google has opened an artificial intelligence lab in Beijing, headed by Google's chief scientist for AI and machine learning.

The reality is that leading global corporations like Tesla, GE, Google and Facebook will create good, high-wage jobs in the United States (or in Britain, Australia, or anywhere else you may be reading this) only if those countries' inhabitants are clever and productive enough to make it profitable for them to do so.

This means that the real competitiveness of the United States depends on the creativity and productivity of Americans. That in turn depends on Americans' education (including the basic research that's done in national labs and universities), health and the infrastructure connecting them to one another.

But the American workforce is hobbled by deteriorating schools, unaffordable college tuitions, decaying infrastructure, soaring healthcare costs and diminishing basic research.

All of which is putting most Americans on a path toward second-rate jobs in the global economy.

Big American-based corporations don't see it as their responsibility to fix this. They certainly don't want to pay for it. To the contrary, they've lobbied for and received tax cut after tax cut.

Yet they have an iron grip on American politics through their campaign donations, lobbying and public-relations campaigns.

Trump isn't helping. His economic nationalism continues to champion American corporations, not American workers.

This, not China, is the real source of America's competitive woes.

 

Must Read 3   Well Said 3   Supported 3  
Rate It | View Ratings

Robert Reich Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Robert Reich, former U.S. Secretary of Labor and Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, has a new film, "Inequality for All," to be released September 27. He blogs at www.robertreich.org.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Trump Cornered

The Republican's Big Lies About Jobs (And Why Obama Must Repudiate Them)

Paul Ryan Still Doesn't Get It

What Mitt Romney Really Represents

What to Do About Disloyal Corporations

The Gas Wars

Comments Image Post Article Comment and Rate This Article

These discussions are not moderated. We rely on users to police themselves, and flag inappropriate comments and behavior. In accordance with our Guidelines and Policies, we reserve the right to remove any post at any time for any reason, and will restrict access of registered users who repeatedly violate our terms.

  • OpEdNews welcomes lively, CIVIL discourse. Personal attacks and/or hate speech are not tolerated and may result in banning.
  • Comments should relate to the content above. Irrelevant, off-topic comments are a distraction, and will be removed.
  • By submitting this comment, you agree to all OpEdNews rules, guidelines and policies.
          

Comment Here:   


You can enter 2000 characters. To remove limit, please click here.

Please login or register. Afterwards, your comment will be published.
 

Username
Password

Forgot your password? Click here and we will send an email to the address you used when you registered.
First Name
Last Name

I am at least 16 years of age
(make sure username & password are filled in. Note that username must be an email address.)

5 people are discussing this page, with 6 comments  Post Comment


George W.Reichel

Become a Fan
Author 86924
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Apr 1, 2013), 5 fans, 1376 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Corporation and banksters are also the primary government welfare recipients in the US.Wonder why nobody points this out?

Submitted on Wednesday, Jan 15, 2020 at 2:47:46 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help
Indent

Floyd Tolar

Become a Fan
Author 21438
(Member since Sep 8, 2008), 275 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

Reply to George W.Reichel:   New Content

Maybe because the people who would do the reporting are already bought and payed for by the corporations?

Submitted on Wednesday, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:06:24 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help

Lance Ciepiela

Become a Fan
Author 14196
Follow Me on Twitter (Member since Apr 4, 2008), 53 fans, 58 articles, 163 quicklinks, 4755 comments, 214 diaries (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Not a single one of Trump's assertions was true. It is exhausting. All of it. It is, in fact, the defining feature of this White House: The president will spew falsehoods about nearly everything, morning, noon and night.

Submitted on Thursday, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:44:13 AM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (1+)
Help

Richard Burcik

Become a Fan
Author 513799
(Member since Jul 1, 2019), 1 articles, 24 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

THE TRUTH CONCERNING ALLEGED RISING INEQUALITY IN THE USA

Background

It is a fact that inequalities exist in America but they are almost always solidly rooted in immutable psychological traits such as IQ, industriousness, honesty, creativity, courage, etc. [See: AEI Monograph (1998) "Income Inequality and IQ" ]. Take IQ. According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by age 28 to 36, the top 10% in cognitive ability have a median earned an income of 4.8 times the median for the bottom 10%. Indeed, "The Bell Curve" (1994) in part one, "The Emergence of a Cognitive Elite", found that IQ is one of the best single predictors of job productivity. Most recently, researchers have found that DNA plays a role in social stratification. These investigators concluded that "Human DNA polymorphisms vary across geographic regions, with the most commonly observed variation reflecting distant ancestry differences." [See: Nature: Human Behaviour October 21, 2019 "Genetic Correlations of Social Stratifications in Great Britain" Abdellaoui et al or .nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0757-5 ].


