Going To Harvard This Fall? Stick To Science & Math - Not Subjective Indoctrination Majors- Like Economics!

Harvard Astronomy Chair Avi Loeb making observations at the Harvard U. Observatory

WSJ op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan ('Kids, Don't Be Success Robots', March 16-17, p. A13)  was correct when she advised:

"My advice to students still considering college in the year 2019: Avoid elite universities if you can.  They're too often indoctrination mills anyway."

Well, let's amend that a bit. If you are lucky enough to have secured entry to Harvard this fall - say to study astronomy - you are doubly fortunate.  The reason is you will experience  actual inquiry over indoctrination.. Prof. Avi Loeb achieved some renown on the basis of his co-authored paper appearing in Astrophysical Journal Letters in November — thrilling E.T. enthusiasts and upsetting the  skeptical stuffed shirts and purists in the halls of space academia. In other words, upsetting those more indoctrinated than inclined to do actual open inquiry., which is what professional astronomy should be about.

 Recall in my post on Loeb's critics last month  I cited one popular astronomer - the late Carl Sagan - who actually expressed regrets (to Dr. J. Allen Hynek) he had not been more open about accepting the reality of UFOs.  Sagan had admitted to Hynek that he really did accept the validity of UFOs but "couldn't admit it in front of colleagues."  See e.g.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Such is the hallmark of genuine inquiry in that one can admit one is or was wrong, either in one's previous research or previous attitude to some object of inquiry.

Contrast Prof. Loeb with another Harvard prof, Martin Feldstein who - it can be argued - is more invested in indoctrinating his Ph.D. students with the codswallop of modern Pareto-based economics.  Recall, in Pareto economics "Pareto efficiency" rules and the  basic premise is that each dollar of a rich man is worth much more than that of a poor man. Hence, any transfer of money from rich to the poor hurts the rich man much more than any poor man.   

Such a template was invoked by Feldstein some years ago when he argued that ordinary folks ought to be paid money not get expensive medical screening tests, such as colonoscopies.  Indeed, Feldstein argued that given there is no way the ordinary patient could afford to pay out of his pocket for such a test (usually $3,500- 4,000) then it makes more sense to pay her to take a hike. To fix ideas: 

 If the insurance paid part is $3,000 (while the patient's reservation price is $2, 500) it makes more sense to give the prospective testee $2,499 NOT to get the colonoscopy, than to let her get the test and consume valuable specialist time and resources via $3,000 subsidy. 

(Note:  The reservation price for a given  product or service is just the maximum price a person is willing to pay. So, if I have a 1954 Henry Aaron TOPPS baseball card (now with a very high book price) and I offer it to you for sale, and ask what the top price is that you'd pay, if you respond "one hundred dollars" then that is your reservation price.)

The same scheme can be carried over to environmental considerations, especially say, in implementing global warming regulations or fuel taxes to alter behavior - say to cut carbon emissions. Since - according to Pareto economics -  the lives of all the poorer segments of the populace are worth less in terms of their dollar use (i.e. their "utils") then those like Feldstein would always argue to allow more of them to perish from climate-caused catastrophes than to cause harm to the rich.  The latter by exacting carbon costs which will upset the commodities and stock markets, and whole economies.

Now in his latest WSJ op-ed ('The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon',  March 21, p. A19)  Feldstein continues his Pareto efficiency shtick as the be-all, end-all to the U.S. exploding debt problem. At the top of his hit list is, you guessed it, "entitlements", i.e.

"Thus the only option is to throw the brakes on entitlements.  In particular, the government needs to hold back the growth of Medicare, Medicaid  and Social Security."

Why does he argue thus? Well because of the metastasizing debt.   As Marty is wont to complain (ibid.):

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will be $900 billion, more than 4 percent of gross domestic product.  It will surpass $1 trillion in 2022.  The federal debt is now 78 percent of GDP.  By  2028 it is projected to be nearly  100 percent of GDP."

But in fact, "part of the increase in the deficit was attributable to the shift in timing of certain payments, which made the deficit appear larger.  If not for those timing shifts the deficit would have risen only 25 %  from the same period in 2018." (WSJ ,   March 23-24, p. A4).

Apart from that, let's bear in mind the 2017 Trump- GOP tax cuts added nearly $1.5 trillion to the deficit by itself.  ("The tax code overhaul in 2017 had constrained federal revenues over the past year." - ibid.)   It was evident from the time this trash was passed the GOOPs would need to find ways to make up for the losses, so have focussed  on cutting Medicare ($845b in Trump's recent budget, and gutting the ACA - which would toss tens of millions off their health care.)

