For reasons that have yet to be explained liberal American
thinkers—as opposed to radical French thinkers—glommed on to Thomas Piketty’s neo-Marxist
analysis of increasing income inequality.
Piketty, you recall, explained that the internal
contradictions of capitalism—a neo-Marxist notion if ever there was one—would necessarily
cause inequality.
The problem was systemic and it required much higher tax
rates, a universal tax on wealth and massive redistribution.
After all, the French Socialist president Francois Hollande
had adopted exactly the same policies and they had failed miserably. So much so
that the Socialist Party was thoroughly repudiated in the most recent French
municipal elections.
Now, via Tyler Durden, we have a more cogent analysis of the
rampant income inequality that has characterized the Obama recovery.
Cowen quotes famed doomster Marc Faber’s succinct statement:
“The more they [the Federal Reserve] print, the more
inequality there is, the weaker the economy will become." Simply put, "it's a
catastrophe," Faber told CNBC, "what the Fed has done is to lift
asset prices, and the cost of living. In the meantime, the cost of living
increases are higher than the wage increases. The typical American household income is going down in real terms."
If you prefer, here's the videotape:
Durden then quotes Paul Singer, making the same point:
Inequality in the U.S. today is near its
historical highs, largely because the Federal Reserve’s policies have succeeded
in achieving their aim: namely, higher asset prices (especially the prices of
stocks, bonds and high-end real estate), which are generally owned by taxpayers
in the upper-income brackets. The Fed is doing all the work, because the
President’s policies are growth-suppressive. In the absence of the Fed’s
moneyprinting and ZIRP, the economy would either be softer or actually in a new
recession.
The greatest irony is
that the President is railing against inequality as one of the most important
problems of the day, despite the fact that his policies are squeezing the
middle class and causing the Fed – with the President’s encouragement – to engage
in the radical monetary policy, which is exacerbating inequality. This simple
truth cannot be repeated often enough.
It’s not the internal contradictions of capitalism, but the
combination of moneyprinting and “growth-suppressive" policies.
But, you knew that already….
Our great national scandal, indeed our national shame, is the denigration and abandonment of our most sacred social investment: the public school system.
ReplyDeletePeople like Obama rail about inequality, but he and his political allies provide unquestioning support for the status quo in a failing public education model. This model has been fading with each successive generation, and we're seeing our nation falling further and further behind. It's not about Common Core or any of that centralized, one-size-fits-all-minds nonsense. That's more of the desperation to find a "solution." There is no solution available as long as the operating assumptions are in place. It's not as much about resources as it is about focus. We're not playing to win the global race to build human capital, we're trying to survive by bringing up little consumers who will do what they're told.
There are five operating assumptions that are destroying our schools: (1) the public school system is a public works program for adults rather than students and their parents; (2) boys and girls must go to school together in the same classrooms; (3) every American child is special and unique and wonderful, protected from any traumatic possibility; and therefore (4) we must protect our children and not allow them to fail; because we know (5) public schools can substitute for an intact nuclear family, with a mother and father in the home.
There was an op-ed in the WSJ last week by someone who was defending teacher tenure. He sounded like a certifiable idiot. The modern tenure system is an indefensible practice, making our ossified institutions more sclerotic. Our school system must turn out skilled citizens to compete in a dynamic global economy. Perhaps one could make an argument for tenure the college level, but it is insane to have such an inflexible employment system for teachers in primary, middle and secondary schools. Curriculum is so standardized and there are so many work rules that it is difficult to justify protection from arbitrary terminations as a compelling government interest. Even if the terminations may seem arbitrary, that's what the rest of us have to deal with in the private sector. Teachers should not be so wildly exempt from the reality of performance demands.
Until we get away from this "public works program for adults" concept of childhood education, our young people will suffer and fall behind in our present educational factory system (sans quality control).
If we don't transform public education into a system that actually educates and challenges our young people, income inequality will grow and grow and grow. The most awful thing about our non-functioning schools in urban and rural areas (as distinguished from suburbs) is that they basically damn most children to a life of destitution and desperation. Most of all, the current approach squashes upward mobility, making the status quo that much more amoral and inexcusable.
We tell our young people that they have to learn because they're going to have to compete against Malaysian kids who earn 80% less. We've geared our economy to make this global economic dynamism possible. That's fine, because creative destruction is a positive long-term thing. But when public education is spared that same creative destruction, it destroys lives. There's no impetus for change. It is unconscionable that at the same time we charge headlong into a globalized economy, we are ignoring the plight of our schools. It's not a money thing, it's about creating a safe, structured environment to learn in.
Tip