More Light Shed On The Populist Uprising: - Excessive Economic Efficiency!

The populist political movements of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the U.S. and the Brexit movement in the UK, have garnered much media attention. However, most of it is misplaced and omits the fundamental reasons for the outcry and rage. Why then have so many in both nations been prepared to throw the "Neoliberal order" (not liberal order as Joe Klein claims in his recent TIME column) under the bus?

The closest the mainstream media has come appeared in the Sunday Review (June 3, p. 7) article by Neil Irwin, 'A More Efficient World That People May Not Want'.  Irwin provides an "overarching theory" of what happened and pins it on a factor I have belabored before, excess devotion to Pareto efficiency or optimality - but which Irwin just refers to as "efficiency".  As he puts it:

"Economic efficiency isn't all it's cracked up to be. Efficiency sounds great in theory. What kind of monster doesn't want to optimize possibilities, minimize waste and make the most of finite resources? But the economic and policy elite may like efficiency a lot more than normal humans do."

Irwin basically ties the populist rage and antagonism to a matter of priorities.  As he cleverly puts it:

"Maybe the people who run the world, in other words, have spent decades pushing goals that don't scratch the itches of large swaths of humanity"

Adding:

"What if those gaps between the economic elite and the general  public are created not by differences in expertise but in priorities?"

This is a spot on perception, and as I observed in my first post on Pareto economics, the whole basis of it is that the dollars spent by the richest are more "efficient" than those spent by the middle class or poor. This, for example, was the reason why former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recommended (back in 2003) cutting Social Security in order to provide an economic basis to further cut taxes on the rich so they would invest more. The basic argument being that when seniors receive money just for breathing every day, it's not efficient and isn't driving the GDP forward and upward.

Irwin in his essay cites an interesting experiment that confirms this and was actually published last year in the journal Science.  Basically, 4 economist tested people in a computer simulation in which they could make an economic choice that either conferred more general benefits (with less to them) or opted to grab more and reduce general population benefits. Specifically, they could choose to be greedy and keep tokens that had real cash value our share them with others. The catch was that if they did the latter, the total number of tokens (and hence) cash declined.

To sum it up: "The more evenly the pie was divided, the less pie there was to go around. There was a trade off between equality and maximizing income, a version of economic efficiency."

Irwin observes (ibid.):

"Among the general American public, half of those who played the game favored equality over efficiency"

The game was then brought to the Ivy enclave of Yale Law School, a bastion for the putative elites,  "filled with people who become Supreme Court clerks, White House aides, and richly compensated lawyers."

In this entitled and elite group the results were fairly predictable: "80 percent preferred efficiency to equality. They were more worried about the size of the pie than making sure everyone got a slice".

A pertinent observation made by a Boston University economist, Raymond Fishman, was:

"If the system has been kind to you, and you find yourself at Yale Law School, you know you're going to make out O.K. in the end so you don't worry about widening the distribution of outcomes."

Which conforms with Pareto optimality. I.e. in one post I explained why Pareto economists favored paying people $1900 each to avoid getting colonoscopies than to tie up medical resources at significantly higher cost.

In a similar vein, Pareto economists - as Irwin also notes - bitch about rent control laws which they deem as "terrible" despite the fact these are popular, especially among young people and those of modest means. For these groups, grappling with soaring rents (like in Denver at $1600 a month) they are popular.

In like manner, the efficient elitist has no problem with a trade deal sacrificing 53,000 jobs a year so long as its general benefit (especially to the elites) is appreciable. But as Irwin points out:

"To the people who are among those 53,000 the pain may be enough to drive someone to vote for an anti-trade candidate".

Clearly, economic and political stability will not exist so long as the multitudes believe they are screwed out of the benefits, which the elites reap.  As Mr. Irwin puts it:

"Dynamism and efficiency sound a lot better to people who are confident they'll always end up being winners."

Indeed.

U.S. Society - Why Such A Toxic Effect On Families, Workers?

Yesterday, 'May Day' or International Workers Day in much of the rest of the world, is often called the "Socialist's Labor Day". It is a day for many in socialist nations to reflect on the meaning of work, and whether it is still possible to have purposeful paid work in globalized, capitalist mercantile societies that often value profits over people.

