In this Alternet article, Noam Chomsky describes the business class as Marxists waging a class struggle. They never give up and working class is always on the defensive. So if the working class is less aggressive, which he says they have been since the “centrist Carter administration”, big business will get the upper hand as it has in the U.S. He sees some hope in the movement started by Bernie Sanders.
In a rational choice model, cheating and stealing can become rational when people have less to lose from not cheating and stealing than they risk by cheating and stealing. And if they don’t trust one another, they are even more likely to cheat and steal. The more unequal a society is, the more likely people will fall below the threshold where they judge they have nothing to lose, and the less trust there will be between and within social classes.
If your current resources are above the threshold, then, under the assumptions we make, it is not worth stealing. Instead, you should cooperate as long as you judge that the others around you are likely to do so too, and just work alone otherwise. If your resources are around or below the threshold, however, then, under our assumptions, you should pretty much always steal. Even if it makes you worse off on average.
This is a pretty remarkable result: why would it be so? The important thing to appreciate is that with our threshold, we have introduced a sharp non-linearity in the fitness function, or utility function, that is assumed to be driving decisions. Once you fall down below that threshold, your prospects are really dramatically worse, and you need to get back up immediately. This makes stealing a worthwhile risk. If it happens to succeed, it’s the only action with a big enough quick win to leap you back over the threshold in one bound. If, as is likely, it fails, you are scarcely worse off in the long run: your prospects were dire anyway, and they can’t get much direr. So the riskiness of stealing – it sometimes you gives you a big positive outcome and sometimes a big negative one – becomes a thing you should seek rather than avoid…
So if making sentences tougher does not solve the problems of crime in high-inequality populations, according to the model, is there anything that does? Well, yes: and readers of this blog may not be surprised to hear me mention it. Redistribution. If people who are facing desperation can expect their fortunes to improve by other means, such as redistributive action, then they don’t need to employ such desperate means as stealing. They will get back up there anyway. Our model shows that a shuffling of resources so that the worst off are lifted up and the top end is brought down can dramatically reduce stealing, and hence increase trust. (In an early version of this work, we simulated the effects of a scenario we named ‘Corbyn victory’: remember then?).
Daniel Nettle
Well, you can redistribute, or there are other options. The highest social classes could maintain the social order through sheer force. Or they could try to achieve the same ends through ideology and propaganda that convince the lower classes the social order is natural or desirable, or they can try to use ideology and propaganda to divide the lower classes and turn them on each other. The guy on the second rung from the bottom may very well be willing to kick the guy on the bottom rung in the teeth to keep him from climbing, and thank the people higher up for the opportunity even while they are shitting on his head. Which of these options sounds good to you probably depends on which rung of the ladder you happen to be standing on, and the rung you happen to be standing on is probably within a couple rungs of the one you were born on, in most cases.
This article in The Week argues that civil wars can take a variety of forms, so we shouldn’t be overconfident that one is impossible just because we don’t have an obvious geographic basis for one.
This Alternet article explains how the IRS has been defunded and hobbled over the last few decades. The rich are able to lobby for all kinds of loopholes and then find ways to exploit them, of course, but even if they outright cheat they are unlikely to get caught. Working people are audited at much higher rates. Audits for the rich and powerful are way down, and tax fraud prosecutions have been almost nonexistent under Trump. The article estimates $47.5 billion could be collected by auditing rich people. It’s good to keep that in perspective though of the annual federal budget of 4-5 trillion. So it would be a one-time recovery of around 1% of the budget. It would be enough to get a baby bond program going. You could give about $11,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. in one year (but only that one year), or you could give less and spread it out over more years, or you could give it just to poor babies and spread it out.
Warning: political post follows! I’m still thinking about why the continuing Black Lives Matter demonstrations are bothering me a little bit. This Ross Douthat post (the New York Times token conservative op-ed guy) has helped me crystallize it a little bit. Police violence is an important but narrow issue. Renaming streets and tearing down statues is justified in some cases but doesn’t do much to address systemic problems. Maybe the movement will expand to encompass larger issues like violence of all types, mass incarceration, discrimination and inequality afflicting black people. All good, but only a slice of the much larger problems affecting our country and planet.
