President Obama’s current appeals to fairness — as in the wealthy paying their “fair share” and letting ordinary Americans have a “fair shot” at a middle class life — will likely do more harm than good for those of us who care about economic equality. A Gallup poll conducted in mid-December reports that 58% of Americans polled say that they do not see society divided into “haves” and “have nots” despite Occupy Wall Street’s efforts to highlight growing economic inequality. The references to fairness appear to be the Democrats’ attempt to capitalize on the rhethoric of the 99%, a tactic they should seriously reconsider as it will likely backfire with serious consequences to our nation.

Fairness is inevitably in the eyes of the beholder. In the President’s stump speeches, “fair” seems intentionally ambiguous, a political Rorschach inkblot test to align people behind broad political assumptions than an actual signal of agreement about what would create a level playing field in a today’s economy. The rhetoric of fairness divides people into beneficiaries of unjust policies or victims of them, without delving deeper into what actually unites and benefits everyone.

If the President and the Democrats actually want a more equitable distribution of wealth, then they should pretend they are managing a household or large family, rather than running a business. The responsibility of managing a family household includes more than just making sure that there is money to pay expenses. It also means caring for everyone in it with whatever resources you do have. It requires us to distribute and share our household’s resources in a way that makes it possible for the needs of individual members as well as the needs of the whole household to be met. The balance between the needs of individuals and the whole is necessary, because how we distribute the family’s resources has direct impact on the quality of how we relate to each other. Competition makes for tense family relations. Similarly, in a family it is hard to imagine tolerating a situation where some family members suffer without basic needs being met while others have plenty. When we live under the same roof, it is clear that our own wellbeing is intimately connected to the wellbeing of everyone else in household.

This dynamic of being interconnected and interdependent needs to drive political discourse and policy as well. Economic policies organize relationships between people in society. When we distribute resources — whether food, electricity or Social Security benefits — we create relationships between people.  The ways in which both private wealth and public goods are distributed translate into the neighbors we have, the local businesses available in our neighborhoods and the quality of the schools our kids attend. In the academic world, economics may be about the distribution of scarce resources; but in the real world, economics is a *system of relationships* created by the distribution of resources. And it’s the quality of our relationships that lie beneath discussions about economic inequality. The relevant question is not “what is fair?” but rather “what economic relationships make it possible for us to get along and live together in peace?”

How we get along may seem irrelevant, idealistic or even naive given the ascerbic tone of today’s political discussions, but the quality of our relationships couldn’t be more important. Almost a hundred years ago, we had similar gaps between the wealthy and everyone else. Such inequities gave rise to violent labor protests and reform movements. While the ultimate ends of those social justice movements were laudable, violence in any form is costly and should be prevented.

Another recent Gallup poll cites that the vast majority of Americans believe we should focus on economic growth instead of closing the wealth gap. Unfortunately, that economic growth may be a long time in coming, given Japan’s decades-long recession-turned-depression and the foreboding economic chaos in Europe. Right now and for the long haul, we need economic policies that will help us live together peacefully regardless of whether the economy is booming or busting.

During hard times, families find ways to put aside differences, band together and support each other. When they do, they are able to tap into a resiliency that can withstand and outlast hardship. We rarely consider everyone in the country to be part of a common household, but what would it make possible if we did? What would we do differently if we took that responsibility seriously? Rather than using the rhetoric of “fairness” to pit people against each other, the President and other policy makers would do well to remember that economic policies create more than just wealth — they create relationships. And there are some relationships that will withstand economic hardship better than others.

Share

“Quantitative Easing Explained” is quite popular right now, but I still think a bit of background would help some of my readers:

1) The Federal Reserve is made of up private bankers. It functions as the central bank, but there is no public accountability to the citizens of the United States.

2) The Federal Reserve has always sought to minimize inflation. Why? Is inflation evil?

What is Inflation?

Most people know inflation as when prices go up. The Consumer Price Index measures the prices of common goods as a way to calculate inflation — stuff like the price of food and beverages, housing, clothes, transportation, health care, etc. When prices go up, the value of your dollar goes down “in real terms” (as economists are fond of saying), which just means that you can’t get as much for your dollar as you once did.

When Does Inflation Matter?

If the cost of stuff goes up and the value of the dollar decreases, then usually wages will go up, too, because workers will demand more for their labor to offset the rise in inflation. If you’ve been reading this blog, you might remember that supply side theorists want to keep wages low, so they don’t really like inflation because of what tends to happen to wages.