As author Michael Parenti has noted ('America Besieged'), at its best work is ennobling and also humane, allowing families and individuals to live in some degree of relative comfort - as opposed to depredation and deprivation. That doesn't mean living the life of Riley but it does mean being able to afford the basic necessities:  sufficient food, adequate clothing, housing and health care. The problem is that outside the socialist nations, citizens are too often either not able to earn the living wages needed for life's necessities or - if they do - these are only attained at enormous social and psychological cost (i.e. working 2 or 3 low wage jobs).. This dual deficit has led to stupendous suicide rates, mental illness (1 of 10 Americans), startling homicide frequency,  as well as other manifestations of a toxic social fabric. One is thus led to inquire into the factors giving rise to such societal toxicity

As we near the end of the political primary season, faced with two of the worst presidential candidates ever- in terms of their negatives - one must ask if either of them can convert the U.S. into a less toxic society. The answers, alas, are not designed to inspire confidence, and the choice between a bombastic proto-fascist billionaire and a war hawk Neoliberal who fetishizes Netanyahu and Israel, may well turn into what might be called a "Hobson's choice".  Point being, either one of these two as President has the potential to render this nation even less hospitable for many, and intolerable for more than a few. See, for example, William Rivers Pitt's take here:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/william-rivers-pitt/66966/the-empire-strikes-back-donny-and-hills-big-night


Quoting smirkingchimp.com blogger David Swanson:

"If you've just seen Michael Moore's movie and are wondering how in the world the United States got diverted into the slow lane to hell, go watch Noam Chomsky's movie. If you've just seen Noam Chomsky's movie and are wondering whether the human species is really worth saving, go see Michael Moore's movie. If you haven't seen either of these movies, please tell me that you haven't been watching presidential debates. As either of these movies would be glad to point out to you, that's NOT HOW YOU CHANGE ANYTHING"

This elicits the question of what exactly needs to be changed. For a frame of reference see the Wall Street Journal piece from 6 weeks, ago, 'Populists Reject Economic Orthodoxy'. You will agree it is the economic orthodoxy inherent in Neoliberal capitalist dogma. As author Greg Ip notes, for most election cycles Wall Street and the economic elites don't worry because "once in office presidents of both parties tend to hew to economic orthodoxy".

So to the economic orthodoxy bunch,  a choice between Hillary and the Donald is really between Tweedledee and Tweedledum given both are in the pockets of Wall Street.

True, for a time these wizards of Wall Street and highbrow media overlords were terrified because well, Bernie Sanders appeared quite serious in his determination to break up the big banks, assure free public college and establish a universal health care standard like many civilized nations of Europe. And he was, despite the skinny circulated by the MSM that he "lived in fantasy land'  and "didn't know what he was talking about". The fact is he DID know, and THAT is what terrified the living fuck out of them. This had all of them (especially the Neolibs ensconced at the WaPo)  grabbing their balls because Bernie's prescriptions threatened the speculator-debt model of Neoliberalism. As Ip quoted one analyst at Cornerstone Marco:

"A President Sanders could 'beat the tar' out of banks" i.e. using everything from regulatory executive orders to the bully pulpit.

Well, that's because the Neoliberal order needs to be changed. Because unless it is, Americans and their nation will be hurled pell mell into an economic shit pit. This is no lie.  Working parents now more than ever say they feel stressed, tired, rushed and short on quality time with their children, friends, partners or hobbies, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

That tension is negatively affecting American family life, Pew found. Fifty-six percent of all working parents say the balancing act is difficult, and those who do are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding. For example, half of those who said the work-family balance was not difficult said parenting was enjoyable all the time, compared with 36 percent of those who said balance was difficult.

In a 1989 book called “The Second Shift,” the sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild described the double burden employed mothers face because they are also responsible for housework and child care. Last year she said that despite some changes in society, the workplace had not changed enough to alleviate the problems. In a book last year, “All Joy and No Fun,” the journalist Jennifer Senior described how little had improved: Working parents face similar stresses, but they are now exacerbated by inordinate tensions affecting American family life, Pew found.

Fifty-six percent of all working parents say the balancing act is difficult, and those who do are more likely to say that parenting is tiring and stressful, and less likely to find it always enjoyable and rewarding. For example, half of those who said the work-family balance was not difficult said parenting was enjoyable all the time, compared with 36 percent of those who said balance was difficult.

