I have a couple of cameos in a new left-leaning documentary film, Race to the Bottom. I shared a clip two day ago with my views on corporate tax and the Laffer Curve.
Today, here’s what I said about the left’s mistaken views on inequality.
The fundamental problem is that I think some of our friends on the left are primarily motivated by disdain for the rich.
Indeed, their envy and resentment is so strong that they’re happy to support policies that hurt the poor, so long as the rich suffer a disproportionate amount of harm.
Consider this sarcastic visual.
I hope this visual greatly exaggerates the problem, but I’ve previously shared substantive research suggesting that the folks on the left are fixated on punishing success.
That agenda does not produce good results.
In a thorough article for Reason, David Henderson of the Hoover Institution explores the issues of poverty and inequality.
Most of what is framed as a problem of inequality is better conceived as either a problem of poverty or a problem of unjustly acquired wealth. …It’s important to distinguish the concepts of inequality and poverty. …Many people who worry about income inequality want to tax higher-income people more.
Given what economists know about the harmful effects from raising already high marginal tax rates even higher, tax increases could certainly reduce measured inequality—because they would cause higher-income people to reduce their taxable income by working less, by taking more pay in the form of untaxed fringe benefits, or by investing more in municipal bonds, whose interest is not taxable by the feds. Of course, none of this would make lower-income people better off. Indeed, to the extent that higher taxes discourage capital accumulation, they slow the growth of worker productivity. One of the main ways to increase worker productivity is to increase the amount of capital per worker. With a slower growth rate of capital, worker productivity will grow more slowly—and so will real wages. This makes lower-income people worse off than they would have been.
Henderson uses Lydon Johnson as an example of how some people use government favoritism to line their pockets.
But he wisely notes that any inequality that arises from “unjustly acquired wealth” is a symptom of the real problem of cronyism.
Great wealth, meanwhile, is a problem only to the extent that it is unjustly extracted. Government favoritism to politically powerful people may increase income and wealth inequality, as it did in the case of Lyndon Johnson and his wife. But it is the government favoritism, not inequality per se, that is the true problem.
As a quick aside, Lyndon Johnson almost certainly ranks as one of America’s worst presidents (along with failures such as Hoover, Roosevelt, Nixon, and Wilson).
And, having read Henderson’s article, I now have an additional reason to despise LBJ.
I’ll close by recycling my Eighth Theorem of Government, which is simply another way of expressing my oft-made point that we should try to improve life for the poor rather than worsen life for the rich.
Indeed, I sometimes think this theorem is a good way of discerning who is a good person and who is a bad person.
Regarding the latter, we should recognize that some people are simply misguided. These are the folks who actually think that there’s a fixed amount of income and wealth, so they mistakenly believe that if someone like Bill Gates gets rich, the rest of us somehow lose.
Smart folks on the left know that’s not true, so I give them credit for that, but I also think they are reprehensible for being motivated by a desire to hurt the rich, even when that means the rest of us suffer as well.
The bottom line is that market-driven growth is good for everyone, especially the poor.
P.S. The most accurate political analysis of inequality came from Margaret Thatcher.
P.P.S. Here’s the world’s best-ever tweet about inequality.
P.P.P.S. For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the world.