Inflation will also bother you if you lend people money (as banks do). Let’s say Sally lends Tim $100 to be paid back in one year. If inflation goes up during that year, the $100 Tim pays back is actually worth less to Sally than originally because she cannot buy as much with it at the end of the year. Mind you, Sally probably tried to estimate inflation in her calculation of the interest rate, but you get the point. Inflation is problematic for lenders, but it is favorable to borrowers.

Of course, if wages stagnate (as they have in the U.S.) then inflation can certainly be a problem from the consumers’ perspective. But as the video points out, I doubt the Fed has consumers’ interests in mind.

Share

Economists appear to be doing a lot of soul searching these days, which I think is really encouraging. A few brave ones actually find themselves talking about human nature and values (gasp!). I’m not really all that surprised. Economists really started out as philosophers, which is what Adam Smith was considered to be in his day.

In this video Tim Jackson, who authored Prosperity Without Growth, asks many of the same questions I did about the role of growth as an economic goal in my previous post, but he gets to do it at a TED conference as an credentialed economist. It’s good inspiring stuff, and I hope you’ll watch it.

If the video is not showing, you can link to it here.

Share

Our current economy essentially is experiencing a plumbing problem. Money is clogged when we need it flow. There is plenty there – it’s just not moving.

Economic activity is generated by what economists call the multiplier effect. For example, when I earn money, I take some of it and go buy groceries. The grocer takes some and pays her workers. One worker uses some to buy clothes, another to eat at a restaurant, another still to buy supplies at the hardware store. At each point, one economic transaction begets more, amplifying the effect.

A healthy economy requires money to circulate. Without the movement of money, the economy does not function, as our current economy now demonstrates. Let’s look at that picture of the distribution of wealth again.

See, the money is stuck. It’s clogged up at the top. By design.

Starting in the 1980s, our economic policies predominantly reflected the supply side economic theories of Milton and Rose Friedman, popularly known as Reaganomics. Supply Side theory assumes that the main engine of the economy is the investor or wealth holder, the person able to put his or her savings into businesses and earn profits. Since businesses rely on the capital investments of these folks, it is assumed that the more money the investor has to invest, the more businesses will be able to grow, create jobs, and benefit society as a whole. So supply side policies are specifically designed to move as much money or wealth to the top as possible.

The main policy strategies for moving chairs to the top are: 1) keep taxes low for the wealthy; 2) keep wages low (as they are often the largest business expense); and 3) keep the role of government to a minimum (as government is often a significant competitor with business). These strategies have dominated economic policy since the 1980′s, and the Ten Chairs picture shows that they have been rather successful at moving those chairs in the intended direction.

Now there is so much at the top and not moving that we have a major problem. In response, the Obama administration has advocated policies that are closer to demand side theory, also known as Keynesian economics after economist John Maynard Keynes. Demand side theory assumes that the engine of the economy is the consumer, and policies are designed to get money into the hands of those at the bottom on the assumption that those with the least will always spend what they have and generate economic activity and jobs. Demand side policies were used to lift America out of the Great Depression successfully. As you can imagine the demand side policy strategies are the exact opposite of the supply side ones.

Neither supply side nor demand side policies are inherently right or wrong. They are simply tools to help us achieve the outcomes we want in the economy, and there are times and situations where one may work better than the other. But right now, we have that plumbing problem where the money is stuck, and we need to use the right tools to fix it.

Regardless of the specific policy and its supply side or demand side leaning, we tend to think of changing the distribution of wealth as a bad thing because we see it as a “transfer” of wealth from one group to another. Economists even call them “wealth transfers” and narrowly assume that the benefits only go one way. This language sets up the competition again – us v. them, yours v. mine, wealthy v. everybody else – and we end up in juvenile arguments of “but that’s not fair!” Anyone who suggests redistributive solutions is accused of engaging in class warfare or worse. Is there a different way for us to look at the situation without injecting competition and fear?

One possible answer is to see it whole like we do with the Ten Chairs. The current situation where money is stuck does not serve anyone in the picture, not even the wealthy whose markets are drying up because no one else can afford to buy their stuff anymore. Money must flow and circulate to be of any use.

Our economy’s health right now cannot be measured in the number of billionaires we have but in the number of people who are able to participate in the economy. The more people there are who can participate, the more activity will happen and help create the flow we need for everyone to benefit. But because we are so out of balance and the degree of redistribution needed is so dramatic, in the short-term it can look like Robin Hood taking from the rich to give to the poor. But in the longer view, we can choose to see it as restoring the necessary flow so that we all have an opportunity to participate in a thriving economy. In this sense, those one-way transactions of the multiplier effect can add up to a system of reciprocity and mutual benefit, the potential inherent in our economic system if we are willing to aim for it.

This post is the second in a series on the distribution of wealth. The first can be found here.

Share