Of full-time working parents, 39 percent of mothers and 50 percent of fathers say they feel as if they spend too little time with their children. Fifty-nine percent of full-time working mothers say they don’t have enough leisure time, and more than half of working fathers say the same. Of parents with college degrees, 65 percent said they found it difficult to balance job and family; 49 percent of nongraduates said the same. Pew did not investigate why, but one reason might be that professional workers are more likely than hourly workers to be expected to work even after they leave the office. However, they also tend to have more flexibility during the day.

The survey also found that white parents were more than 10 percentage points more likely to express stress than nonwhite parents. Historically, white and black mothers have been more likely to work outside the home than Asian and Latina mothers, and foreign-born mothers have been particularly likely to stay home, Pew has found.

In 46 percent of all two-parent households, both parents work full-time, according to Pew, up from 31 percent in 1970. The share of households with a mother who stays home has declined to 26 percent from 46 percent. Pew surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1,807 parents in every state on both landlines and cellphones.

Other data also show that working parents are the new norm. Sixty percent of children now live in households where all the parents at home work at least part time, up from 40 percent in 1965, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the White House Council of Economic Advisers.

The shift has economic implications. The median household income for a family in which both parents work full time is $102,400, according to Pew, compared with $84,000 when mothers work part time and $55,000 when they stay home. The data highlight the complicated trade-offs that working families make. 

Forty-one percent of working mothers said being a parent made it harder to advance in their careers, compared with 20 percent of fathers. Men’s careers took priority more often than women’s did, though the majority said they were equal. Fathers earned more than mothers in half of full-time working families, the same as mothers in about a quarter and less than mothers in a quarter.

Add to that the new evidence that the quantity and quality of sleep one gets is directly dependent on one's income level, and you have the basis for why many of the middle and working class are fed up, and gravitate to outsiders like Sanders and Trump. They understand the whole system is rigged against them and on their daily "gerbil wheel" they are likely to have more health problems - including mental - and also more likely to lose it. See more on this aspect here:

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/29/america_has_a_sleep_inequality_crisis_to_match_its_income_inequality_crisis_partner/

Michael Parenti  (America Besieged), highlighted the origin of many of these toxic elements more than 20 years ago. He showed the country's social welfare and economic indicators disclose it's not the "land of opportunity" portrayed by the Neoliberal elites and political class.   In his chapter 'Hidden Holocaust, USA' ,  Parenti demolishes the myth that the country is on an ever upward path - and instead we have an insidious, media-inserted embolism of false consciousness and delusion mind-fucking the majority. He cites a typical year’s statistics to start, showing how these vary little year to year in the US of A:

Amongst the items noted then (ibid., pp. 3-6):

- 27,000 commit suicide each year

-23,000 murdered each year

-5.5 million arrested each year

- 25 million seek mental health assistance

-6.5 million use crack, speed, heroin, PCP or some other hard drug on a regular basis each year

- 37 million use emotion-controlling or numbing drugs, to face reality. Their own false optimism and delusions aren't enough to get them through the day

- 1.3 million suffer permanent kidney damage from treatments received at hospitals each year

-80 million go to some type of psychological counselor each year

- Up to 4 million women are beaten, battered

- More than 30,000 children are left permanently disabled each year from neglect and battering

- One woman is raped every 45 seconds throughout the year (700,000 in all a year)

-14,000 are killed on the job each year

- 60,000 are killed directly by toxic, environmental pollutants each year, 300,000 more get cancer from environmental toxins each year and die

- 5 million workers injured seriously on the job each year

Is this a country on a path of enhanced social advancement or improved national integrity? Hardly!  Now, the SPI stats confirm it.  The results also confirm eco-economist Herman Daly's assertion that GDP is a poor barometer to measure national health.    Thus, while the U.S. sports the second highest per capita GDP of $45,336, it ranks in an underperforming 16th place overall. It gets worse. The U.S. ranks 70th in health, 69th in ecosystem sustainability, 39th in basic education, 34th in access to water and sanitation and 31st in personal safety.

In other words, we're bordering on the conditions of a third world country. Allow a few more years of mass fracking to continue, despoiling our water sources (especially out here in the drought prone West) and we will likely join the likes of Malawi and Mauritania.   Allow the intolerable existing economic inequality to metastasize and we will - as a nation - soon sport a murder rate higher than Jamaica's.