For proof that all psychological traits are firmly riveted in nature and not in nurture one need only read Prof. Robert Plomin's new book, "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are", (Nov. 2018) which is the most recent scholarly work on the psychology of human genetics. In "Blueprint" Plomin, one of the very top experts in the field of behavioral genetics asserts that "A century of genetic research shows that DNA differences inherited from our parents are the consistent life-long sources of our psychological individuality -- the "Blueprint" that makes us who we are." Prof. Plomin also reports that "... genetics explain more of our psychological differences -- not just mental health and school achievement but all psychological traits, from personality to intellectual abilities. Nature, not nurture is what makes us who we are." [Note: The Dec. 14, 2018 issue of Scientific American contains a very brief essay by Prof. Plomin titled "In the Nature-Nurture War, Nature Wins." and in it, Plomin admits that "Environmental influences are important" too, but they are largely unsystematic, unstable and idiosyncratic -- in a word, RANDOM." (Emphasis added) Plomin continues "These findings call for a radical rethink about parenting, education and the events that shape our lives. It also provides a novel perspective on equal opportunity, social mobility and the structure of society."]

In spite of this contrary scientific evidence that inequality is not rooted in economic factors, countless left-leaning economists, law professors, and political scientists insist, without foundation, that capitalism is the source for much of our nation's inequality. One needs only to read Prof. Joseph Stiglitz's "The Price of Inequality" (2013) or Prof. Thomas Piketty's tome, "Capital in the 21st Century" (2014) or Prof. Thomas Shapiro's "Toxic Inequality" (2017) and their calls for redistribution to understand that their driving motivation is a search for almost totally equal economic outcomes. They undertake this crusade in spite of the fact that even Lord Keynes believed that efforts to fight inequality hinder economic growth. [See: Foundation for Economic Education Aug. 11, 2018]. Even the IMF got it wrong. In a 2015 report titled "Causes and Consequences of Inequality," this organization errantly asserted that "Widening inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between rich and poor is at its highest level in decades." Interestingly, this barrage of unsupported claims prompted an author like Edward Conrad to produce a book, "The Upside of Inequality" in which he mistakenly states that capitalism is a cause of inequality but asserts that the overall impact is positive in that growth (rising GDP) has markedly improved everyone's standard of living.

But the unifying and driving force exhibited by all of these millenarian collectivists is a desire to eliminate economic inequality of outcomes. This deep-seated human drive for equality likely stems from our ancestral days living as small hunter-gatherer bands that wandered the several continents (except Antarctica) for over 100,000 years. Sharing the "wealth" was a possible adaptation that probably helped to ensure the survival of the group. Individualism likely played a subservient role to the collectivism of each clan. Of course, these people all lived on the edge of starvation at a level of servile poverty that is almost unimaginable today. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer ].

Then about ten millennia ago humans mastered the science of agriculture which resulted in a more stable food supply and as a consequence population levels of our lineage began to rise. But, our farming forebears still lived in a condition of almost total abject poverty. [See: click here ].

This state of affairs continued uninterrupted for almost 10,000 years until the advent of capitalism (individualism) in central England about 1765. [Note: Highly regarded economic historian, Prof. Deirdre McCloskey, places this critical conversion in the northern Netherlands roughly 100 years earlier but the result is the same.] With the development of capitalism the Industrial Revolution began, GDP surged ahead and human-kinds overall levels of economic well-being soared, increasing according to some estimates by up to 5,000% at the turn of the 21st century. [See: click here ]. In all of history, things had never gotten better for everyone any faster. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence.] The following graph shows this remarkable upward trend in life expectancy, GDP per capita, energy capture, democratic governance, and war-making capacity along with a remarkable decline in extreme poverty.


Moreover, in a 2001 essay titled "The Law of Accelerating Returns", Ray Kurzweil opined that the rate of technological change is exponential. [See: .kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns ]. Thus the sharp upward trend in these measures of well-being has continued and even accelerated since 2000 and it is not unreasonable to believe that the shift of ever-improving living standards and the rest will stretch further into the future. [See: click here ].

Regrettably, ever since Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his famous essay, "Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men" in 1754 some (many?) collectivist scribes have sought to return our species to its hunter-gatherer roots when everyone was equally hungry and always desperately poor. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau ].


As evidence of this ill-advised tendency, every day I read an almost endless array of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist articles in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and web sites and almost all of these focus on alleged rising levels of inequality. A single recent example should suffice. In a June 6, 2019 article in the NY Times, titled "The World is a Mess. We Need Fully Automated Luxury Communism", Aaron Bastini insisted that "We live in a world of low growth, low productivity and low wages, of climate breakdown and collapse of democratic policies. A world where billions, " live in poverty. A world defined by inequality." Next, I ask myself -- How could so many bright well-informed authors be so apparently unaware of the actual realities concerning the facts regarding the imagined phenomenon of increasing income and wealth inequality in the US? [See: click here ].


These unfounded claims of growing income inequality and the exaggerated concentration of wealth in the US due to capitalism are easily rebutted.

Many left-leaning economists are at heart closet "levelers" who favor more equal economic outcomes and these same people therefor support almost any move towards socialism. They thus espouse every misleading set of statistics that they can find in an effort to attain their goal. This is often called "data mining" and it is not useful. In his 1954 book, "How to Lie With Statistics" author Darrell Huff coined the word "statisticulation" by which he meant "statistical manipulation" which also describes very well the work of these many current day egalitarians.


