It’s fairly common for conservative economists to try to shout down any discussion of income distribution by claiming that distribution is a trivial matter compared with the huge gains from economic growth.
For example, the economist Robert Lucas wrote in an essay in 2004: “Of the tendencies that are harmful to sound economics, the most seductive, and in my opinion the most poisonous, is to focus on questions of distribution.”
The usual answer to this is to point out that we don’t actually know much about how to produce rapid economic growth – conservatives may think they know (low taxes and all that), but there is no evidence to back up their certainty. And on the other hand, we know how to make a big difference to income distribution, and especially how to reduce extreme poverty.
So why not improve things we know how to improve, as at least part of our economic strategy?
But even this argument may be conceding too much.
A new study by S. V. Subramanian, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, found that in poor and lower-middle-income countries, one of the most crucial aspects of well-being, child malnutrition, isn’t helped at all by faster growth.
“An increase in (gross domestic product) per capita resulted in an insignificant decline in stunting,” Linda Poon recently reported in “Shots,” a National Public Radio health blog.
“And when the researchers compared the changes in G.D.P. to the changes in the number of wasting and underweight children, there was no correlation at all. ‘It wasn’t that (the association) was just weak or small,’ Subramanian told Shots.
That was the case, he said, especially for stunting. More striking was the fact that the effect overall ‘was just practically zero.’ He says things like unequal income distribution and lack of efficient implementation of public services are possible causes.”
Yes, rapid growth is good, but it doesn’t solve all problems, even if you know how to make it happen, which you don’t.
Things Go Better With Kochs
Hey, I had to use that headline before someone else claimed it.
David Weigel at Slate recently reported that Democrats are finding the Koch brothers, David and Charles, to be an effective fundraising tool – emails that bash the Kochs raise three times as much as emails that don’t.
And you can see why: the Kochs are perfect villains.
It’s not just what they are – serious evildoers who use their wealth to push hard-line right-wing, anti-environmental policies that redound very much to their own benefit.
It’s also what they aren’t: they’re wealthy heirs, not self-made men; they aren’t identified with innovation (which you can at least argue for Bill Gates); they haven’t made money for other people like Warren Buffett.
So focusing on the Kochs is a way to personalize a vision of conservative politics as a defense of people with unearned privilege.
And here’s the thing: that vision is basically right. Very few of the superrich are movie stars, even if the usual suspects love to pretend otherwise. Not many are innovators.
A fair number are self-made wheeler-dealers, but a growing number probably were born to great wealth.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.