Posts

The Tide May Be Rising, But Some Boats Are Sinking

line in the sand

Last week I quoted from Ryan Avent’s book The Wealth of Humans:  Work, Power, and Status in the Twenty-First Century (2016), which makes the following points:

  • The rising tide of neoliberal economic policy did in fact lift all boats from the post-WWII years through its heyday in the 70’s and 80’s.
  • In particular, it benefited the wealth and income of individual wage-earners — most dramatically in countries where government-centric models such as social democracy and communism had previously been in charge.
  • But since then, continued allegiance to neoliberal policy has had the reverse effect, resulting in rapidly growing economic inequality which is leaving wage-earners behind.
  • The problem seems to be that, since the 80’s, the “lifts all boats” paradigm has not kept pace with the altered economic dynamics brought on by globalization and the technological revolution. The result has been a shift in wealth creation and sustainable income away from the wage-earners neoliberalism once benefited.
  • Continued allegiance to the neoliberalism is undermining the traditional concept of working for a living.

This week, we’ll finish with Arent’s analysis, again quoting from his book:

  • As a result of the above, the continuing viability of neoliberal economic policy is being questioned.

“Around the world, dissatisfaction with the fruits of economic integration fuels inward-looking political movements:  protectionist in some places, separatist in others. Some politicians find themselves able to gain traction by playing identity politics or by criticizing institutions of liberal democracy. Many succeed through withering critiques of the elites who minded the tiller over the last few decades. Faith in markets and their ability to generate broad-based growth has been shaken.”

  • Questioning neoliberalism also challenges its support base of cultural, societal, and national institutions.

“In a way, it would be much easier if the robots were simply taking all the jobs. Solutions might not be any more straightforward to come by, but the sight of millions of robot dog-walkers and sanitation workers strutting through crowds of unemployed humans would at least be clarifying.

“Instead, the remarkable technological progress of the digital age is refracted through industrial institutions in ways that obscure what is causing what. New technologies do contain the potential to revolutionize society and the economy. New firms are appearing which promise to move society along this revolutionary path. And collateral damage, in the form of collapsing firms and sacked workers, is accumulating.

“But the institutions we have available, and which have served us well these last two centuries, are working to take the capital and labour that has been made redundant and reuse it elsewhere. Workers, needing money to live, seek work, and accept pay cuts when they absolutely must. Lower wages make it attractive for firms to use workers at less productive tasks… [and reduce] the incentive to invest in labour-saving technology.”

  • A new economic paradigm seems to be indicated, but its coming won’t be easy.

“This political era [the post-war surge of neoliberalism] is at an end.

“[I]ncomes must rise. Not just the incomes of China’s middle class and the rich world’s 1 per cent. But achieving higher incomes is a fraught business, both economically and politically.

“This process will not end without a dramatic and unexpected shift in the nature of technology, or in the nature of economic institutions.”

Neoliberalism’s apparent faltering threatens many economic ideas that have come to be held sacred, such as the notion of working for a living, which we saw a few posts back is revered as a moral virtue by Communists and Christians alike. These kinds of notions are deeply rooted in the minds –literally, in the neurological wiring — of the human beings who have inherited them and the values they stand for. As such, they are much more than economic ideas, they are the personal and cultural narratives that define our identities and guide our choices, both individually and collectively.

These kinds of entrenched cultural ideals will not go quietly into the night. Instead they will retrench and aggressively pushback against an interloper. Next time, we’ll look at one of those reactionary responses:  the advent of “bullshit jobs,” which contribute much to current workplace dissatisfaction.

And just for fun, here’s the “not go quietly into the night” speech from Independence Day, and here’s Dylan Thomas’s “Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night.”

Does A Rising Tide Still Float All Boats?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

The world’s post-WWII economic surge was founded on the idea that macroeconomic advances benefit everyone equally — i.e., that “a rising tide lifts all boats” (a phrase widely attributed to JFK, which his speechwriter apparently borrowed from a local New England chamber of commerce). This idea is a hallmark of the neoliberal economic model.

Whether the aphorism still holds today is predictably a subject of highly polarized economic debate — see e.g. this June 9, 2014 LA Times article. My own research leads me to conclude that the idea worked powerfully for decades, began to break down in the 70’s and 80’s (as we’ve seen in prior posts in this series), and since then has begun to fail as remarkably as it once succeeded.