For example, some socialist commentators have contended that with a slew of data, Thomas Piketty confirmed what those on the left had long believed: that extreme inequality and the clustering of wealth are the natural outcomes of capitalism. [See: click here ]. But, income inequality in the US has not risen in the last 60 years and the US Census Bureau data (along with Kitov & Kitov 2012) [See: click here ] prove it. Since 1960 the Bureau's Gini coefficient (one of many important measures that almost all economists use to track inequality) of income for "All US Persons" (individuals) has remained almost totally flat. [See: Table PINC-01 Selected Characteristics in the March Supplement which is published each year by the US Census Bureau as part of its Annual Demographic Surrey or visit click here ]. Thus there has been virtually no increase in US income inequality for individuals for six decades. [See: eu.org/article/human-capital-and-income-inequality ]. Also, most collectivist writers do not know that Prof. Piketty in 2015 quietly recanted much (most?) of what he wrote in "Capital in the 21st Century". [See: "About Capital in the 21st Century" American Economic Review 2015, 105(5): 48-53 or go to doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151060 ].


What has been skewing upwards is the US Census Bureau's Gini coefficient for "US Households" (and "US Families"). [Note: In 2009 Prof. Robert Gordon found that "The rise in American inequality has been exaggerated both in magnitude and timing." See: .nber.org/papers/w15351 thereby confirming the assertion that Alan Reynolds made at the Western Economics Association's July 2007 meeting that "... inequality in income, wages, consumption, and wealth among the US population as a whole does not appear to have increased significantly since 1988." See: click here ]. But nearly 100% of any increases have been caused by sociological (and not economic) factors (i.e. alterations in the size, make-up, and constitution of both US households and families.) For context, any divergence of these two data sets from the stable status of the statistics for "All US Persons" (individuals) began about 1970. [See: click here ]. But as Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell, put it in his book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies" (2008), "Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standards of living than individual income data because households vary in size while an individual always means one person." Later Prof. Sowell continued "Household income data can, therefore, be very misleading, whether comparing income differences as of a given time or following changes in income over the years."


Perhaps a single specific example of this household trend will help to dismiss the lefts baseless trope regarding rising income inequality in the US. If a young woman in the 1950s became pregnant out of wedlock she almost always married the father thereby forming one new household (and one new family) with one caregiver and one breadwinner. Twenty years later mounting numbers of young women began bearing children without any serious intention of matrimony (today this figure in the US stands at 39.8%) [See: .cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm ] and this results in the formation of two new families (and two new households) one with a caregiver but no breadwinner and another with only a breadwinner. Both of these freshly formed households (or families) are each poorer than the combined single household (or family). Obviously, this emerging cultural (not economic) change began shifting the income inequality for households (and families) upward.


There are many other sociological (but not economic) trends that have resulted in similar skewing of the household (and family) data. These include (but are not limited to) elevated levels of divorce which split one household (and family) into two needier units; increasing numbers of elderly women who outlive their spouses; rising instances of assortative mating (i.e. In the 1950s a doctor often married his nurse but today she marries another doctor or lawyer which results in a very high two-income household and family. Indeed, according to Greenwood et.al. (2014), the US Gini coefficient in 2005 would have fallen from the observed 0.43 to 0.34 if all US mating had been random. And the authors of this research thus concluded that "... assortative mating is important for income inequality.") [See: click here ] [Note: For a contrary point of view see: .nber.org/papers/w20271.pdf ]; and numerous other sociological kinetics which markedly raises the Gini coefficients for both families and households but not for individuals.

In their 2016 book, "Unequal Gains", Profs. Lindert and Williamson begin by dismissing in a footnote the US Census Bureau's data as "faulty official numbers" but later admit that the racial and gender inequality gaps have been converging since 1970 along with a declining gap in the North-South levels of inequality. But these two authors are unable to reconcile why these American "countercurrents" are moving in the opposite direction of their "new" measure of inequality which is the "tax unit" research of Piketty & Saez (2001). [See: .nber.org/papers/w8467 ]. Lindert and Williamson revealed their true colors in "Unequal Gains'" last paragraph. "If there were any fulcrum at which historical insight might be applied to move inequality, it would be political. As we have said, no nation has used up all its political opportunities for leveling income without harming economic growth." Even worse, these two liberal economists asserted that "The South was the richest of the colonies, and even its slaves had higher living standards than did the poorest in England."

Most collectivist economists (including LIndert & Williamson) always examine inequality using only pre-tax data and before taking into consideration any government transfer payments which each highly distort the real situation in America. The following graph depicts the true status: [See: click here ]. This certainly is no picture of rising income inequality in the US.