So how does Feldstein propose to deal with these entitlements? His plan emphasizes (ibid.):  "Raising the age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits from 67 to 70."  Here, Feldstein shows that - like Alan Greenspan - he's oblivious to the the fact  that a third of seniors have Social Security as their only income. Also, more than 50 percent of Americans claim their Social Security by age 62.  

Why are so many citizens doing this? It isn't always a case of not wanting to work but rather, for too many,  not being able to last at demanding physical jobs, i.e. landscaping, roof repair, nursing home aide,  etc.  It is fairly easy to work past 70 when it's all consulting, paper pushing or brain work.   But not so much when one is involved in heavy day -to -day labor like a nursing home caretaker moving an elderly patient from bed to chair and back many time a day - not to mention other tasks, such as bathing, toilet use etc. Work that takes its toll on the back, as well as many other parts of the anatomy.

Interestingly, nowhere in Feldstein's op-ed is there any mention of cutting the defense budget, despite the fact we have ample evidence it's one of the biggest yearly deficit engines, e.g. 

We also know that at $716 billion annually, the U.S. spends more on the military than the next 11 nations combined, That includes Russia and China. As one recent WSJ letter writer put it: "The Pentagon already has enough enough resources to keep America secure.":

The sad fact is that too many of the nation's seniors do not, yet those like Marty Feldstein would just as soon indoctrinate more Harvard economics students into a useless system that's also heartless.

Kids, if you're headed for the ivy halls of Harvard, pick astronomy to study, not econ from a Feldstein clone; adjunct, lackey or TA.  Your brain will thank you for it, so will millions of us on "entitlements"!

See also:

Social Security

Honoring Frances Perkins, the 'Mother' of Social Security

AND:

Healthcare Policy

Rural America Needs Medicare for All, and Fast

Skewering Alan Greenspan's Myth Of Endless Economic Growth

Former Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan believes he knows what's best for the U.S. and that is endless growth, as measured by ever rising GDP.  ('The Great American Growh Engine And How To Fix It', WSJ,   Oct. 13-14, , p. C1).    One of his main recommendations for improved growth is:

"Get entitlement spending under control. Putting the system on a more sustainable footing could be done by raising the retirement age by a couple of years, indexing it to life expectancy so that the problem doesn't keep coming up."

Note  this is despite the fact  that a third of seniors have Social Security as their only income. Also, more than 50 percent of Americans claim their Social Security by age 62.  Why are so many doing this? It isn't always a case of not wanting to work but rather, for too many,  not being able to last at demanding physical jobs, i.e. landscaping, roof repair, nursing home aide,  etc.  It is fairly easy to work past 70 when it's all consulting, paper pushing or brain work.   But not so much when one is involved in heavy day -to -day labor like a nursing home caretaker moving an elderly patient from bed to chair and back many time a day - not to mention other tasks, such as bathing, toilet use etc. Work that takes its toll on the back, as well as many other parts of the anatomy.

Never mind, Greenspan fantasizes this ongoing rampant growth because well, it's the "American way", i.e.  "Today the United States has the most powerful economy in the world. It still accounts for almost a quarter of global GDP."

Well, yeah, given that it also has barely 5 percent of the global population but consumes 25 percent of its resources annually.  Greenspan also goes on to blab:

"The key to America's success lies in its unique toleration for creative destruction, the destabilizng force described by the economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. Creative destruction reallocates society's resources from less productive pursuits to more productive ones, or from horse and buggies to motorcars."

 Creative destruction, irrespective of who conceived it, is one of the most tragic and wasteful aspects of American cowboy capitalism.  It entails perpetual waste of energy and investment that ravages precious resources. In Barbados, with few resources, each must be maximized. There isn't the quantity  available (on a 166 sq. mile island) to allow duplication or other squandering in wasteful competition. In the U.S., the exact opposite holds. Huge amounts of resources are yearly squandered in competitive games- that have only one or a few 'winners'.  There is Alan Greenspan's "reallocation" of resources for you.

By contrast, the endemic socialist, communitarian structure of Denmark- for example - promotes a healthy growth of the social commonweal and the belief that what is done for the benefit of one, or a few, redounds to the benefit of all. E.g.

Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state  

Hence, the imperatives for government subsidized low cost housing, national health insurance for all, free education through college.  Enough to make Greenspan and his ilk apoplectic.

