Global warming. Evolution. Medical treatments that the elderly don’t need anymore. In just about every aspect of life and learning these days, it seems “the science is settled”. Well, that should settle it, then – we don’t need scientists anymore.
The latest thing that economic scientists agree on, or so we are told, is that the lack of redistribution of wealth is hurting the US economy.
Spending by wealthier Americans, given the weight of their dollars, does help drive the economy. But analysts say the economy would be better able to sustain its growth if the riches were more evenly dispersed. For one thing, a plunge in stock prices typically leads wealthier Americans to cut sharply back on their spending.
If the riches were more evenly dispersed. Hmm. Does anyone know what economics “school” these scientists adhere to?
The Associated Press seems to be going out of its way to conduct “surveys” which align themselves with Barack Obama’s thoughts (‘The Thoughts of President Obama’ – coming soon to a book dealer near you). As they acknowledge, he is down for the struggle to level things out:
In a speech this month, President Barack Obama called income inequality “the defining challenge of our time.”
“The defining challenge of our time.” Not unemployment, not American children dropping like a rock in educational achievement rankings, not fanatical Jihadist terrorism, but ‘income inequality’. What is that quaint old phrase that keeps running through the recesses of our minds? Oh, yes – ‘From Each According To His Ability; To Each According To His Needs’. Barack wants to keep the dream alive, and it’s not Martin Luther King’s dream, either.
There are several little tidbits in the AP article that one could pick apart. For example, they say the economists don’t think Obamacare will hurt the job market, while out of the other side of their mouth acknowledge that “About two-fifths said the law would cost jobs. None said it would increase hiring. ” In case you missed their sleight of hand, two-fifths is 40% Forty percent of the economists said it would cost jobs. These are the same economists who are on board with Obama’s dream of wealth redistribution and they’re positing that people are going to lose jobs because of the Dear Leader’s Other Pet Cause. Do we begin to detect some disconnect in the connecting of dots? If income inequality truly is a problem, well, does not the loss of your job have a big impact on your income? Is this rocket science? They go on to cite small business owners saying they’re not going to hire because of Obamacare. Hey guys! What’s the defining challenge of our time? Income inequality or Obamacare?
The other curious thing about putting two and two together, in an economically scientific manner, is that the consensus is that inflation is not, and won’t be, a problem. So if the consumer, the one everyone is concerned about going out and spending his unequal income, is not going to be burdened with inflation, then why is his unequal income the “defining challenge of our time”? If it’s not going to cost him a whole lot
more for gas, groceries and grog, then what does he care how much Warren Buffet socks away?
But the whole problem with their argument goes back to the premise that this “income gap” is hurting “the economy”. Wait a minute. Whose economy? What economy? Which economy? We read the business pages every day and to hear the Mainstream Media, which includes the AP, tell it, the auto industry is going great guns (thanks once again to the Dear Leader, Eternal Thanks to the Dear Leader), the GDP is rising rapidly, people are calling for the FED to back off, Apple, Amazon, Wal Mart and the aforementioned Warren Buffet, not to mention Wall Street, are deliriously happy, healthy, wealthy and wise. So the everyday housewife must be spending a little something…..somewhere…..don’t ya think?
If the justification for all the hullabaloo on income inequality is based on science, and yet the hype from the so-called economists and analysts, from whatever school, is that, forget those nagging worries expressed by a majority of a minority that Obamacare is going to crash things, then the scientists, the economists, had better start hedging the good news downward, drastically, to support their thesis. If it was correct, if “income inequality” was such a horror, then the whole darned thing should have collapsed by now. Instead, we have been told things are getting better and better. We have been told that ever since the ‘Stimulus’was passed four years ago. We had to be told that because we were told we had to have the Stimulus.
They can either go Keynesian or they can go free market. They can even go hybrid. But they can’t go full-on Socialist Workers Paradise unless the people are miserable. Their narrative is that they’re not. For ourselves, we have no clue whether they are or not, because we can’t believe anything today’s economic scientists say. See, it started in a place called East Anglia, with somebody fraudulently trying to “settle the science.”