For context, one should also note the following: According to the IRS data from 1992 to 2014 over 70% of "tax units" (a very close proxy for families) were among the top 400 individual US taxpayers for only a single year while only 3% were among this top tier for ten years or more. [See: foundation.org/turnover-among-richest-americans/ ]. Thus, most US taxpayers had ultra-high incomes only one time in their careers. Also, in 2017 a US household needed $421,926 to be in the top 1%. [ See: click here ]. This is a very handsome sum but far less than many would imagine.In 2019, Auten & Splinter reported that "Top income share estimates based on only individual tax returns, such as Piketty & Saez (2003) are biased by tax-base changes, major social changes, and missing income sources." These authors continued "Our results suggest that the income shares are lower than the tax-based estimates and since the early 1960s increasing government transfers and tax progressivity have resulted in little change in after-tax income shares." [See: "Income Inequality in the United States: Using Tax Data to Measure Long-Term Trends" Or see: Davidsplinter.com/autensplinter-tax_data_and_inequality.pdf ]. The Economist, noted regarding this research, that "Just as ideas about inequality have completed their march from the Academy to the frontlines of politics, researchers have begun to look again. And some are wondering whether inequality has risen as much as claimed -- or, by some measures, at all." The results of this research paper have also been reported by Vox, PBS, The Hill, and the WSJ.Then in Oct. of 2019 Elwell et al reported that "... when we more fully account for taxes and transfers and use the proper sharing unit and unit of analysis ... we show that while over this period (1959 - 2016) the rich got substantially richer, so did poor and middle-class Americans." [See: Income Growth and its Distribution From Eisenhower to Obama: The Growing Importance of In =Kind Transfers (1959 - 2016) AEI Economics Working Paper 2019-21.]

Turning the alleged accumulation of wealth due to capitalism. This misleading claim made by many collectivists also lacks important framing. Augustus Caesar was worth an estimated $4.6 trillion but economic historians name Mansa Musa I (1280 - 1337) of the Mali Empire in sub-Saharan Africa as the richest man of all time. Jakob Fugger (1459 - 1525), a German merchant, amassed a fortune worth an estimated $400 billion in today's dollars more than 250 years before the onset of capitalism. Today the world's richest man is Jeff Bezos with a net worth of about $125 billion. He is followed by Bernard Arnault with just under $108 billion and Bill Gates at slightly more than $107 billion. [See: click here ]. Basil II, Alan the Red, Nicholas II, William the Conqueror, and Muammar al-Qaddafi, along with all of the "Robber Barons" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were also far wealthier than Mr. Bezos in US dollars adjusted for inflation. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historic_figures ]. As an aside and for further context, several large family fortunes have been divided by inheritance. The combined Walton family fortune today stands at $191 billion, the Mars estate has a total worth of $127 billion and the Koch family wealth is now $125 billion. [See: The Jewish Journal reporting from Bloomberg Aug. 11, 2019].


In the May 15, 2014 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine in an article titled "The Inequality Illusion" economists Wojciech Kopczuk and Allison Schrager reported that "... there is limited evidence that wealth inequality has actually worsened in the US in the last 30 years." A year later Zucman & Saez in a scholarly paper, ("Wealth Inequality in the US Since 1913") found that wealth inequality was not rising quickly below the top 0.1%. [See: keley.edu/~saez/saez-zucmanNBER14wealth.pdf ]. According to Harvard professor and economist, Martin Feldstein, this increase in the wealth statistics among the top 0.1% was due almost entirely to the 0.01%'s conversion from reporting their taxes as "C" corporations to "sub-S" corporations after the 1986 tax act. [See: click here ]. Thus, there has been little or no concentration of wealth in the US since 1970.

For some unexplained reason, many socialists confine their analysis of inequality to measures of income (annual earnings) and wealth (accumulated economic assets less debt) thereby ignoring many other important benchmarks (mortality, morbidity, literacy, consumption, gender, race, etc.) and one might assume that these other unmentioned norms may not support their collectivist claims of inequality that is skewing out of control. [See: tality.org/ ]. The simple truth is that these other metrics are both: getting better fast and converging while not diverging as many on the left would have us believe. [See: .un.org/esa/desa/papers/2005/wp2_2005.pdf ].


The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has firmly asserted that "Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries." [See: www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/40700982.pd ]. Of course, many collectivists want to halt the expansion of human economic well-being asserting that things are good enough today. [See: click here ].Thus, any effort that might slow economic growth via socialism would be a virtual "death sentence" for our planet's needy. Interestingly, Michael O'Sullivan in his new book "The Leveling" insists that while globalization has ended the next major trend will be a worldwide equalizing of wealth, income, consumption, etc.

In further support of the OECD's assertion Prof. Raghuram Rajan, an economist at the University of Chicago and former chief economist for the IMF, in his latest book, "The Third Pillar" (2019) reports that "We are surrounded by plenty. Humanity has never been richer as technologies of production have improved steadily over the last two hundred fifty years. It is not just developed countries that have grown wealthier; billions across the developing world have moved from stressful poverty to a comfortable middle-class existence in the span of a generation. Income is more evenly spread across the world than at any other time in our lives. For the first time in history, we have it in our power to eradicate hunger and starvation everywhere." This is capitalism's real historical economic record.