This week and next, I’m going to quote extensively from The Wealth of Humans:  Work, Power, and Status in the Twenty-First Century (2016), by Ryan Avent, a senior editor and economic columnist for The Economist, whose analysis runs like this:

  • Neoliberal economic policy did in fact lift all boats from the early post-war years through its heyday in the 70’s and 80’s.

“The last generation, during which the digital revolution’s first powerful effects made themselves felt, was an era of remarkable political moderation and consensus. The period began, in the 1970s and 1980s, with a liberalizing impulse across a broad range of countries… As global markets integrated, politics in most rich democracies coalesced around support for market-oriented economies, global openness and progressive social goals. It was a pleasant sort of era for the cosmopolitan, technocratic elite:  the believers in the notion that the market, lightly tended, offered the best route to global prosperity and peace.”

  • It especially raised national economies and benefited the wealth and income of individual wage-earners — especially in countries where government-centric models such as social democracy and communism had previously been in charge.

“[T]he nature of economic growth shapes political priorities… Political momentum for economic liberalization in the 1970s and 1980s emerged as typical voters lost confidence in the ability of the more statist economic policies to raise long-term living standards.

“The outcome of that liberalization differed substantially across countries. In China and India, liberalization delivered on its promise. In China, especially, a generation of rapid growth succeeded in elevating a large middle class out of poverty. China’s economic pie grew massively.”

  • But in the past few decades, continued allegiance to neoliberal policy has had the reverse effect, resulting in disproportionate benefits and rapidly growing economic inequality — especially in the USA and other nations where it was most entrenched.

“In the rich world, things worked differently. In 2014, the inflation-adjusted income of the typical American household was just 7 per cent higher than it was in 1979. By contrast, the income of a household in the 95th percentile of the income distribution grew 45 per cent over that period.”

  • Since the 80’s, the “lifts all boats” paradigm has not kept pace with the altered economic dynamics brought on the technological revolution, resulting in a shift in wealth creation and sustainable income away from wage-earners.

“[T]he world economy operates on a framework very much rooted in an industrial, scarcity-bound world. The interaction of that world with the technological advances of the digital era have landed labour in a trap. The digital revolution generates fantastic labour abundance; that abundance contributes directly to downward pressure on the wages of the typical worker. It also reduces the bargaining power of labour relative to other, scarcer factors, allowing those factors to capture outsize share of the gains from growth.”

  • Continued allegiance to the paradigm is currently undermining the concept of working for a living.

“We now have new economic challenges, and the former labor/wage model is no longer producing equitable results. Job-based economic security and prosperity is being left behind.

“Low pay for the great mass of workers is distributionally unfair. It undermines support for the market-based economic system that enables sustained economic growth.

“We might not care so much about these inequities if the digital revolution were reducing the costs of all the many things the typical household wants to buy, from steak dinners to adequate housing to a top-flight university education. But cost reductions have so far been highly uneven:  massive for some things, such as digital entertainment, completely absent for others, such as homes in nice neighborhoods.”

This analysis essentially restates that of economist Guy Standing, which we looked at over the past two weeks.

Arent concludes by saying, “This process will not end without a dramatic and unexpected shift in the nature of technology, or in the nature of economic institutions.” Change on that level means shifting long-standing, deeply entrenched societal paradigms. More on that next time.

Whatever Happened to Working For a Living? (Cont’d.)

“Politically, every transformation has begun
with a repudiation of the certainties of the previous age.”

– Economist Guy Standing

Last time, I quoted at length from economist Guy Standing’s analysis of how the notion of working for a living has historically fared under the social democracy and neoliberalism economic models. Prof. Standing believes that, as a result of the developments chronicled there, a new class system now dominates the working world. Again, I’ll quote from his book The Corruption of Capitalism (2016):

“Globalization, neo-liberal policies, institutional changes and the technological revolution have combined to generate a new global class structure superimposed on preceding class structures. This consists of a tiny plutocracy (perhaps 0.001 per cent) atop a bigger elite, a ‘salariat’ (in relatively secure salaried jobs, ‘proficians’ (freelance professionals), a core working class, a precariat and a ‘lumpen precariat’ at the bottom. The plutocracy, elite, salariat, and proficians enjoy not just higher incomes but gain most (or an increasing part) of their income from capital and rental income.