Matt Miller in his The Tyranny of Bad Ideas has pointed out that all the so-called European "welfare state" economies (e.g. Denmark, Norway, Sweden etc.) fared much better than the neo-liberal, market dominated U.S. during the financial crisis and Great Recession. They provided the resources for their citizens to be more resilient, and also their higher formal tax structures prevented the sort of macro-scale deficiencies we still see in the U.S. where infrastructure is crumbling, public pensions are under-funded.  Does Greenspan factor in the cost of repairing our infrastructure (est. $2 trillion) into his growth delusions? I doubt it.

It's also somewhat ironic the former Fed chief praises "creative destruction" as a major contributor to the growth engine, while invoking the transition from horse and buggy to motorcar. This is given what all those existing 1 billion motorcars around the planet have wrought - putting us on the cusp of runaway warming  e.g.

Climate report understates threat

Of course, it's also choice and ironic that it was none other than Alan Greenspan  who was actually complicit in creating the financial crisis, though he disingenuously blames a "combination of fear and herd  behavior".    Adding  that this combination "led people to overreact to bad news and to plunge economies into self-reinforcing cycles of decline."

 That takes a lot of chutzpah given Greenspan relentlessly pumped ARMs  (adjustable rate mortgages) to people who didn't know enough about them and how an initial 3% rate could balloon into an 8 %- 10% rate  and ultimately lead to foreclosures. Then there were Greenspan's and other bankers' moves to bundle the credit default swaps into mortgage loans (collateralized mortgage obligations, or CMOs) and peddling them to folks with little or no credit. That set up the immediate collapse of the credit-loan system, especially as the debased loans were awarded AAA or other high ratings by the likes of the credit agencies, such as AIG and Moody's.

 Fear on the part of the hoi polloi?   How about crass manipulation of an exploitative mortgage market and inadequate oversight of destructive financial devices? See e.g.

Brane Space: The Financial Black Hole

Another factor 'Greenie' overlooks is that the onset of the productivity growth slowdown nearly matches the point U.S. employers gained access to workers from low wage countries to whom they could pay much lower wages than to American front line workers. Especially as the former often had similar skills to the latter.

Even given the current 3 percent growth of 12 months through September, Greg Ip in his WSJ piece today (On the paradox of 3% growth, p. A2) argues it isn't sustainable. As Mr. Ip writes:

"To keep this up the unemployment rate would have to go negative in eight years, a mathematical impossibility."

Better clue Greenspan in on his fantasies there, Mr Ip.

A further hidden factor damping growth which I've discussed before is the decreasing energy return on energy invested (EROEI) of fuel sources. In other words, our energy-dependent civilization is becoming ever more impoverished as the efficiency of the energy to run it diminishes over time. So no, with conditions like this, and a projected EROEI of 7.7 to 1 by 2030 do not look for more growth.

With such a forecast, energy costs will absorb as much as 15% of GDP by then. So we will be lucky to sustain the growth rate of 0.7% per annum Greenspan bitches about as characterizing the economy the last few decades.  Nor is the oil shale -fracking option the way out. As  Robert Heinberg observes ('Snake Oil: How Fracking's False Promise Imperils Our Future'), while it may cost less to extract a cubic foot of natural gas or a gallon of oil shale today, it will cost much more in just five years and even more in ten - such that one would have to spend as much or more to get the energy as the benefit it delivers.

Heinberg summons a point that most of the snake oil salesman humping fracking won't tell you, that it costs energy to get energy. And if you are a nation that resorts to employing 15 to 1 EROEI energy to extract  5 to 1 EROEI  oil shale energy.....well, can we say 'stupid'?

As Heinberg puts it (p. 116):
"No evidence suggests that the technology of fracking has actually raised the EROEI for natural gas production. It temporarily lowered prices but only by glutting the market."

Greenspan and his growth humpers need to process that lowered EROEI translates to increased debt - nationwide as well as for (most) individuals, since it will cost more and more in the future  to obtain the same services, products one currently depends upon.  Raise the per barrel oil prices by even 15%  - say from $100 to $115, and watch the impact on food prices, not to mention gas, or electricity. Eventually, as   Tullet Prebon Strategy Insight   notes, the economics becomes "non-viable" and that means the only way people can access the food or services is to go into debt, i.e. using credit cards or other means.

Here's another "stinger" or a reality bite - which is the subject of a forthcoming book by London School of Economics sociologist Mike Savage: It is very likely that, given the Earth's limited resources, there is also a very limited capacity to handle traditional growth. This is  easily discerned from the graphic below on how many "Earths" are currently being consumed by humans per year,

At root, the issue is sustainability - especially for water which is needed for crops. NO water, no crops to feed a growing population. Simply put, there simply aren't the resources to support a growing human population which is conditioned to consumption. (Especially in the developed, industrial world - which now includes China and India).  The projections now are for at least 10 billion people by 2050, and an 80 percent probability of 12.3 billion on Earth by 2100. 