Moreover, the editors of The Economist magazine on May 23, 2019, opined that "Capitalism is improving workers' lot farther than it has in years " (and) " the zeitgeist has lost touch with the data." They added that the bleak picture painted by the left "... is at odds with reality." In other words, many news outlets are apparently not reporting the economic truth about capitalism.

THE TRUTH CONCERNING ALLEGED RISING INEQUALITY IN THE USA

Background

It is a fact that inequalities exist in America but they are almost always solidly rooted in immutable psychological traits such as IQ, industriousness, honesty, creativity, courage, etc. [See: AEI Monograph (1998) "Income Inequality and IQ" ]. Take IQ. According to the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth by age 28 to 36, the top 10% in cognitive ability have a median earned an income of 4.8 times the median for the bottom 10%. Indeed, "The Bell Curve" (1994) in part one, "The Emergence of a Cognitive Elite", found that IQ is one of the best single predictors of job productivity. Most recently, researchers have found that DNA plays a role in social stratification. These investigators concluded that "Human DNA polymorphisms vary across geographic regions, with the most commonly observed variation reflecting distant ancestry differences." [See: Nature: Human Behaviour October 21, 2019 "Genetic Correlations of Social Stratifications in Great Britain" Abdellaoui et al or .nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0757-5 ].


For proof that all psychological traits are firmly riveted in nature and not in nurture one need only read Prof. Robert Plomin's new book, "Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are", (Nov. 2018) which is the most recent scholarly work on the psychology of human genetics. In "Blueprint" Plomin, one of the very top experts in the field of behavioral genetics asserts that "A century of genetic research shows that DNA differences inherited from our parents are the consistent life-long sources of our psychological individuality -- the "Blueprint" that makes us who we are." Prof. Plomin also reports that "... genetics explain more of our psychological differences -- not just mental health and school achievement but all psychological traits, from personality to intellectual abilities. Nature, not nurture is what makes us who we are." [Note: The Dec. 14, 2018 issue of Scientific American contains a very brief essay by Prof. Plomin titled "In the Nature-Nurture War, Nature Wins." and in it, Plomin admits that "Environmental influences are important" too, but they are largely unsystematic, unstable and idiosyncratic -- in a word, RANDOM." (Emphasis added) Plomin continues "These findings call for a radical rethink about parenting, education and the events that shape our lives. It also provides a novel perspective on equal opportunity, social mobility and the structure of society."]

In spite of this contrary scientific evidence that inequality is not rooted in economic factors, countless left-leaning economists, law professors, and political scientists insist, without foundation, that capitalism is the source for much of our nation's inequality. One needs only to read Prof. Joseph Stiglitz's "The Price of Inequality" (2013) or Prof. Thomas Piketty's tome, "Capital in the 21st Century" (2014) or Prof. Thomas Shapiro's "Toxic Inequality" (2017) and their calls for redistribution to understand that their driving motivation is a search for almost totally equal economic outcomes. They undertake this crusade in spite of the fact that even Lord Keynes believed that efforts to fight inequality hinder economic growth. [See: Foundation for Economic Education Aug. 11, 2018]. Even the IMF got it wrong. In a 2015 report titled "Causes and Consequences of Inequality," this organization errantly asserted that "Widening inequality is the defining challenge of our time. In advanced economies, the gap between rich and poor is at its highest level in decades." Interestingly, this barrage of unsupported claims prompted an author like Edward Conrad to produce a book, "The Upside of Inequality" in which he mistakenly states that capitalism is a cause of inequality but asserts that the overall impact is positive in that growth (rising GDP) has markedly improved everyone's standard of living.

But the unifying and driving force exhibited by all of these millenarian collectivists is a desire to eliminate economic inequality of outcomes. This deep-seated human drive for equality likely stems from our ancestral days living as small hunter-gatherer bands that wandered the several continents (except Antarctica) for over 100,000 years. Sharing the "wealth" was a possible adaptation that probably helped to ensure the survival of the group. Individualism likely played a subservient role to the collectivism of each clan. Of course, these people all lived on the edge of starvation at a level of servile poverty that is almost unimaginable today. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer ].

Then about ten millennia ago humans mastered the science of agriculture which resulted in a more stable food supply and as a consequence population levels of our lineage began to rise. But, our farming forebears still lived in a condition of almost total abject poverty. [See: click here ].

This state of affairs continued uninterrupted for almost 10,000 years until the advent of capitalism (individualism) in central England about 1765. [Note: Highly regarded economic historian, Prof. Deirdre McCloskey, places this critical conversion in the northern Netherlands roughly 100 years earlier but the result is the same.] With the development of capitalism the Industrial Revolution began, GDP surged ahead and human-kinds overall levels of economic well-being soared, increasing according to some estimates by up to 5,000% at the turn of the 21st century. [See: click here ]. In all of history, things had never gotten better for everyone any faster. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Divergence.] The following graph shows this remarkable upward trend in life expectancy, GDP per capita, energy capture, democratic governance, and war-making capacity along with a remarkable decline in extreme poverty.