“The three classes below them gain nothing in rent. Indeed, increasingly they pay rent in some form to the classes above them. First, there is the shrinking proletariat, relying mainly on labour in stable, mostly full-time jobs, with schooling that matches the skills their jobs require. The precariat, which ranks below the proletariat in income, consists of millions of people obliged to accept a life of unstable labour and living, without an occupational identity or corporate narrative to give to their lives. Their employers come and go, or are expected to do so.

“Many in the precariat are over-qualified for the jobs they must accept; they also have a high ratio of unpaid ‘work’ in labour — looking and applying for jobs, training and retraining, queuing and form-filling, networking or just waiting around. They also rely mainly on money wages, which are often inadequate, volatile, and unpredictable. They lack access to rights-based state benefits and are losing civil, cultural, social, economic and political rights, making them supplicants if they need help to survive.

“This precariat is all over the world… For instance, more Americans today see themselves as in the lower classes. In 2000, according to Gallup polls, 63 percent saw themselves as middle-class and 33 percent as lower-class. In 2015, 51 percent saw themselves as middle-class and 48 percent as lower-class. Similar trends have been reported elsewhere.

“Below the precariat in the social spectrum is what might be called a ‘lumpen-precariat,’ an underclass of social victims relying on charity, often homeless and destitute, suffering from social illnesses including drug addiction and depression. … Their numbers are rising remorselessly; they are a badge of shame on society.”

Prof. Standing’s unique contribution to the conversation about work, happiness, and meaning is his identification of the new social strata. The balance of his analysis is not unique — as he says above, it has been reported “all over the world.” In the coming weeks, we’ll look at various implications of these findings:

  • The old job market’s last stand — “bullshit jobs”;
  • Whether the middle class is truly vanishing;
  • Whether a rising tide truly does float all boats;
  • Why this might be a good time for a new vision of utopia; and
  • Why law firms might want to make their next associate hire a robot.

And much more. Stay tuned.

Whatever Happened to Working For a Living?

“Politically, every transformation has begun
with a repudiation of the certainties of the previous age.”

– Economist Guy Standing

Guy Standing is a research professor at the University of London and a prolific author and world-traveling speaker. In his book, The Corruption of Capitalism (2016), he analyzes how the concept of working for a living has fared under the two economic models we looked at last time (the Fabian Society’s social democratic model and the Mt. Pelerin Society’s free market). I can add little to his analysis by rephrasing it, therefore I’ll quote excerpts at length in this post and the next.

“The period from the nineteenth century to the 1970’s saw what Karl Polanyi, in his famous 1944 book, dubbed “The Great Transformation” — the construction of national market economies.

“[T]he model that underpinned the Great Transformation made “labour,” not all forms of work. Socialists, communists and social democrats all subscribed to ‘labourism.’ Those in full-time jobs obtained rising real wages, a growing array of ‘contributory’ non-wage benefits, and  entitlements to social security for themselves and their family. Those who did not fit this model were left behind.

“The essence of labourism was that labour rights — more correctly , entitlements — should be provided to those (mostly men) who performed labour and to their spouses and children. As workers previously had little security, this was a progressive step.

“Labourism promoted the view that the more labour people did, the more privileged they should be, and the less they did the less privileged they should be. The ultimate fetishism was Lenin’s dictate, enshrined in the Soviet constitution, that anybody who did not labour should not eat.

“The labourist model frayed in the 1980’s, as labour markets became more flexible and increasing numbers of people moved from job to job and in and out of employment.

“Labour and social democratic parties everywhere became ‘reactionary’ — reacting to events rather than forging the future — and regressive, allowing or even fostering inequality.

“Around 1980 saw the beginnings of a Global Transformation — the construction of a global market system. As with the Great Transformation, the initial phase may be called ‘dis-embedded’ because the emerging economic system rendered old forms of regulation, social protection and redistribution obsolete or ineffectual.

“Politically, every transformation has begun with a repudiation of the certainties of the previous age. This time the attack was on labour-based security, previously the objective of governments  or both left and right. Now it was seen as an impediment to growth. Once again, policy changes were dominated by financial capital. Intellectual justification came from the so-called ‘Chicago school’ of law and economics at the University of Chicago, whose leading lights went on to receive Nobel Prizes. Their agenda, honed in the Mont Pelerin Society set up by Friedrich Hayek and thirty-eight like-minded intellectuals in 1947, evolved into what is now called neo-liberalism.

