Tag: Wealth inequality

What Was So Great About America Again?

Posted on by Kevin Lively

by Kevin Lively

The re-election of Donald Trump has prompted a spectrum of reactions among those who are . . . unenthusiastic . . . at this outcome. One common reaction I’ve observed among progressive friends and those who enthusiastically rather than grudgingly vote Democrat is confusion. Many reactions are understandable: dread about the implications for climate change, concern for the human rights of undocumented migrants in the US, or a low-grade panic over the fact that the Supreme Court has literally vested the office with immunity against legal persecution for assassinations, although apparently Obama’s assassinations of US citizens get a pass. Confusion, however, is only explicable as a consequence of a media ecosystem which rarely manages to coherently discuss many of the serious issues in American society, and crucially the role of policy choices by the government under both Democratic and Republican leadership which either failed to address or directly exacerbated these problems.

As any very stable genius glancing at a red hat in public can tell you, the appeal which won Mr. Trump his first democratic victory is ultimately rooted in nostalgia. But nostalgia for what exactly? Was American really greater in the past than it is now? And if so what changed and why?

Well this is a layered question. There is of course the obvious fact that for a non-negligible share of Trump voters this nostalgia is rooted in a time before the Civil Rights Act extended de jure if not de facto equal rights to non-white, non-christian, non-heteronormative non-men. If nothing else one can look at the day one rescinding of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility programs across the federal government and its contractors as an appeasement to that crowd. However, while this discrimination is indisputably a crucial aspect of American society and will continue to severely negatively affect human rights in the US, it is also not the only reason for Trump’s election. This in evidence from the increases Trump made among non-white voters, although the total numbers are still biased towards white men.

For the moment however, I do not want focus specifically on the very important issue of racism and discrimination, and instead look to other causes for support for Trump, although the USA being what it is, it will still permeate the discussion. Let’s start with the short term. Assuming there was a modicum of greatness in Trump’s first term we can look to an April 2024 New York Times / Sienna poll for what voters remembered about 2017-2021. Read more »

Monday, August 7, 2023

Let the Unrigging Begin

Posted on by Jerry Cayford

by Jerry Cayford

The rigged rules that govern our economy are being rewritten right now. And the fight is fierce. “The most powerful agency you’ve never heard of” (as the media calls the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs) is revising its main guidance telling federal agencies how to structure regulations. That is, OIRA is rewriting the rules that federal agencies must follow in writing their own rules that govern the industries they regulate.

What makes this rulemaking earthshaking is that the people doing it are trying to unrig decades of rigged rules, and getting pushback from powerful players. The magnitude of the stakes can be seen in the public comments on OIRA’s revision of its guidance, Circular A-4. It’s complicated, obviously, but there is one point on which everything else turns—OIRA’s most controversial and consequential proposal. I am going to explain that central point.

Here is a thumbnail. Agencies are required to use Cost–Benefit Analysis (CBA) to justify their regulations as increasing overall social welfare. A huge contributor to the rigged rules in our society is that this formally mandated Cost–Benefit Analysis has a logical fallacy at its core that systematically favors the wealthy: it defines social welfare as increased by more total wealth (productivity), regardless of who gets the money. This definition of welfare forces federal agencies to design their regulations to maximize wealth, which inevitably favors those who already have it, for many reasons that I throw together under the adage “It takes money to make money.” Think of wealth production as an industry with economies of scale and barriers to entry.

The new proposal changes the rules. It tweaks CBA to weight the dollars a policy generates according to who gets them (and who pays them), instead of just counting the total. It is not a new idea, but it is a radical one, and the hornets’ nest is buzzing. Read more »