Will either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Donald Trump reverse the destructive trends and provide the hard solutions needed to become a more humane and responsible society and nation? The indicators all show this is about as likely as an advanced race of aliens landing from the 3rd planet of Tau Ceti and taking over, since we've made such a mess of this planet.

Evidently neither the Hillary Cult or the Donald Cult see this and care. They'd rather retain the status quo with all that implies: More 'Holocaust USA'.   They'd also rather make sundry specious excuses for not acting and simply doing the same things we have been over and over again: keeping a minimum wage below survival levels when it ought to be at least $22/ hr (taking into account the rate of inflation since 1960), disallowing paid leave for illness or sick family members, and dispatching all the best paying jobs and benefits to foreign lands where cheap labor reigns - as Carrier recently announced (sending 1,400 jobs from Indiana to Mexico where the pay rate is $6/hr instead of $34/hr).

Fulfilling the very definition of insanity given by Einstein "doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result". In this case, a better, more improved America. Sorry, not going to happen!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/04/american_capitalism_has_failed_us_were_overworked_underemployed_and_more_powerless_than_ever_before_partner/

Educating TIME's Joe Klein On The Nature Of Rights & Privileges

As we move further into the Neoliberal world order, a number of efforts are being made by their elites to gut citizen thought via propaganda and language manipulation. In the past I had already cited the efforts to eviscerate all notions or memes associated with political conspiracy, i.e. by substituting the word 'scandal' for what had formerly been described as conspiracies. For example, the Watergate conspiracy is now the "Watergate scandal" and the Iran-Contra Conspiracy (as defined by then Counsel Lawrence Walsh in his Iran - Contra Report), is now the "Iran-Contra Scandal". (This was recently referenced in a segment on MSNBC by Andrea Mitchell noting how Nancy Reagan had sought to protect Reagan from the blowback from the "Iran-Contra Scandal". ) Thus as more and more hear this misuse they come gradually to accept it.

As the Elites attempt to gut all notions of political conspiracy by such language re-crafting, they are also painfully aware it cannot work completely until all of us with historical facts and memories pass away. Then, all that will be left is a mainly ahistorical, younger population that was never aware of the original terms - and probably doesn't care. In this way the future can be altered to the Elites' advantage based on reframing the events of the past.

Another domain ripe for manipulation, or what I call "mind fucking",  has to do with the nature of rights and privileges. In this case, because so few Americans understand or have been educated on the nuances of rights, and relation to privileges, they are susceptible to having their brains subtly or not so subtly exploited.

I bring this up to reference a recent column (March 14, p. 31)  by TIME's resident Neolib, Joe Klein, who wrote this in reference to Bernie Sanders's proposals:

"There is also the problem of 'rights' that Sanders claims for the people: health care is a right, not a privilege, free college education is a right - but these rights are granted without any reciprocal responsibilities. Surely, if we're going to give middle-class kids a four year college education they owe something in return- some form of service perhaps."

Clearly, like most Neoliberals, Klein regards health care and free public education as privileges not rights. But he is sadly mistaken.  Take health care. It is not a luxury item. . Rather, people are likely to need it most when their health is gravely compromised-say in a serious accident or a heart attack-  exactly the time it's most likely to be punitively expensive, or they're likely to be denied necessary care outright.

The fact that access to health care can determine life or death clearly means it falls within the purview of an unqualified RIGHT, not a privilege. On the other hand, driving a car is a privilege even if one needs a car to get to work. Hence, the recent TIME magazine cover to the effect that robot autos will soon take over and "all you have to do is give up your right to drive" is misplaced, You have no innate human right to drive. It's a myth. Nor do you have any innate rights to fast food, to ATMs, to home ownership or your own yacht.

Let's go back to health care and try to educate Klein and his Neolib cohort. In the first instance, health care can be regarded as a definite positive right under the “unenumerated rights of citizens" declared under the Ninth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. These are referred to as those rights 'not denied or disparaged' by the formally enumerated rights.

Alas, the whole concept of rights that can exist without being actually mentioned is something beyond the Neolibs' ken, or conception! Evidently, then, they never read the Constitution as carefully as they believed! In fact, as Prof. Garry Wills has pointed out  (A Necessary Evil-A History Of American Distrust Of Government, Simon & Schuster, 1999), the unenumerated rights are all those rights not already specifically declared or described in the existing document. The Founders thereby realized and understood there could exist rights in the future they hadn’t conceived of at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They thereby allowed those (then) undefined rights to become realized later under the provision of the Ninth Amendment. In other words, the rights allotted citizens are not limited to the rights actually and specifically delineated, i.e. in the Bill of Rights.

