A glimpse from the rich man's coach

Here is a letter to the NYT from the insouciant Don Boudreaux. Unfortunately the comments to this piece on Cafe Hayek are closed - I wonder why? So I'll have to note here that it stirred a memory...

‘Now, you know,’ said Mr. Bounderby, taking some sherry, ‘we have never had any difficulty with you, and you have never been one of the unreasonable ones. You don’t expect to be set up in a coach and six, and to be fed on turtle soup and venison, with a gold spoon, as a good many of ’em do!’

Hard Times, by Charles Dickens

And another, from Shaw's Pygmalion:

I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.' But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.

The American Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal", and of course it was obvious even then that they are not so, whether by birth, upbringing, education or natural talent. Not, in those senses; but the bold defiance of Nature and Society represented by the libertarian revolution of America, and of revolutionary France, is that they have, they should be given, equal dignity, as of right.

And unless a tenured economics professor who boasts of not voting, in a colony that rebelled on the principle of "no taxation without representation", wishes to see the poor squashed while the rich loot the country without fear of retribution, he will need to develop his thesis somewhat.

I do not see how a country can be composed exclusively of the well-off, nor can I imagine how, given all their disadvantages, the poor may rise up as one and join the middle class. There will always be inequality, so our debate should be about setting a minimum standard for the poorest, while motivating them to better themselves if they possibly can. That's certainly a circle that will take some squaring, and a benefit-trap-riddled Britain can scarcely present itself as a model answer.

But I don't see how air conditioning and two cars (what? all poor families?) quite make up for the miseries of ill-health, disability and a shorter lifespan. And it's not entirely down to consciously-made bad choices, in quite the way Mr Boudreaux implies. The ideal-world notion of rational choice has to take into acount real-world limited intelligence, inadequate information, poorer education and in many cases disharmonious emotional constitutions produced by poor parenting, lousy neighbours, failing schools and fear of crime and destitution.

Dives should not look down upon Lazarus.

Are the poor too rich?

I read a piece in Cafe Hayek a while back, lamenting the rise in the US minimum wage. I left a short quotation: "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche."

I didn't expect much response, even though Americans owe one of their most famous symbols and (in part) their very Revolutionary victory to the French. But I had a glance at the comment thread this morning and there was indeed a riposte:

"Jonah Golberg wrote a really good editorial on this about four years back. Good stuff and good Economics & History lesson, too!"

Can the realtor (estate agent) who posted this, and the salaried economics professor who hosted it, be right? Are the working American poor really so feather-bedded by their £3-something per hour earnings? Does anyone have a different Economics & History lesson?

Does even the slightest concern for the poor make me (the son of a refugee from the murderous ravages of the Red Army in East Prussia) a no-good pinko Commie son-of-a-gun?

I shall read my newly-acquired Sloman's "Essentials of Economics" and then I'll know the answer.

Inequality revisited

"...both the income share earned by the top 1 percent of tax returns and the tax share paid by that top 1 percent have once again reached all-time highs," says Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek, quoting the Tax Foundation.

As we've seen recently, there's more than one way to interpret the facts. At what point do the rich cease to inspire those beneath them, and begin to squeeze them? Doesn't it take money to make money? If so, shouldn't the lower orders be left with some after paying their bills? Is there an optimum level for the Gini Index?

UPDATE

Trevor Phillips on inequality on Britain: "People can see the economic slowdown coming. Everyone is happy to take some of the pain as long as that pain is shared fairly and what we want to do is to make sure that the burden doesn't fall unfairly on some groups rather than others."

Are oil speculators to blame?

Russell Roberts at Cafe Hayek discusses a spam email from United Airlines, which blames speculation for much of the high price of oil. Naturally, he puts on his quizzical econ spectacles and says it's like blaming a thermometer for hot weather; but maybe that's just a bit too sideways.

For isn't it interesting that in 20 years, the proportion of oil contracts purchased by middlemen who don't deliver, has risen from 21% to 66%?

And isn't there a big Space Hopper of excess liquidity squmphing around the world's markets and destabilising them, as Dr Marc Faber claims? Indeed, Faber has spent years making money from predicting the future movement of this excess. In an interview on "Financial Sense" on January 12, Faber said:

... we had during the excessive consumption period 1998-2006, a current account deficit in the US that increased from 2% of GDP to over 7% of GDP, and at the end was supplying the world with $800 billion annually. And this river flows into the world through the American current account deficits, and essentially provided the world with the so-called excess liquidity and created booms in everything from art prices to commodities, stocks, bonds, real estate, what not.
I suggest that now that the Space Hopper has been punctured, the speculators riding it have been squmphing around even faster, trying to visit as many markets as they can before their toy goes totally flat.

Chirpy

Don Boudreaux is an economist, yet although an expert in the "dismal science", he is an optimist, which makes a very nice change. He claims it's because he's a professional in the field.

Here he says that America's freedom and creativity will overcome present problems, as they have in the past; here he says the housing market can't be too bad if workers are unwilling to sell their houses in a falling market; and here he claims to love America's trade deficit.

Is he right? Or just seeing affairs from the point of view of a man who's had a good dinner and is assured that, in his case, good dinners will never stop coming? I've often thought that war movies should end prematurely and at different points for a random selection among, say, 20% of the audience, to remove the Olympian perspective.

But it is nice to read someone who thinks it's not all gloom and doom.

Marquess of Queensberry rules?

One envies the cheerful liberal economists such as those at Cafe Hayek, but will their principles work in a world where other, much darker forces are working? As I suggested in September, there may be those who will use the tools of international trade and investment as part of a vengeful and destructive plan.

Now, Jeffrey Nyquist treats us to another Sino-Soviet frightener, and Nadeem Walayat sees even more potential enemies, who may not refrain from below-the-belt blows. The enemies of the Open Society abide. Are our Western politicians prepared? Will they defend us?

A weakening dollar means lower US living standards

Addison Wiggin in yesterday's The Daily Reckoning Australia spells out how the dollar, US debt and declining American living standards are related. Some will contest this proposition fiercely - have a look at the recent globalization thread on Cafe Hayek, for example.

For those who read the bruising commentaries (this seems to be typical of blog-related correspondence), I did look at the articles to which LowCountryJoe referred me, but the first only makes clear what a fiat currency is, and the second theorized that all currencies must originally have had some intrinsic value. Neither of these articles disproves the bears' contention that there is a horrible temptation to inflate fiat currencies for temporary advantage, and that the end result is a flight from those currencies. We shall have to see.

On the bright side

Time to count our blessings. Here's an essay by Don Boudreaux of the "Cafe Hayek" blog, showing how much wealthier we are than we used to be. And that was 7 years ago.