6. Leaves No Room for Doubt: As the Greek philosopher Hippo said, “Doubt is the origin of wisdom”. Calling out comes from a place of certainty, which undermines learning, discovery, critical thinking and scientific inquiry. …
Viewing entries in
Politics and Economics
The results are in! Let the headlines tell the story:
“Universal basic income seems to improve employment and well-being” by Donna Lu/ New Scientist, May 6, 2020
“Results of Finland's basic income experiment: small employment effects, better perceived economic security and mental wellbeing”/ Kela May 6, 2020
“One of the world's largest basic-income trials, a 2-year program in Finland, was a major flop. But experts say the test was flawed” Aria Bendix/Business Insider, December 8, 2019
“Why Basic Income Failed in Finland” by Jimmy O'Donnell/Jacobin Magazine, December 1, 2019
Wait…what exactly is the story here? Was Finland’s UBI experiment a success or not? That question can’t be answered without defining success.
Per dictionary.com, to insinuate is to “to suggest or hint slyly” or “to instill or infuse subtly or artfully, as into the mind”. To insinuate is to lead one’s target along a winding path – a sinuous path – that takes them to where the insinuator wants them to go. On the surface, all is a succession of neutral facts. But what one make of these facts is nudged in certain directions by choice of words, choice of facts, and how they are put together. Think Iago in Othello.
But what, exactly, is a Universal Basic Income? There is no consensus definition, but here’s a good one provided by a couple economists: UBI is a cash transfer program that 1) provides a sufficiently generous cash benefit to live on, without other earnings; 2) does not phase out or phases out only slowly as earnings rise; and, 3) is available to a large proportion of the population, rather than being targeted to a particular subset, e.g., to single mothers (Hoynes and Rothstein, 2019).
The virus leaves death and devastation in its wake, but so does the lockdown. Downplaying the effects of shutting down schools and the economy is just as callous as downplaying the suffering of the infected. It makes sense that Republican governors are moving more quickly to open their economies, given their per capita Covid-19 mortality rate is so much lower than the mortality rate of states with Democrat governors. Compassionate public policy is always a balancing act.
Of course, occupational “preferences” are often a matter of perceived career options, which partly reflects one’s education and skills…
Brick-and-mortar retail has been in a death spiral for years. Thanks to Covid-19, we can no longer kid ourselves that some type of retail revival is just around the corner. Nope, it’s over. And now we have to figure out what to do with all those empty storefronts.
As the map shows, most Republican-governed states - 73% of them - have low COVID-19 death rates. Specifically, less than 50 deaths per million population. Just 36% of Democrat-governed states have such low mortality rates. Now consider the havoc and suffering wrought by shelter-in place lockdowns….
Experts may agree on long-established facts but that’s about it. But the media isn’t going to run a headline on a long-established fact (“Experts say the common cold is caused by a virus!”).
Here's How Fast the Economy Recovered after the 1957-58 Pandemic, Despite a US Death Toll of 116,000
“In February 1957, a new influenza A (H2N2) virus emerged in East Asia, triggering a pandemic (“Asian Flu”). This H2N2 virus was comprised of three different genes from an H2N2 virus that originated from an avian influenza…It was first reported in Singapore in February 1957, Hong Kong in April 1957, and in coastal cities in the United States in summer 1957. The estimated number of deaths was 1.1 million worldwide and 116,000 in the United States.” - 1957-1958 Pandemic (H2N2 virus)/CDC
Unemployment kills. A 10% increase in unemployment for workers age 25-64 translates to 32,500 “extra” deaths a year in the US. This based on “Losing life and livelihood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of unemployment and all-cause mortality”, an analysis of 42 studies covering more than 20 million persons.
In contrast to ideologues, reformers still have faith in the current system’s capacity to make things better. To reformers, the system needs to be fixed, not overturned. Reformers identify specific problems and propose narrow solutions. Ideologues identify existential threats and fight for “structural change”. Reformers are cool. Ideologues are hot, hot, hot. Of course, reformers can get excited about their vision of change but they tend to lack the ideologue’s righteous passion.
Here’s a definition of hope: “the perceived ability to execute envisioned routes to desirable future goals.” Hopeful people are able to envision pathways to success and feel confident in their ability to follow those pathways to achieve their goals. Socially mobile societies tend to be full of hopeful people, because they provide a foundation for hope: opportunity, personal experience, and the example of others.
The above headlines are referencing the April 5 Coronavirus Task Force Press Briefing, during which President Trump and task force members discuss the anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a possible treatment for coronavirus. Here are the relevant excerpts, with some text underlined for emphasis…
For some weeks now, President Trump has been hyping the potential of the drug hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19. Governor Cuomo has has expressed similar sentiments: “The president is optimistic about these drugs and we are all optimistic that it could work”. Yet only Trump gets slammed by the media for “peddling false hopes” by “touting unproven drugs”. For example…
A few years ago, Pew Research conducted a survey on what Americans considered essential to their version of the American Dream. A majority of respondents endorsed “freedom of choice in how to live”, “Have a good family life”, and “retire comfortably”. Just 11% endorsed “to become wealthy”.
Whatever keeps people from completing high school and getting at least some practical post-secondary education or training is keeping them from moving up the socioeconomic ladder. Could be substance abuse, cognitive/learning issues, poor English skills, impulsive temperament, emotional dysfunction, family dysfunction, peer influence, and/or neighborhood effects. To name a few possibilities.
But causation is not destiny. Motivations and behaviors change in response to real-life outcomes and opportunities.
To quote The Economist, the new American socialist “is not a cuddly Scandinavian social democrat who would let companies do their thing and then tax them to build a better world. Instead, he believes American capitalism is rapacious and needs to be radically weakened.” But what’s wrong with opting for the cuddly way of market-friendly welfare states?…Of course, the socialists have an answer.
A few years ago, social scientists Tom Hirschl and Mark Rank analyzed individual income trends in the US population and found that most American workers moved up the socioeconomic ladder as they got older. Based on their findings, Hirschl and Rank estimated that by age 60, almost 70 percent of the working population would experience at least one year in the top 20 percent of US income distribution and about half would spend a total of at least four years there. Wow – that’s a lot of social mobility…Who are these people?
I live in the heart of Progressive America, where the populace has become unhinged at the prospect of another four years of the Trump administration. Just yesterday, a friend described the President as “an existential threat to the US”. And earlier this month a neighbor’s mass email ended on this cheerful note: “If we don't change our leaders and enact progressive policies, we are doomed.”
To which I say: People, get a grip!