Many of the people demonstrating in the streets voted overwhelmingly against the candidate who would have done the most on these issues. The article is called “The Second Defeat of Bernie Sanders”. The way I look at it, Bernie Sanders didn’t fail, we all failed to support the candidate who could have brought about real change for all the hard working people of this country, black people included. The “socialism” Bernie stood for was to take just a little of our country’s enormous wealth and use it to provide the benefits that would make ordinary people’s lives better, and that most other wealthy and even functional-but-not-so-wealthy countries in the world are providing. Health care, education, child care, and retirement for a start. If we ever decide to pay reparations for slavery, it is likely to look…something like this. Bernie would have fought to provide these benefits to the descendants of enslaved African people, and to everyone else who needs them. Big business and wealthy individuals would have fought back, tooth and nail. And Bernie would have maybe led a Congress that would have fought back by enshrining meaningful anti-corruption provisions in our nation’s Constitution. He would have led us in doing our nation’s fair share (at least) to address the climate crisis and accelerating ecological collapse. Maybe. Most likely, he would have made real progress on one or two of these issues in our messy real world political system, then tried to lay the ground work for others to continue the fight. But that is more than the next Joe B. Democrat in line is likely to do. Prove me wrong Joe!
We can argue about the ideology of “socialism” vs. “capitalism”, often without even clearly defining these terms. It’s harder to argue with an avalanche of clearly presented evidence. This article from Current Affairs lays out the numbers showing the United States gradually slipping behind it’s developed country peer group in all areas. Consistently, the Scandinavian and Northern European countries that combine high productivity with policies to redistribute some of the wealth do the best. Our Anglo-American cousins the UK, Canada and Australia tend to do a little better than the U.S. but have still fallen behind the leaders of the pack.
The U.S. does well on measures of average income and wealth, but very poorly on measures of median income and wealth. We do poorly on measures of free time, infant and maternal mortality, life satisfaction, and innovation. I’m sure you can argue about how some of these indicators are defined and measured, but the overall trend is clear – we are creating financial wealth, but not sharing it and not creating satisfying or healthy lives for the majority, and we are continuing to slip behind our peers.
Here is the Amazon review of the actual book:
In the twenty-first century, new technologies should liberate us from work. Automation, rather than undermining an economy built on full employment, is instead the path to a world of liberty, luxury and happiness—for everyone. Technological advance will reduce the value of commodities—food, healthcare and housing—towards zero.
Improvements in renewable energies will make fossil fuels a thing of the past. Asteroids will be mined for essential minerals. Genetic editing and synthetic biology will prolong life, virtually eliminate disease and provide meat without animals. New horizons beckon.
In Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Aaron Bastani conjures a vision of extraordinary hope, showing how we move to energy abundance, feed a world of 9 billion, overcome work, transcend the limits of biology, and establish meaningful freedom for everyone. Rather than a final destination, such a society merely heralds the real beginning of history.
Amazon
This New York Times article attempts to answer the question, but left me a little confused. It seems that many serious studies go back to the idea of “40 acres and a mule” promised to freed slaves by Abraham Lincoln. That promise was never honored. There are several estimates of what that could mean today. But see if you can make sense of this statement: ” He used the current average price of agricultural land and figured that 40 acres of farmland and buildings would amount to roughly $123,000. If all of the four million slaves counted in the 1860 census had been able to take advantage of that offer, it would have totaled more than $486 billion today — or about $16,200 for each descendant of slaves.” There are also ideas for “longer-term investments in education, housing and businesses that build up wealth”.
Here are a few facts the article points out. First, the net worth of the average black household is only about a tenth the net worth of the average white household. I knew there was a gap, but the size of the gap is shocking to me. Second, the United States has paid reparations to descendants of citizens held in Japanese-American internment camps.
Personally, I support reparations in principle, although I think native Americans and anyone born into poverty through no fault of their own suffers just as much as an African American in a similar economic circumstance. One idea would be to pilot social programs like universal health care, child care, and free college initial for African Americans and Native Americans, and then expand them to the general population as they are fine tuned and shown to be successful.
Joseph Stiglitz has a new book on what he thinks an evidence-based progressive economic platform should look like. I admit, I haven’t read the book, but I have read this Axios summary of the book. And here is my summary of that summary:
This all sounds good to me. Add some serious research spending and it just might work. The jobs guarantee might work, but would have to be coupled with a stronger disability, mental health and substance addiction safety net than we have now.