 By June, 2030,  TWO full Earths - that is,  the resources therein - will be needed to support the then population. Already we are at 1.7 Earths. Every year Global Footprint Network raises awareness about global ecological overshoot with its Earth Overshoot Day campaign.   I believe even a guy like Alan Greenspan ought to be able to grasp these figures and the graphic, and that his growth ideal is a mirage, a myth or fantasy, if you will.

As sociologist Savage explains (The Nation, October, p. 16):

"If we want to live in a better society, it's not 'How do we grow more?' It's how do we become more sustainable and consider what level of inequality most people might find acceptable  and not extreme." 

A "rising tide" then - contrary to capitalist myths- might not raise all boats but flood us all out of existence.  Of course there will always be economic Pollyannas spreading bollocks, like Tom Gionvanetti , e.g.

Why Not 'Trump Retirement Accounts'? - WSJ

who writes, evidently with a straight face (p. A15):

"The back door solution to the entitlement crisis is to make workers wealthy"

Right, even as employers are unwilling to pay their employees a fair wage, or enhance their job benefits - even after being flush with corporate tax cuts. As managing director of Aspen Advisors, Andrew Gadomski (from a January WSJ piece) fessed up, when companies lament they can't find workers to fill key openings, that is code for: "I can find talent, I just don't want to pay them as much as they cost."

One wonders what brand of "wealth"  Giovanette conceives of with this sort of payout?  Also what sort of MJ candy he's gulping to write such unadulterated codswallop?

Is there an alternative route?  The Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare which was first proposed by Eco-economist Herman Daly of the University of Maryland. is a prime alternative . Daly's point was that the GDP was too artificial and narrow an indicator of economic health. He argued that if one incorporates all the "externalities" usually dismissed or ignored by standard economic models, people would be more parsimonious in how they consume. This would then yield a more equitable economic landscape.

Ignoring these externalities leads us into a fool's paradise where we come to believe things are much better than the GDP numbers show. Similarly with energy, conveniently ignoring externalities of cost and demand leads too many to envisage a pie-eyed future of never-ending growth.    All this translates inexorably into lower growth and woe betide you if you dare intimate (as Prof. Daly has done) that a zero or negative growth index may be a lot better for humans, if they hope not to outstrip their resource support base

In the meantime, until we get to the Index of Sustainable Welfare, people may wish to consider redistribution of resources to bridge the gap. Why?  Well, because 0.1 percent of the world's population currently controls 50 percent of the planet's wealth and resources. 

Let those richies go on with their favorite playthings and pastimes  e.g.

Then don't come crying if the great 'unwashed' mass of the hoi polloi comes for them with torches and pitchforks in hand.  Faced with a choice between starvation or grabbing what they can from the richest, it shouldn't take a Mensa level IQ to figure out what will unfold.

See also:

Robert Reich

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Donald Trump | Economic Policy

The Truth About Trump’s Economy

AARP Perpetuates Trope That The Only Good Codger Is A "Productive" (Or High Spending) Codger

It is amazing that when one travels to more socially progressive nations, especially strong on social insurance, or which embrace democratic socialist values,  there is not only greater happiness noticed, e.g.

• Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state 

But also the belief that once workers retire, at whatever age, there is no longer a need for them to be either "productive" or "consumers".   Not so in the US of A, evidently.   Our nation is still dominated by capitalist and Calvinist memes that reinforce the canard that the only worthy citizens are those who contribute directly to the GDP, either as productive workers, or consumers (consumption is responsible for nearly 70% of the Gross Domestic Product in the U.S.).   To underscore this we have the bastardized "Pareto economic model" which defines economic efficiency in terms of "utils" - such that each dollar spent by the rich or investor class is always worth more than each dollar spent by the lower 50 percent or hardcore saver class, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

One of the most glaring examples being when, in 2003, the Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan - before the Senate Banking Committee  - averred  "Social Security benefits need to be cut to pay for Bush’s tax cuts."   What on Earth was the man thinking? Well, he's thinking on the basis of Pareto efficiency!

Social Security payments, especially with COLAs, do everything the Fed Chairman didn’t want. They pour more money into the economy, but not via productive labor or market investments. People receive their checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions.   In other words, the elderly are mostly unproductive drains who must be tolerated, say even if we can't get their Social Security monies converted to private investments, or their Medicare turned into "voucher" systems.