Moreover, in a 2001 essay titled "The Law of Accelerating Returns", Ray Kurzweil opined that the rate of technological change is exponential. [See: .kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns ]. Thus the sharp upward trend in these measures of well-being has continued and even accelerated since 2000 and it is not unreasonable to believe that the shift of ever-improving living standards and the rest will stretch further into the future. [See: click here ].

Regrettably, ever since Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his famous essay, "Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men" in 1754 some (many?) collectivist scribes have sought to return our species to its hunter-gatherer roots when everyone was equally hungry and always desperately poor. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Jacques_Rousseau ].


As evidence of this ill-advised tendency, every day I read an almost endless array of pro-socialist and anti-capitalist articles in a variety of newspapers, magazines, and web sites and almost all of these focus on alleged rising levels of inequality. A single recent example should suffice. In a June 6, 2019 article in the NY Times, titled "The World is a Mess. We Need Fully Automated Luxury Communism", Aaron Bastini insisted that "We live in a world of low growth, low productivity and low wages, of climate breakdown and collapse of democratic policies. A world where billions, " live in poverty. A world defined by inequality." Next, I ask myself -- How could so many bright well-informed authors be so apparently unaware of the actual realities concerning the facts regarding the imagined phenomenon of increasing income and wealth inequality in the US? [See: click here ].


These unfounded claims of growing income inequality and the exaggerated concentration of wealth in the US due to capitalism are easily rebutted.

Many left-leaning economists are at heart closet "levelers" who favor more equal economic outcomes and these same people therefor support almost any move towards socialism. They thus espouse every misleading set of statistics that they can find in an effort to attain their goal. This is often called "data mining" and it is not useful. In his 1954 book, "How to Lie With Statistics" author Darrell Huff coined the word "statisticulation" by which he meant "statistical manipulation" which also describes very well the work of these many current day egalitarians.


For example, some socialist commentators have contended that with a slew of data, Thomas Piketty confirmed what those on the left had long believed: that extreme inequality and the clustering of wealth are the natural outcomes of capitalism. [See: click here ]. But, income inequality in the US has not risen in the last 60 years and the US Census Bureau data (along with Kitov & Kitov 2012) [See: click here ] prove it. Since 1960 the Bureau's Gini coefficient (one of many important measures that almost all economists use to track inequality) of income for "All US Persons" (individuals) has remained almost totally flat. [See: Table PINC-01 Selected Characteristics in the March Supplement which is published each year by the US Census Bureau as part of its Annual Demographic Surrey or visit click here ]. Thus there has been virtually no increase in US income inequality for individuals for six decades. [See: eu.org/article/human-capital-and-income-inequality ]. Also, most collectivist writers do not know that Prof. Piketty in 2015 quietly recanted much (most?) of what he wrote in "Capital in the 21st Century". [See: "About Capital in the 21st Century" American Economic Review 2015, 105(5): 48-53 or go to doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151060 ].


What has been skewing upwards is the US Census Bureau's Gini coefficient for "US Households" (and "US Families"). [Note: In 2009 Prof. Robert Gordon found that "The rise in American inequality has been exaggerated both in magnitude and timing." See: .nber.org/papers/w15351 thereby confirming the assertion that Alan Reynolds made at the Western Economics Association's July 2007 meeting that "... inequality in income, wages, consumption, and wealth among the US population as a whole does not appear to have increased significantly since 1988." See: click here ]. But nearly 100% of any increases have been caused by sociological (and not economic) factors (i.e. alterations in the size, make-up, and constitution of both US households and families.) For context, any divergence of these two data sets from the stable status of the statistics for "All US Persons" (individuals) began about 1970. [See: click here ]. But as Stanford economist, Thomas Sowell, put it in his book, "Economic Facts and Fallacies" (2008), "Income comparisons using household statistics are far less reliable indicators of standards of living than individual income data because households vary in size while an individual always means one person." Later Prof. Sowell continued "Household income data can, therefore, be very misleading, whether comparing income differences as of a given time or following changes in income over the years."


Perhaps a single specific example of this household trend will help to dismiss the lefts baseless trope regarding rising income inequality in the US. If a young woman in the 1950s became pregnant out of wedlock she almost always married the father thereby forming one new household (and one new family) with one caregiver and one breadwinner. Twenty years later mounting numbers of young women began bearing children without any serious intention of matrimony (today this figure in the US stands at 39.8%) [See: .cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/unmarried-childbearing.htm ] and this results in the formation of two new families (and two new households) one with a caregiver but no breadwinner and another with only a breadwinner. Both of these freshly formed households (or families) are each poorer than the combined single household (or family). Obviously, this emerging cultural (not economic) change began shifting the income inequality for households (and families) upward.


