We may now have a new “most unread bestseller of all time,” as data from Amazon Kindles suggests that that honor may go to Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century, which reached No. 1 on the best-seller list this year.
Jordan Ellenberg, a professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Piketty’s book seems to eclipse its rivals in losing readers: All five of the passages that readers on Kindle have highlighted most are in the first 26 pages of a tome that runs for 685 pages.
The rush to purchase Piketty’s book suggested that Americans must have wanted to understand inequality. The apparent rush to put it down suggests that, well, we are human.
So let me satisfy this demand with my own “Idiot’s Guide to Inequality.” Here are five points:
First, economic inequality has worsened significantly in the US and some other countries. The richest 1 percent in the US now own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Oxfam estimates that the richest 85 people in the world own half of all wealth.
The situation might be tolerable if a rising tide were lifting all boats, but it is lifting mostly the yachts. In 2010, 93 percent of the additional income created in the US went to the top 1 percent.
Second, inequality in the US is destabilizing. Some inequality is essential to create incentives, but we seem to have reached the point where inequality actually becomes an impediment to economic growth.
Certainly, the nation grew more quickly in periods when we were more equal, including in the golden decades after World War II when growth was strong and inequality actually diminished. Likewise, a major research paper from the IMF in April found that more equitable societies tend to enjoy more rapid economic growth.
Even Goldman Sachs chief executive Lloyd Blankfein warns that “too much ... has gone to too few” and that inequality in the US is now “very destabilizing.”
Inequality causes problems by creating fissures in societies, leaving those at the bottom feeling marginalized or disenfranchised. That has been a classic problem in “banana republic” countries in Latin America, and the US now has a Gini coefficient — a standard measure of inequality — approaching some traditionally poor and dysfunctional South American countries.
Third, disparities reflect not just the invisible hand of the market, but also manipulation of markets. Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote a terrific book two years ago, The Price of Inequality, which is a shorter and easier read than Piketty’s.
In it, he writes: “Much of America’s inequality is the result of market distortions, with incentives directed not at creating new wealth, but at taking it from others.”
For example, financiers are wealthy partly because they are highly educated and hardworking — and also because they have successfully lobbied for the carried interest tax loophole that lets their pay be taxed at much lower rates than other people’s.
Likewise, if you are a pharmaceutical executive, one way to create profits is to generate new products. Another is to lobby the US Congress to bar the government’s Medicare program from bargaining for drug prices. That amounts to a US$50 billion annual gift to pharmaceutical companies.
Fourth, inequality does not necessarily benefit even the rich as much as we think. At some point, extra incomes do not go to sate desires, but to attempt to buy status through “positional goods,” like the hottest car on the block.
The problem is that there can only be one hottest car on the block. So the lawyer who buys a Porsche is foiled by the chief executive who buys a Ferrari, who in turn is foiled by the hedge fund manager who buys a Lamborghini. This arms race leaves these desires unsated; there is still only one at the top of the heap.
Fifth, progressives probably talk too much about “inequality” and not enough about “opportunity.” Some voters are turned off by tirades about inequality because they say it connotes envy of the rich; there is more consensus on bringing everyone to the same starting line.
Unfortunately, equal opportunity is now a mirage. Researchers find that there is less economic mobility in the US than in class-conscious Europe.
We know some of the tools, including job incentives and better schools, that can reduce this opportunity gap. Yet the US is one of the few advanced countries that spends less educating the average poor child than the average rich one. As an escalator of mobility, the US’ education system is broken.
There’s still a great deal we do not understand about inequality, but regardless of whether you read Piketty, there is one overwhelming lesson you should be aware of: Inequality and lack of opportunity today constitute a national infirmity and vulnerability — and there are policy tools that can make a difference.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and