“This meant the liberalization of markets, the commodification and privatization of everything that could be commodified and privatized and the systematic dismantling of all institutions of social solidarity that protected people from ‘market forces.’ Regulations were justifiable only if they promised economic growth; if not, they had to go.

“As a consequence of these developments, ‘in-work poverty’ has rocketed. In some OECD[i] countries, including Britain, the USA, Spain and Poland, a majority of those in poverty live in households where at least one person has a job. The mantra that ‘work is the best route out of poverty’ is simply false.”

I.e., according to Prof Standing, historical and contemporary adherence to the Fabian and Mt. Pelerin ideals has skewed and will continue to skew the notion of working for a living in ways that are unsustainable in current economic reality.

Ironically, Lenin’s dictum  that “If any man does not work, neither let him eat” was first articulated two thousand years ago by none other than St. Paul. 2 Thessalonians 3:10. Thus the idea of “working for a living” has long persisted as a cornerstone belief in communist, socialist, and capitalist economic theory, giving it nearly universal sacred status. To question this ideal is truly to trample on hallowed ground.

More next time.

[i] The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has 34 mainly industrialized countries as members.

Ideas and Economics

quote-ideas-are-more-powerful-than-guns-we-would-not-let-our-enemies-have-guns-why-should-we-let-them-joseph-stalin-268865

Yes, ideas matter. In economics, they matter a lot.

Three key economics ideas have shaped academic debates and national policies about economics for the past 240 years. Communism was the latecomer:  Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and Das Kapital in 1867, and his ideas took their place in the triumvirate in the 20th Century. Meanwhile, Scotsman Adam Smith articulated capitalistic economics in The Wealth of Nations (1776), which subsequently split into two key versions.

The first was championed by the Fabian Society, formed in London in 1884 in part as a counter to the growing interest in Marxism. The Fabians’ ranks included H. G. Wells and  George Bernard Shaw, and their agenda was democratic socialism, which became Europe’s dominant model. The Fabians advocated nationalized industry, centralized banking, and social welfare through “state-protected trade unionism and other state interventions such as social security and unemployment insurance. And [they] did so by claiming that capitalism worsens inequality and exploitation, that it is rife with robber barons and virtueless inheritors.” A History of the Mont Pelerin Society (1996), The Foundation for Economic Education.[1]

The second major version of capitalism got its most significant boost in 1947 when Austrian-British economist and philosopher F. A. Hayek invited a group of intellectuals to meet in Mont Pèlerin, Switzerland to chart the Western world’s recovery from WWII, and specifically to counter Marxism  and Keynesian economics. The group became known as the Mount Pelerin Society. Its original gathering included luminaries such as Hayek, Karl Popper, and Lionel Robbins of the London School of Economics, and Milton Friedman and George Stigler of the University of Chicago. The MPS agenda came to be known as neoliberalism, and advocated private enterprise and limits on government regulation of the kind that — despite the word “liberalism” in its label — have become associated with conservative politics.

in_this_corner_blue_red

Thus the lines between economic ideas were drawn, and debates among them persist to this day. Of the three, Communism’s Soviet version tanked in the late 80’s. but persists in China, albeit in vastly altered form. Meanwhile allegiances to the competing schools of capitalism are today more polarized than ever.

But do any of these models support current realities? A whole new generation of economists don’t think so, and believe it’s time policy-makers heeded some advice articulated by John Maynard Keynes:

johnmaynardkeynes1

Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig wrote this in The Future of Ideas:  The Fate of the Commons in a Connected World (2001):

“A time is marked not so much by ideas argued about as by ideas that are taken for granted. The character of an era hangs upon what needs no defense. Power runs with ideas that only the crazy would draw into doubt. The “taken for granted” is the test of sanity, “what everyone knows” is the line between us and them.

“This means that sometimes a society gets stuck. Sometimes these unquestioned ideas interfere, as the cost of questioning becomes too great. In these times, the hardest task for social or political activists is to find a way to get people to wonder again about what we all believe is true. The challenge is to sow doubt.”

Psychologist Scott Barry Kaufman and journalist Carolyn Gregoire expressed a similar sentiment in Wired To Create (2015):

“While experience is an important aspect of excellence in any creative discipline, one risk of being a seasoned pro is that we become so entrenched in our own point of view that we have trouble seeing other solutions. Experts may have trouble being flexible and adapting to change because they are so highly accustomed to seeing things in a particular way. For this reason, the newcomers to a field are sometimes the ones who come up with the ideas that truly innovate and shift paradigms.”