[…] people, by contrast, seek policies that enable poor people to improve their lives (as captured by the Eighth Theorem of […]
[…] Click here, here, here, and here for my four-part series on poverty and inequality. Though […]
[…] Click here, here, here, and here for my four-part series on poverty and inequality. Though what Deirdre wrote […]
[…] have a four-part series (here, here, here, and here) that explains why it’s much better to focus on fighting poverty rather than […]
[…] have a four-part series (here, here, here, and here) that explains why it’s much better to focus on fighting poverty rather […]
[…] assertion that inequality is a “risk” to the world economy (sensible people point out that the real problem is poverty, not […]
[…] that inequality is a “risk” to the world economy (sensible people point out that the real problem is poverty, not […]
[…] to help poor people climb the economic ladder, not class warfare and redistribution (as I explained here, here, here, and […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated by […]
[…] my four-part series on inequality (here, here, here, and here), I argue that that it is more important to instead focus on […]
[…] my four-part series on inequality (here, here, here, and here), I argue that that it is more important to instead focus on reducing poverty […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated by […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated by […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated by […]
[…] I also recommend my four-part series (see here, here, here, and here) on why we should care about poverty reduction rather than pushing for […]
[…] are plenty of sections that make the (awful) argument that it’s okay to impose higher tax rates and sacrifice growth in order to achieve more […]
[…] are plenty of sections that make the (awful) argument that it’s okay to impose higher tax rates and sacrifice growth in order to achieve […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated by […]
[…] when someone writes and talks about inequality, I worry that they don’t really care about the less fortunate and that they’re instead motivated […]
[…] net result is that all students are worse off (the same perverse instinct that leads them to support economic policies that hurt the poor so long as the rich get hurt […]
[…] if the net result is that all students are worse off (the same perverse instinct that leads them to support economic policies that hurt the poor so long as the rich get hurt […]
[…] was the entire point of my three-part series (here, here, and here) on poverty and […]
[…] series on poverty and inequality (see here, here, and here) focuses on why we should try to help the poor rather than hurt the rich. We’ll […]
[…] series on poverty and inequality (see here, here, and here) focuses on why we should try to help the poor rather than hurt the […]
[…] repeatedly write about inequality, largely in hopes of helping people, especially my left-leaning friends, understand that we should […]
[…] repeatedly write about inequality, largely in hopes of helping people, especially my left-leaning friends, understand that we should […]
[…] repeatedly write about inequality, largely in hopes of helping people, especially my left-leaning friends, understand that we should […]
El socialismo no habla de pobreza, sino de mejorar la distribución de las riquezas. Crear oportunidades iguales a todos sus seres. El capitalismo en cambio, concentra la riquezas en base a los recursos naturales, cual ya sabemos hoy que son limitados. La pregunta sería, por qué los países más ricos, imponen a los más pobres regulaciones y reglas a su mercado?
[…] illustrated by my recent three-part series (here, here, and here), I care about helping the poor rather then hurting the […]
[…] was the entire point of my three-part series (here, here, and here) on poverty and […]
[…] was the entire point of my three-part series (here, here, and here) on poverty and […]
[…] that means policy makers should focus on growth rather than inequality (especially since the policies to reduce inequality generally lead to less […]
[…] is healthcare version of their warped view that it’s okay to support policies that reduce income for poor people so long as the rich […]
[…] recent three-part series (here, here, and here) explained why policy makers should seek to reduce poverty rather than […]
[…] recent three-part series (here, here, and here) explained why policy makers should seek to reduce poverty rather than […]
[…] recent three-part series (here, here, and here) explained why policy makers should seek to reduce poverty rather than […]
[…] was the message in Part I and Part II of this series. That’s also today’s message, and we’ll start with this […]
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.
[…] was the message in Part I and Part II of this series. That’s also today’s message, and we’ll start with this […]
[…] was the message in Part I and Part II of this series. That’s also today’s message, and we’ll start with […]
[…] began yesterday’s column with a short clip of me explaining why we should focus on reducing poverty, not reducing […]
[…] began yesterday’s column with a short clip of me explaining why we should focus on reducing poverty, not reducing […]
[…] « Part I: Poverty Is a Problem, not Inequality […]
Reblogged this on boudica.us.
Reblogged this on The Palm Beach Examiner.
Harry Frankfurt’s book, On Inequality, is brilliant on this. He argues that sufficiency, not equality, is the moral imperative. Frankfurt’s long and illustrious career ended at Princeton.
[…] Part I: Poverty Is a Problem, not Inequality […]
This comes from zero-sum thinking.