The Face of Evil

1 October 2014

I realize I should have looked for my paints and easel before this morning. I haven't really used them since moving. So instead of getting straight to painting I picked up a Science magazine. The move this summer also put me behind on reading those, which has been made harder by Marsha McNutt's politicization of the magazine. Science has always been pro government funding of science but other than the occasional explicitly labelled "Policy" articles they've generally stayed pretty focused on the mission clearly delineated by the magazine's title. Marsha McNutt's editorial tenure, which began earlier this year, has turned that divide completely on it's head. Sure, the "Reports" and "Research" sections still contain hard science, but expository articles of said research no longer make up the bulk of the rest of the magazine. Indeed, blurbs shorter than abstracts are all that mention them if they are mentioned at all! McNutt has also done away with the "Policy" articles because the articles are now primarily devoted to policy, specifically advocation of socialist policy. Perhaps at this point you are wondering why the painting is of a man when I have been railing against someone who's name is Marsha McNutt. Like I said, I'm behind on my Science reading so this morning I picked up the 23 May 2014 issue. One can already tell by the headline on the cover (another McNutt innovation) that this "Special Issue: Haves and have-nots" may have a particular policy agenda. Quelle surprise, the pages are graced with the woes of income equality in societies throughout history, like the Romans, the glories of equality in modern day hunter-gatherer societies like the !Kung, and worship of Thomas Piketty, a Frenchman whose fans laud as the Karl Marx of our era and whose detractors deride as the Karl Marx of our era. Piketty is even given a full section for himself to present his arguments for a tax-the-rich agenda. At no point between the two covers is an opposing opinion given voice. Capitalism is clearly so obviously wrong that it doesn't even deserve one. Even socialist candidates are good enough for Piketty. Of course, I was not ignorant of the media lovefest that was lavished on Piketty during his book tour of North America earlier this year. Cara, however, was. As I was decrying the fall of a once unpolitical magazine to her this morning she pointed out that he has the same name as our favorite winery, Picchetti. The world is filled with such random connections. Thomas Piketty presents the time-worn argument of socialists: I looked at some data; here is a theory about that data; therefore we should tax the rich and give the money to the poor. It doesn't really matter what the theory is, the policy conclusion is always the same for such socialist "economists". Piketty's theory is that the return on capital (r) will always be greater than the growth rate of the overall economy (g), so barring government intervention the rich, who have capital, will get richer. Whereas this may only seem like a problem to the jealous, Piketty in perfect socialist form concludes this is an ill which must be rectified. Facts are stubborn things. Naturally, Science must present at least a few to bolster their policy arguments. However, considering the facts presented I find it somewhat humorous that the authors believe they bolster their arguments. Looking at the poorest people in the US vs. the perfectly egalitarian poverty of the !Kung, I'll take the former thank you very much. The lifestyle of those at the bottom rungs of all the societies with inequality presented in the magazine are better off than all the people in the egalitarian ones. It's hard to make a better argument that Capitalism is a tide which raises all boats! The greatest irony is when Piketty talks about how his theory "breaks down" during the mid-twentieth century because of the two world wars. I don't think the man understands his own theory because this is the greatest proof of it in modern times! War and it's destruction of capital is the ultimate government intervention in the economy so it is not surprising that as capital is destroyed the advantage of r over g is available to fewer and fewer people. Perhaps that is why Obama is bombing Syria - to bring them all down to an egalitarian poverty. There was a saying around the turn of the last century in America: rags to riches to rags, in three generations. It was a common story for someone to build up some capital, pass it on to a child, have that child invest wisely enough to become wealthy, and then have that wealth passed to their child, who invests it poorly and loses it all. This illustrates something Piketty has perhaps missed (although I've hardly delved into his whole corpus so I can't say for certain), that higher returns often come with higher risk. This is also why in capitalist economies, although the wealthiest percentage of society controls the bulk of the wealth, who is in that wealthiest percentage has a fairly high churn rate over time. Perhaps we need to help those who compare themselves to Warren Buffett and find themselves jealous of his wealth overcome their jealousy rather than lobbying the government take Buffett's wealth and give it to them. Of course, those in government would love the power of distributing Buffett's wealth, so they naturally fund "economists" like Piketty whose arguments for government aggrandisement are about as convincing as the business plan of South Park's underpants gnomes. Phase one: collect underpants. Phase two. Phase three: profit! But maybe I have just had too much coffee this AM...

Related Reading: Welfare State Drivers of Middle Class Hollowing