Published in The Hill (April 27th,2019),”AOC, Bernie Sanders confuse inequality with poverty”
AOC, Bernie Sanders confuse inequality with poverty
“Socialism,” anathema to many but a path worth exploring to others, has been packaged nicely as “democratic socialism” (a hilarious oxymoron) by millionaire author Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and proselytized by neophyte Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) who, like the president, invents statistics extemporaneously.
But in all fairness, neither is a socialist in the true sense of the term, meaning a belief in government ownership of production and the abolition of private property.
Since more than half of Democrats, millennials and minorities hold socialism in higher regard than capitalism, one wonders if these groups truly understand what life is like, say, for the average Cuban. On the other hand, Americans as whole, according to Gallup, prefer capitalism 56 percent to 37 percent.
One can surmise that those who embrace or warm to socialism in reality wish to see a larger, more activist role of government, such as FDR’s New Deal and Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” rather than adherence to socialist economics.
Whatever the case, the progressive wing of the Democrat Party will push its base further leftward; and the one socioeconomic issue they will try to bring along centrist Democrats, independents and even some moderate Republicans on is inequality.
Yet, inequality matters far less than poverty. Culling through the economic literature, one finds little evidence that economic inequality increases poverty; and while redistribution may reduce overall inequality, it is less helpful in lifting people out of poverty.
Economist Branko Milanovic notes that global income inequality fell between 1988 and 2008 for the first time since the Industrial Revolution.
Admittedly, inequality statistics in general are flawed, since they provide only a snapshot of income or wealth distribution at a point in time. Yet, that does not deter celebrity economists of the left, like France’s Thomas Piketty and Joseph Stiglitz to falsely claim that income inequality in the U.S. is at a record high.
They erroneously take as a measure “market income,” but this measure does not take into account taxes or transfer payments or changes in household size or composition.
Their solution? Raise taxes on the rich, despite as noted by French economist Frédéric Bastiat in the early 19th century, it is a disincentive to working harder and taking risks, resulting in lost savings and investment that could generate employment and tax revenue from output and productivity.
Explain that to AOC, whose tax proposal would raise top marginal rates to 70 percent to fight the war against inequality. Like her budget-busting Green New Deal, the massive increase in taxes would wreak havoc on economic growth, employment and capital formation in the U.S.
Our Canadian neighbors would have to build a wall to keep out the hordes of Americans seeking to flee to a “tax haven” where the average rate is 26 percent.
What about poverty, then?
Poverty is a serious problem, unquestionably; but it has declined over the last 50 years. The U.S. government has spent over $750 billion on major assistance programs for low-income Americans (including food stamps, Medicaid and housing assistance), none of which is included when calculating the poverty rate.
These safety-net programs helped reduce the number in poverty, especially African Americans, Hispanics, single mothers, and those without a high school diploma. The latest U.S. Census data reveal that poverty rates have declined in 13 of 25 of the most populous metro areas, including New York, Atlanta, Washington, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.
Returning to the issue of inequality, Nobel laureate economist Sir Angus Deaton has found, countries with the greatest degree of inequality are also the countries in which there are significant disparities in opportunity.
Toward that end, the prudent course is not to raise taxes on the producers in society but to expand opportunities, reform occupational licensing and other regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship, reform criminal justice, provide apprentice training and re-training, and child care.
Poverty alleviation — where we have made great strides — not inequality, should be of paramount importance.
Every semester I have at least one bleeding-heart student who rants about inequality. My response: “If you swap out your moped for a pre-owned Ford Taurus, why should you be concerned if I trade in my new Honda Accord next year for a C-class Mercedes-Benz?” (That usually works.)
Left-wing populism is as insidious as the right-wing variety. Expanding the economic pie, increasing opportunity and continuing to reduce poverty should by top public-policy priorities. Attacking inequality is a futile distraction.
Jerry Haar is a professor of international business at Florida International University and a Global Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C.