Apart from health care being a right under the 9th amendment, it is also a right by declaration of the U.S. government explicitly when it signed a (1994) UN Declaration mandating that health care is a universal right. (It can't be, clearly, if it is unaffordable or if accessing it in a desperate situation leads to bankruptcy).

Another example of  an unenumerated right is the right to privacy. This is covered under the 4th amendment, but because it's not spelled out in black and white most who read that amendment don't process it. The Fourth Amendment reads:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

So follow me now on this: Being “secure in one’s person, house, papers, effects” implies PRIVACY! These are after all MY private papers, my private effects, my house, etc. If an inherent right to privacy was a myth then by all accounts being secure in one’s person, papers, effects wouldn’t matter. Hell, let the whole freakin’ world see ‘em! This is why in a fascist dictatorship “personal effects” don’t exist. “Personal papers” has no meaning. The state has full monopoly, de facto ownership on whatever the person has, even his own body. Hence, in fascist dictatorships, such as existed in Nazi Germany, all personal effects, papers could be seized by the Nazis on a whim or remote suspicion - under the Reich Laws. A fundamental right to privacy, meanwhile, insists there exist bona fide entities that one can uniquely own, e.g. papers, effects – including photos or what not- that are private. Without this fundamental right, then, “personal papers, effects” has no meaning hence the 4th amendment is meaningless.

Let's now return to free public education. It can be argued this also is a universal right and which is why we have free public schooling in the U.S. The value placed on the education of citizens is implicit, else it would not exist. Extrapolating this, one can argue that granting free higher education is also a right, i.e. for those citizens who can maximize its use and contribute to the nation as a result. Klein mentions "giving something in return" but to me that is only attendant on whether the student is funded for higher elite education and in specific areas - like medicine.  In a public university it should not require anything more than the student performing to a sufficiently high academic standard. (As I pointed out three posts ago).

The "return on investment" will thereby come naturally when the graduate subsequently brings his learned skills to bear in the society, whether via the teaching profession, law, science, medicine, or in business. Hence, we acknowledge by contributing monies to the funding of qualified students' higher public education we as a nation are the ultimate winners- not losers.

Klein also carps about the "right of unwed mothers to food stamps". Again, implying that this is some kind of a privilege granted. But if we as a nation truly value life, new life in the womb  - and wish to make abortion less common - then it is incumbent on us to provide those food stamps to the unwed mother and her unborn. Not to do so is to act bestially and in an uncivilized manner, and to thereby vindicate all those who insist the anti-abortion Right only cares about protecting life in a restricted way.

Klein further asks if such mothers "don't owe us some standard of civic responsibility too"?  Yes, they do - that is to exercise intelligence and use family planning before engaging in sexual relations. Thereby, not placing an undue burden on the state.

Klein's questions and positions also elicit how the Neoliberal state and agenda has gutted job potential in the nation and created a vast unemployed (and underemployed) underclass. Given his position to do with the unwed mothers receiving food stamps with no strings, I am sure he would also demand "service" from those on welfare. (I.e. based on Clinton's wrong headed 'welfare to work') The first line victims of Neoliberal trade policies, including NAFTA. The answer is 'No'.

Charles Reich ('Opposing the System', pp. 125-26) correctly observes:

"The claim that government is free to reduce or cut off welfare and other forms of support for people in economic need is totally mistaken. Welfare is not a gift, nor is it, despite frequent assertions, a transfer from those who earn a living to those who are not.  Welfare is rather an obligation from society – and from those who are working- to those who have been deprived of work and the opportunity to earn a living. If we want to speak of transfers, it would be more accurate to say that those with a secure place in the economic system are enjoying a transfer of wealth from those who have been excluded from the economic system. Welfare then is partial compensation for a deprivation of livelihood that allows others to work"

In other words welfare,  seen in the proper context,  transcends even being a "right" to being an OBLIGATION from a basically rich society.  The latter, embracing  a perverted economic system, owes  a basic economic viability to those who have been deprived of work and are excluded.

Maybe a hard nut to swallow but there it is!