In the coming posts, we’ll examine some of today’s paradigm-shifting economic ideas and their impact on the contemporary working world.

[1] For another excellent review of this history lesson, see The Mont Pèlerin Society: The ultimate neoliberal Trojan horse (2012), The Daily Knell.

How Did We Get Here From There?

We got nudged, that’s how.

Economic news is a media mainstay, but I’ve always felt that real people don’t live in “The Economy.” Instead, I think we live in a world forged from our outlook on life, which is derived from personal biases and cultural norms, so that economics is only news when our internal outlook (“I can afford that”) clashes with external reality (“(No I can’t”).

NudgeTurns out somebody just won a Nobel Prize for thinking along those lines — well, sort of:  aside from his lifetime of credentials, he took the idea much further and figured out how policy-makers who know better than we do can come to our rescue by nudging us ahead of time in the direction we really ought to go.

Richard H. Thaler is an economist at the University of Chicago, and Cass R. Sunstein is a Harvard Law School Professor. Together, they wrote Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (2009). Their concept of “nudging” super-sized behavioral economics and spawned a lucrative new consulting field. (Google “nudge” and you’ll see what I mean.) Prof. Thaler was awarded the Nobel Prize not only for Nudge, but for a body of work the The Economist summarized as follows in an article earlier this week:

“Not long ago, the starting assumption of any economic theory was that humans are rational actors who maximise their utility. Economists summarily dismissed anyone insisting otherwise. But over the past few decades, behavioural economists like Richard Thaler have progressively chipped away at this notion. They combine economics with insights from psychology to show how heavily economic decisions are influenced by cognitive biases. On September 9th Mr Thaler’s work was recognised at the highest level when the Nobel Committee awarded him this year’s prize in economics. Mr Thaler thus becomes one of very few behavioural economists to win the prize.

“That started to change when Mr. Thaler and Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar at Harvard University, co-authored a book, “Nudge”, in 2008. The book attacked the assumption of rational decision-making in economic models and showed how context could be changed to “nudge” people to make better choices. In 2010 Mr Thaler advised the British government on the creation of the Behavioural Insights Team, a unit that sought to put their ideas into practice. The wildly successful government unit has since been spun out into a quasi-private company and now advises governments around the world.”

The Nobel In Economics Rewards A Pioneer Of “Nudges” — Richard Thaler becomes one of very few behavioural economists to receive the discipline’s highest honour, The Economist, October 9, 2017

Vox also summarized Thaler’s work earlier this week:

“Richard Thaler, one of the founders of modern behavioral economics and the winner of the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, is obsessed with how people make decisions — not just investors or policymakers but everyday consumers and taxpayers. He’s tried to explain why people won’t sell wine they own for more than they paid for it, why people take out big loans even when they have plenty of savings, and how to encourage people to sock away more of their paychecks toward retirement.”

This Headline Is A Nudge To Get You To Read About Nobel Economist Richard Thaler — Okay, it’s not a very good nudge, but his work is really important! Vox, October 9, 2017.

I confess, I read Nudge and could never quite silence my own biased subtext of resentment over the idea that politicians, think-tankers, captains of industry, and other members of The Illuminati know what’s best for my health, wealth, and happiness, and are deliberately nudging me to carry out their own agendas. I’ve made liberal use of my human right to make dumb mistakes, thank you very much, and prefer to keep it that way. On the other hand, I respect the scholarship that went into theorizing something we all probably realize but try not to admit:  that we decide subliminally before we act, and then rationalize what we’ve done after the fact.

Turns out that, like it or not, “The Economy” actually does run on ideas that come down from the top. Next time, we’ll look at some of the most famous economic nudgers of all time.

Spinal TapBy the way, there’s an Illuminati website. Watching the greeting video, I think this has got to be a parody in the same league as This is Spinal Tap. If it’s not, then it’s it just plain creepy.Illuminati

 

The TED Inequality All-Stars

Economic inequality is so important to a thorough look at happiness on and off the job that, before we leave the topic, I decided to provide an all-star lineup of TED talks on the subject, from a variety of perspectives. We’ve heard from the first two before, but not the last three.