Now, this trope is resurrected in the latest AARP POV column by Jo Ann Jenkins ('Changing the World's Conversation About Aging-. p. 42, April , AARP Bulletin). She writes:

"Where leaders once looked at the growing aging population and saw only retirees, they are now beginning to see a new type of experienced, accomplished workforce. Where they once saw only expensive costs, they are now beginning to see an exploding consumer market that is bolstering our economies...no longer a growing pool of dependents."

In other words, reaffirming the trope that if an oldster isn't working and productive, or spending on all kinds of material bullshit:  RVs, new TVs,  gas-fired barbecues, new carpets, etc.  s/he is an "expensive  drain and "dependent".   Gasp!  Just a retiree! Imagine! But, WTF is wrong with just being a retiree, say after you've put in your dozens of years of hard work? And what is wrong with retiring and not having to be a spendthrift freak  either?   Only in America, the land of the almighty dollar, where profits are put before people,  can this type of degenerate thinking prosper and be sold to ...who? Well, mainly Neoliberals and closet Calvinists convinced the only good Medicare beneficiary is one who works 5 hours a day to pay for his medical treatments!

Be assured that Ms. Jenkins babble isn't the first on this issue. Some 7 or so years ago there appeared the cheery, upbeat Saturday Evening Post article, 'The New Retirement'. Therein we were  informed that "Americans are increasingly choosing to stay on the job after age 65 and money is only part of the story". Well, who'da thunk?

On the next page, we find the photos of two obviously well-provided for seniors at the top who were wealthy enough to actually retire early and buy an 85-acre farm where they "pursue their passion" by stuffing bouquets of flowers into canning jars and selling them. Well, nice work if you can get it! And, the couple informs us they're blissfully happy doing all that canning and insist: "If our health holds out we'll do this as long as we can".

My first reaction, to this well-heeled but dumb pair was, WTF!? The rate of human knowledge is doubling every 4 years and you choose to waste your remaining years canning flowers!

But that's just me and maybe my own priorities are wrong. I happen to think that in a limited life time humans owe it to themselves to learn as much about their world and cosmos as they possibly can. And that doesn't mean wasting time canning miniature flower bouquets if you don't have to!

Next we're introduced to a well-coiffed exec of 71 who has absolutely NO intentions of leaving her job as senior vice president of career services at the Ayers Group. As the lady exclaims:

"I just wouldn't know what to do with myself if I retired!"

 Well, uh, how about reading a few books...not just romantic pot boilers from Jacqueline Susanne, but areas of astronomy, psychology, philosophy to broaden that bean counter brain? How about even traveling to other places, like Switzerland, or Sweden or India? To gain something beyond a parochial perspective?

But evidently the thought never crosses her brain. She's obviously content to remain in her little corporate cubbyhole until she croaks.   But hey! At least she's "productive" - in line with Jo Ann Jenkins'  AARP crusade to remake the American image of aging - to think of us 70-plus geezers less as bums and more as.... workers and consumers!

Fortunately, a Mother Jones piece coming out at about the same time as the Post pabulum, thoroughly demolished its "working longer is better", e.g.

In other words, most older Americans (past 65)_ who do choose to stay on the job longer do so often at the expense of their health, and without much in the way of monetary return. 

What would it take to get me to rejoin the work force, at the age of 71 and with new (rising) PSA tests showing the prostate cancer may be coming back? Well, for starters,  a salary of at least $150-$200 an hour.

Oh, and that would be on a part time basis only and working at home. That alone would work given that I may not have that many years left, and I don't wish to spend them pushing paper, checking emails or "learning coding",  but rather learning more about the latest scientific and other research developments - some of which make it into my blog posts.

Btw, regarding the coding frenzy and "2 million more jobs" cited by Apple CEO Tim Cook (in his 'Revolutions' appearance on MSNBC last Friday) I will have more to say - rather naysay - in a coming post.

Oldsters, especially in their 70s - 80s deserve to be left alone by the media mavens and others who try to impose their own expectations on what an American retiree ought to be or do. If in fact millions wish to waste their time -  if they already have scads of $$ - canning flowers, or working as Walmart greeters,  then so be it. If that's what floats their boat, let 'em do it. But if others just wish to kick back and  read and learn, or attend university classes (even online) then let them do it. Stop hectoring us 70-somethings  to "go back to work" to satisfy the trope of the "on the go, productive" senior.  Or the high spending senior!