There are many other sociological (but not economic) trends that have resulted in similar skewing of the household (and family) data. These include (but are not limited to) elevated levels of divorce which split one household (and family) into two needier units; increasing numbers of elderly women who outlive their spouses; rising instances of assortative mating (i.e. In the 1950s a doctor often married his nurse but today she marries another doctor or lawyer which results in a very high two-income household and family. Indeed, according to Greenwood et.al. (2014), the US Gini coefficient in 2005 would have fallen from the observed 0.43 to 0.34 if all US mating had been random. And the authors of this research thus concluded that "... assortative mating is important for income inequality.") [See: click here ] [Note: For a contrary point of view see: .nber.org/papers/w20271.pdf ]; and numerous other sociological kinetics which markedly raises the Gini coefficients for both families and households but not for individuals.

In their 2016 book, "Unequal Gains", Profs. Lindert and Williamson begin by dismissing in a footnote the US Census Bureau's data as "faulty official numbers" but later admit that the racial and gender inequality gaps have been converging since 1970 along with a declining gap in the North-South levels of inequality. But these two authors are unable to reconcile why these American "countercurrents" are moving in the opposite direction of their "new" measure of inequality which is the "tax unit" research of Piketty & Saez (2001). [See: .nber.org/papers/w8467 ]. Lindert and Williamson revealed their true colors in "Unequal Gains'" last paragraph. "If there were any fulcrum at which historical insight might be applied to move inequality, it would be political. As we have said, no nation has used up all its political opportunities for leveling income without harming economic growth." Even worse, these two liberal economists asserted that "The South was the richest of the colonies, and even its slaves had higher living standards than did the poorest in England."

Most collectivist economists (including LIndert & Williamson) always examine inequality using only pre-tax data and before taking into consideration any government transfer payments which each highly distort the real situation in America. The following graph depicts the true status: [See: click here ]. This certainly is no picture of rising income inequality in the US.

For context, one should also note the following: According to the IRS data from 1992 to 2014 over 70% of "tax units" (a very close proxy for families) were among the top 400 individual US taxpayers for only a single year while only 3% were among this top tier for ten years or more. [See: foundation.org/turnover-among-richest-americans/ ]. Thus, most US taxpayers had ultra-high incomes only one time in their careers. Also, in 2017 a US household needed $421,926 to be in the top 1%. [ See: click here ]. This is a very handsome sum but far less than many would imagine.In 2019, Auten & Splinter reported that "Top income share estimates based on only individual tax returns, such as Piketty & Saez (2003) are biased by tax-base changes, major social changes, and missing income sources." These authors continued "Our results suggest that the income shares are lower than the tax-based estimates and since the early 1960s increasing government transfers and tax progressivity have resulted in little change in after-tax income shares." [See: "Income Inequality in the United States: Using Tax Data to Measure Long-Term Trends" Or see: Davidsplinter.com/autensplinter-tax_data_and_inequality.pdf ]. The Economist, noted regarding this research, that "Just as ideas about inequality have completed their march from the Academy to the frontlines of politics, researchers have begun to look again. And some are wondering whether inequality has risen as much as claimed -- or, by some measures, at all." The results of this research paper have also been reported by Vox, PBS, The Hill, and the WSJ.Then in Oct. of 2019 Elwell et al reported that "... when we more fully account for taxes and transfers and use the proper sharing unit and unit of analysis ... we show that while over this period (1959 - 2016) the rich got substantially richer, so did poor and middle-class Americans." [See: Income Growth and its Distribution From Eisenhower to Obama: The Growing Importance of In =Kind Transfers (1959 - 2016) AEI Economics Working Paper 2019-21.]

Turning the alleged accumulation of wealth due to capitalism. This misleading claim made by many collectivists also lacks important framing. Augustus Caesar was worth an estimated $4.6 trillion but economic historians name Mansa Musa I (1280 - 1337) of the Mali Empire in sub-Saharan Africa as the richest man of all time. Jakob Fugger (1459 - 1525), a German merchant, amassed a fortune worth an estimated $400 billion in today's dollars more than 250 years before the onset of capitalism. Today the world's richest man is Jeff Bezos with a net worth of about $125 billion. He is followed by Bernard Arnault with just under $108 billion and Bill Gates at slightly more than $107 billion. [See: click here ]. Basil II, Alan the Red, Nicholas II, William the Conqueror, and Muammar al-Qaddafi, along with all of the "Robber Barons" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were also far wealthier than Mr. Bezos in US dollars adjusted for inflation. [See: wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_historic_figures ]. As an aside and for further context, several large family fortunes have been divided by inheritance. The combined Walton family fortune today stands at $191 billion, the Mars estate has a total worth of $127 billion and the Koch family wealth is now $125 billion. [See: The Jewish Journal reporting from Bloomberg Aug. 11, 2019].


In the May 15, 2014 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine in an article titled "The Inequality Illusion" economists Wojciech Kopczuk and Allison Schrager reported that "... there is limited evidence that wealth inequality has actually worsened in the US in the last 30 years." A year later Zucman & Saez in a scholarly paper, ("Wealth Inequality in the US Since 1913") found that wealth inequality was not rising quickly below the top 0.1%. [See: keley.edu/~saez/saez-zucmanNBER14wealth.pdf ]. According to Harvard professor and economist, Martin Feldstein, this increase in the wealth statistics among the top 0.1% was due almost entirely to the 0.01%'s conversion from reporting their taxes as "C" corporations to "sub-S" corporations after the 1986 tax act. [See: click here ]. Thus, there has been little or no concentration of wealth in the US since 1970.