TED Chrystia Freeland

This is Chrystia Freeland, journalist turned politician. We’ve heard a lot from her book Plutocrats already. Her political biases are evident in this talk.

TED Thomas Piketty

Thomas Piketty, economist and professor at the Paris School of Economics, literally wrote the book on the subject — a 600-page runaway bestseller Capital in the Twenty-first Century. He talks fast enough to get through much of his book in this talk. I’ve quoted him before, too.

TED Paul Tudor Jones

Paul Tudor Jones II is the billionaire founder of hedge fund Tudor Investment Corporation and a philanthropist. Here’s a sample:

“[Capitalism is] a system I love because of the successes and opportunities it’s afforded me and millions of others.

“Higher profit margins do not increase societal wealth. What they actually do is they exacerbate income inequality, and that’s not a good thing.

“This next chart, made by The Equality Trust, shows 21 countries from Austria to Japan to New Zealand. On the horizontal axis is income inequality. The further to the right you go, the greater the income inequality. On the vertical axis are nine social and health metrics. The more you go up that, the worse the problems are, and those metrics include life expectancy, teenage pregnancy, literacy, social mobility, just to name a few. Now, those of you in the audience who are Americans may wonder, well, where does the United States rank? … Yes, that’s us, with the greatest income inequality and the greatest social problems, according to those metrics.

“Now, capitalism has been responsible for every major innovation that’s made this world a more inspiring and wonderful place to live in. Capitalism has to be based on justice. It has to be, and now more than ever, with economic divisions growing wider every day.

“I’m not against progress. I want the driverless car and the jet pack just like everyone else. But I’m pleading for recognition that with increased wealth and profits has to come greater corporate social responsibility.

“‘If justice is removed,’ said Adam Smith, the father of capitalism, ‘the great, the immense fabric of human society must in a moment crumble into atoms.’”

TED Richard Wilkinson

Public health researcher Richard Wilkinson studies the social and health effects of income inequality. In his writing and in this talk, he offers piles of statistical evidence from worldwide studies on a wide variety of social issues including life expectancy, social mobility, math scores, literacy rates, infant mortality, homicide and incarceration rates, teenage pregnancies, levels of trust, obesity, mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, mental illness, school bullying, violence, high school drop-out rates, and more. In this talk, he returns often to three points that seem to be commonly cited in inequality research and commentary:

  1. There is a strong statistical link between these social issues and economic inequality.
  2. Conventional economic measurements such as GNP per capita, gross national income, and national income per person fail to recognize this link; and
  3. The problem of inequality at its core revolves around relative inequality (the human trait of comparing what I have to what you have).

TED Nick Hanauer

Nick Hanauer is another plutocrat — a “proud and unapologetic capitalist” — who has founded and funded 30+ companies across a range of industries, including aQuantive, which Microsoft bought for $6.4 billion. He openly loves his yacht and private jet, but fears for the future if economic inequality is left unaddressed:

“What do I see in our future today, you ask? I see pitchforks, as in angry mobs with pitchforks, because while people like us plutocrats are living beyond the dreams of avarice, the other 99 percent of our fellow citizens are falling farther and farther behind. In 1980, the top one percent of Americans shared about eight percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans shared 18 percent. Thirty years later, today, the top one percent shares over 20 percent of national [income], while the bottom 50 percent of Americans share 12 or 13. If the trend continues, the top one percent will share over 30 percent of national [income] in another 30 years, while the bottom 50 percent of Americans will share just six.

“You see, the problem isn’t that we have some inequality. Some inequality is necessary for a high-functioning capitalist democracy. The problem is that inequality is at historic highs today and it’s getting worse every day. And if wealth, power, and income continue to concentrate at the very tippy top, our society will change from a capitalist democracy to a neo-feudalist rentier society like 18th-century France. That was France before the revolution and the mobs with the pitchforks.

“Fellow plutocrats, I think it may be time for us to recommit to our country, to commit to a new kind of capitalism which is both more inclusive and more effective, a capitalism that will ensure that America’s economy remains the most dynamic and prosperous in the world. Let’s secure the future for ourselves, our children and their children. Or alternatively, we could do nothing, hide in our gated communities and private schools, enjoy our planes and yachts — they’re fun — and wait for the pitchforks.”

Next time we’ll look at the complex nature of real economics for real people in the real world.