In this video, Prof.Czinkota reminds the public that Terrorism is not far from us, even more, it is a significant issue in international marketing. Not only are emerging economies threatened by the rise of terrorism, but developed economies will be affected as well.Terrorism preparedness matters!
Historically. increased international trade activities are often linked to the growth of a country. National power in the world was often the result of creating new markets and trade. For example, the Roman Empire achieved immense growth through the linkages of business rather than the marching of legions and warfare. Many economic successes also occurred when previously closed economies embraced international trade like South Korea in 1960s and China in 1980s.
So far, in this century, more than a billion people around the world have been lifted out of poverty by the power of international trade. International competition has greatly stimulated innovation and productivity.
However, world trade is in flux today. Conflicts have emerged over market instabilities and insecure trade structures which have led to major inequities. No longer are societies certain that an increase in trade resolves current economic and societal shortcomings. Will a better life result from simply doing more of what was done in the past?
Globally some policymakers intend to ride inequities to the hilt. They give preference to the continuity of rules over the adjustment to reality. For them tradition is the overriding decision tool.
But, what happens when the fundament has changed? When a volcano erupts and sends a stream of glowing lava flowing down the mountain, the affected villages are no longer fit for shelter. Today, President Trump reflects the need for new actions in a new era. He is positively willing to disregard the past when its performance distorts the playing field. The consequences have been important.
In 2017, the U.S. started to renegotiate its trade agreements with Canada, Mexico, and with South Korea. It questions the World Trade Organization (WTO) and challenges the whole trade administration system. In addition, a series of import tariffs came into effect. All these steps indicate a better understanding of shortcomings in trade and a quick-footed willingness to precipitate a curative impact. President Reagan already indicated that “all politics are local”. That principle is expanded into a new approach which states “timing matters for change”.
Continuing large trade imbalances and growing foreign investment control are sources of dissatisfaction. Domestic producers fear to be
squeezed by global rivals. New production technology, such as product printing, makes manufacturing history obsolete. Processes also matter. China has taken full advantage of the trade infrastructure built by the U.S. and the EU only to subsequently challenge the status quo. The United States’ share of world exports has declined precipitously from 25 percent in the 1950s to less than 9 percent in 2017. The U.S. share of world imports now accounts for 13 percent of world imports. When compared to its exports, the United States clearly has an excess import consumption.
Reshaping a global system is tough work. Since 1945, the United States has been at the center of the global economy. In its competition with the socialist system market orientation has clearly been won by America. Encouraging now other nations to also help guide the world to better lives does not represent an abdication of leadership. The United States’ willingness to let others participate in the design and implementation of crucial adjustments demonstrates a willingness to permit others to learn, an encouragement of self determination, and a great spirit of security and comfort with change
The debates over international trade might rumble on for years. But we already know that trade policy must become more domestically oriented while domestic policy must become more international in vision. Doing so, must shape the future.
Professor Czinkota (email@example.com) teaches international marketing and trade at Georgetown University and the University of Kent in Canterbury. His latest book is ‘In Search for the Soul of International Business’ 2019, Businessexpertpress.com
INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE
for excellence in International Business Case writing
Case submitted by faculty and students, can cover the entire spectrum of the International Business sphere, covering, for example, but not limited to, Trade and Investment Policies, the International Business Environment or Strategy and Operations. The deadline for submission of the previously unpublished final case, including instructor’s solution materials, is April 15, 2019.
Length of submission: Less than 3,000 words (the solution material does not count against this limit)
Please submit to Prof. Michael Czinkota M.Czinkota@Kent.ac.uk
Cases will be evaluated and selected by an international Jury whose decisions are final.
Winners receive a Certificate and will be entered in the Kent Business School Book of Honor
🏆 First Prize: £ 500
Second Prize: £ 250
Third Prize: £ 125
Prizes 4-12: £ 50
Winning cases are also eligible for publication in the forthcoming Cambridge Press book by Prof. Michael Czinkota, Prof. Ilkka Ronkainen and Prof. Suraksha Gupta
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please contact M.Czinkota@Kent.ac.uk