For some unexplained reason, many socialists confine their analysis of inequality to measures of income (annual earnings) and wealth (accumulated economic assets less debt) thereby ignoring many other important benchmarks (mortality, morbidity, literacy, consumption, gender, race, etc.) and one might assume that these other unmentioned norms may not support their collectivist claims of inequality that is skewing out of control. [See: tality.org/ ]. The simple truth is that these other metrics are both: getting better fast and converging while not diverging as many on the left would have us believe. [See: .un.org/esa/desa/papers/2005/wp2_2005.pdf ].


The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has firmly asserted that "Economic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of life in developing countries." [See: www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/40700982.pd ]. Of course, many collectivists want to halt the expansion of human economic well-being asserting that things are good enough today. [See: click here ].Thus, any effort that might slow economic growth via socialism would be a virtual "death sentence" for our planet's needy. Interestingly, Michael O'Sullivan in his new book "The Leveling" insists that while globalization has ended the next major trend will be a worldwide equalizing of wealth, income, consumption, etc.

In further support of the OECD's assertion Prof. Raghuram Rajan, an economist at the University of Chicago and former chief economist for the IMF, in his latest book, "The Third Pillar" (2019) reports that "We are surrounded by plenty. Humanity has never been richer as technologies of production have improved steadily over the last two hundred fifty years. It is not just developed countries that have grown wealthier; billions across the developing world have moved from stressful poverty to a comfortable middle-class existence in the span of a generation. Income is more evenly spread across the world than at any other time in our lives. For the first time in history, we have it in our power to eradicate hunger and starvation everywhere." This is capitalism's real historical economic record.


Moreover, the editors of The Economist magazine on May 23, 2019, opined that "Capitalism is improving workers' lot farther than it has in years " (and) " the zeitgeist has lost touch with the data." They added that the bleak picture painted by the left "... is at odds with reality." In other words, many news outlets are apparently not reporting the economic truth about capitalism.


Submitted on Thursday, Jan 16, 2020 at 5:10:54 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help

K.H. Williams

Become a Fan
Author 42921
(Member since Dec 28, 2009), 50 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Please consider watching online a trailer for a fabulous documentary called "The Economics of Happiness". It's at www.Localfutures.org/programs (scroll down at that page). We play a big role in corporatism, too, and for every dollar we spend at the big box store, about 60 cents of it leaves town--versus buying food, merchandise, and services from local farmers and vendors as much as possible. About 60 cents stays in the community when we do, plus countless other benefits to localism cited in the Economics of Happiness documentary, such as the massive reduction of fossil-fuel use, food and water waste, more. Community showings of high-quality documentaries such as the Economics of Happiness (or those from BullFrog Films with which I have no affiliation) can be a great way to help raise community awareness on a particular topic and inspire lively civil discussion, help open our minds. Rental or purchase fees are typically involved, but can be recouped at the door, depending up the size and generosity of the crowd. With good publicity, a skilled emcee, and a couple personable local personalities with considerable depth of experience on the documentary's topic--and the ability to keep their comments short--there can also be lively audience Q&A after the showing. Localism is an important solution to global everything.

Submitted on Thursday, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:39:45 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help

K.H. Williams

Become a Fan
Author 42921
(Member since Dec 28, 2009), 50 comments (How many times has this commenter been recommended?)
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

  New Content

Something I've learned about numbers is that, whenever someone is really good at them, he/she can make them say anything they want. Numbers can be used to justify points of view, and manipulated to paint rosy pictures that aren't actually rosy--such as the Census Bureau's exclusion from government employment numbers all the part-time employees working two or three jobs with no employee benefits. Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz, might disagree with your conclusions as he observed that GDP is a not a good measure of well being because it is too materialistic. He even titled his 2009 article published in The Guardian,"The Great GDP Swindle.".... Your comments struck me as very long on theory, not experience. Unfortunately for us, we have similar challenges dealing with some members of Congress who have lots of opinions and theories about poverty, hunger, medical care, and homelessness at the same time that they themselves have comfortable homes, food in the fridge, cars in the garage, money in the bank, medical care for their entire family, kids in expensive private schools. I'm inclined to pay closer attention to Barbara Eherenrich's book titled, "Nickle and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America" based upon her actual experience trying to live on minimum wage. The Guardian UK ranked her book 13th in the top 100 best books of the 21st Century. Or, how about Jamie Dimon with his $31 million annual salary who was recently stumped by Katie Porter's example of the $500+ monthly shortfall from one of his entry-level employees at JP Morgan Chase? (.youtube.com/watch?v=0QKOLydDfNg) It's not about belief. It's about status quo and the suffering it has produced. According to the USDA, 12% of Americans and 13 million children are hungry in "the richest country in the world". Capitalism and theories have failed to feed them in country with no excuses.

Submitted on Thursday, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:59:38 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
  Recommend  (0+)
Help

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment