The Equality Fallacy

I saw something recently, though I cannot give you chapter and verse, which rehearsed unthinkingly the idea that our problem was not so much with poverty as with “inequality”.

I have addressed this issue before. Christopher Snowdon demolished Wilson and Picket, authors of a dreary pamphlet about inequality of income and its allegedly pernicious effects. Snowdon does a good and necessary job. I, on the other hand (not being a statistician, as he is), take a different point of view. I take a moral point of view. I am a moralist and I hope you are too. What society can survive unless its members take morality seriously? There are moral giants: St Paul, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas, C S Lewis, for example. [BTW, I did try to think of a moral giant outside the Judaeo-Christian tradition; only Ghandi presented himself and I decided against him.] I am not one of them; nor do I even hope to encounter one among my readers.

Inequality is a fact of life. I am taller than most other worshippers at the 11:30 Mass at St Ann’s every Sunday. My niece is more beautiful than your niece. Profound apologies for these inequalities.

Many of my schoolmates have been more successful economically (and in other terms) than I. One is a Knight of the Realm. Another has been President of the Bar. Another is a professor at Oxford. Facts of life. These three certainly worked harder than me and were probably better endowed in the nous department.

The players in all divisions below the Premiership are not as good at playing football as the guys at Arsenal, Chelsea, Man U, etc.

Where is the breast beating over these facts of life?

Some people are better at making money than others. I am not talking about those who are better at gaming the system but those whose abilities and hard work have resulted in substantial (perhaps spectacular) financial rewards. Suddenly, the breast beating becomes deafening. There is no reason why this should be. It is simply a fact of life. Bill Gates is smarter and harder working than me (and you).

Bizarrely, this last group are the only ones that the egalitarians go after. Nobody supposes that Rio Ferdinand should be mutilated or prevented from training because he is so good at kicking a ball.

The egalitarians do propose that we should artificially, by means of the tax system, cut the money makers down to size.

Egalitarian-in-Chief, Barak Hussein Obama, wants to enforce high tax rates on “millionaires and billionaires” in the name of “fairness”, regardless of whether it would result in more tax revenue. He expresses contempt for the “millionaires and billionaires”, asserting that “you did not build that”. We could turn his argument against him: but for the corrupt Chicago machine, you would not even be an Illinois Senator. Cheap. We don’t need to. America’s entrepreneurs of “the golden age” succeeded in spite of government corruption. They helped to build the infrastructure which BHO claims is the exclusive gift of government.

He is not only the worst US president ever (in practical economic terms), but morally deficient. Regrettably, he is not alone.

Curiously enough, being a crappy (the crappiest ever) president in practical economic terms, chimes well with being (in the “progressive” tradition) the saboteur of moral values among those whose well-being most demands a return to America’s core values, thrift, hard work and honesty.

Last word: Charles Murray, who deserves a place in my list of heroes, issues a heart-felt plea to educated, upper-class Americans: Preach what you practice! These people marry, worship and defer gratification. They succeed; they enjoy “earned success” and yet so many of them vote Democrat.

Desperate & Systemic

Things are going to get worse before they get better. Only when we have adults in power, individuals perhaps yet unborn, will we see an economic, political and moral renaissance. Believe me, please, the three are tightly related!

I watched about three minutes of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement before switching off. He is a smart kid; he knows a lot of stuff – about politics; and that is the problem. He is not a grown-up  nor is his boss, nor are most of his Cabinet colleagues.

A Digression.

I once had a conversation with a Manchester couple about the subject of HIV/AIDS. She was a nurse. He said, “Chris, you should listen to my missus; she has been on courses about HIV/AIDS!” When I burst into tears they were both baffled. If you have been indoctrinated by Camp Gallo (aka “the Bob Club”), you will be the last person I will trust on the subject, unless you come up with something better than, “Everybody knows that HIV is the ‘Virus that causes AIDS’!”

I hope that I have not wasted your time with the digression, that you understand why I think it is relevant.

I know that lots of you are smart. Some of you have doctorates. Being smart is not enough. You do not have to be smart to understand the fundamentals.

Fundamentals:

·         Politicians are in the business of winning elections, not telling the truth.

·         All Politics involves Economics.

·         Economic policy decisions are usually (and regrettably) driven by political motivation.

·         Economics should be non-normative. Your Economics should be based on Logic and Experience – not on your conscience, not on your desire to be seen as a “caring” person.

·         Political decisions are only “good” when made in good conscience and in the light of Economic truth. Piety, eg pity for the disadvantaged, is contemptible when it leads to predictable unintended consequences.

Not many of you (actually none) are so smart that you have emailed me with thanks for an introduction to Arthur Brooks. He points out that free market economic theory has triumphed intellectually. There is no question but that where it has prevailed the disadvantaged have been helped (more than that, have been enabled to create their own “earned success”). The intellectual battle is over. Marxism and Keynesianism are in tatters. He further points out that he and other free-marketeers are left open-mouthed and floundering when confronted with one example of where in a so-called free market one person is not immediately benefited by, for example, benefit reform.

Free markets work. They increase well-being and prosperity. They encourage the traditional virtues of thrift, hard work and honesty – do you want to discourage these virtues? No other system rewards them. The intellectual and pragmatic argument is over. The Moral argument remains: Do you care about the disadvantaged and the poor at all? If you do, you should be a free marketeer.

The political system in western democracies is mired in professional politics: I’ll prove to you what a “caring” person I am by instituting more and more in the way of entitlements for the disadvantaged, whether or not they are feckless (and I don’t care whether the entitlements make them more feckless – that’s how caring I am).

Our politicians appeal to the self-interest of selected groups. They also appeal to the understandable desire of electors to feel good about themselves – perhaps a more pernicious appeal.

Self – Indulgence (on my part).

What Osborne has not done, and what good sense dictates that he should do, is to dismantle the gross disparity in the UK between the privileged and cushioned public sector and workers (including entrepreneurs) in the private sector. A huge proportion of Gordon Brown’s client state should be disbanded. Being a politician, with little interest in Economics or Morality, Osborne won’t. This is our desperate and systemic problem.

BBC – Turner Prize

 There must be thousands of Brits who watched the announcement of this year’s Turner Prize with profound gratification and contentment, perhaps many thousands. Let us start with the winner, whatshername, who, having achieved this apotheosis, must be pleased not only with the cash but with the vindication of her lifelong struggle against the philistines who had hitherto neglected her genius and creativity. The Art Establishment must also be thrilled by the public recognition of the importance of Art, of Society’s implicit embrace of Art’s place in our world. The bureaucrats who administer this award, the journalists who announce it, the commentators who grace our TVs to give us the benefit of their opinions and next year’s hopefuls must be enormously relieved that at least the BBC has endorsed this fabulously important event.

Not me!

Beauty, Imagination, and Truth (not to mention talent and skill) were entirely absent from this dreary video compilation. Indeed, it seems to me that to exclude all the above is patently a prerequisite for all aspiring contenders.

Of course, it may be my peculiar blindness that prevents me from rejoicing in this award, as it has with respect to all the others I can remember. It is, undoubtedly, a blindness I share with 95%+ of my fellow Brits.

My beloved readers will perhaps remember snotty remarks I have made about Democracy, a system whereby the electorate is encouraged to vote for their narrow short-term interests. Damn them (the electorate, not my readers) for doing so – actually they damn themselves, their children and generations unborn by doing so.

My majority is not, insofar as public endowments of the arts are concerned, narrow and short-sighted in their view. They simply do not give a s**t. But, if you were to draw their attention to the £tax spent on this idiocy, I wager that they would be nauseated. Public money spent on Art is trivial, compared to public money spent on “education”; and does less harm. And yet, take their cash and spend it on this rubbish and there will be hardly one in a thousand who does not retch at the thought.

Some will compare money spent on “high-brow” stuff with that spent on football or pop music. I welcome the comparison. I never go to pop concerts or football matches and I may deplore your taste if you do. Call me a snob if you like; I can take it.

Nobody is forced to go to a Manchester or Liverpool Derby. Nobody is compelled to buy a Lady Ga-ga album. Taxes are taken from all of us to fund the Arts Council and Covent Garden.

Sir Humphrey is the truest representative of our political masters in recent fiction. Jim Hacker is his tool. Mrs Thatcher was the greatest fan of “Yes, Minister”; and yet, when the f**king PM allowed that this programme revealed more political reality than the chattering classes ever do, who noticed?

Leveson

It is with the greatest reluctance that I give any attention to Lord Leveson. I think he was chosen for being spectacularly boring. The whole issue of NotW misbehaviour is boring. Given the zillions of pages of existing criminal law, a loyal UK citizen must suppose that to steal information about a murder victim contravenes lots of it.

We need more legislation to control the press? Surely not. We need to control government’s behaviour.

Cameron appears to have the right instinctive to oppose more press legislation – don’t, for a moment take me for an admirer of his. Clegg, unsurprisingly, would like more legislation. Cameron and Brown famously shamed themselves by saying, “I agree with Nick.” You could do worse than take the following position: if Nick’s for it, I am against it. Apologies to all who take this undeveloped opinion for gross prejudice.

The BBC has been bigging up today’s report. Their agenda is always to distract attention from really important issues. More apologies!

Who are they (the BBC) talking to? The vast majority of the electorate have no knowledge or interest in Leveson’s remit. Most, probably, would be disgusted by the hacking of a murder victim’s phone. Most would assume our laws already prohibit it.

I’ll stop now. It’s just too tedious. But watch out for curtailments of freedom of speech! All bad guys are against it.

Fr Sirico

And Something from the Acton Institute

“Whig” on the Welfare State

Good Stuff from the Adam Smith Institute, relevant to my most recent post. 

A Ding Dong between me and Geoff

Geoff is red; I am blue.

OK, as an "Austrian" I naturally assume that you do not agree with welfare benefits, insofar as everyone should look after themselves in much the same way as in many other, mainly third world, countries.

Welfare benefits currently cost Ali and me £4,750 pa from our taxes. Furthermore the NHS costs us £1,750 pa.

However, how do you reconcile these views with being a Christian?

I look fwd to the blog.

As a Christian I believe that we each have a personal responsibility to those less fortunate. Nowhere does Scripture justify the state taking from one group of citizens to give to another. The welfare state infantilises recipients. In the US, more people are poor than when LBJ declared war on poverty. It is instructive to note that Republicans, broadly speaking, the religious party, give far more to charity than Democrats. Charities spend their money more effectively than state institutions, which are to a large extent run for the benefit of state employees. Charitable endowments have helped millions in the direst poverty. High taxes discourage charitable giving.

As for foreign aid, no country has "developed" as the result of aid. All countries benefit from free trade; but we put up tariff barriers against third world farmers and other producers.

Countries with effective free markets beat statist countries hollow when it comes to improving the lot of the poorest. I cannot mug you and give the proceeds to a poor person. I cannot therefore delegate the mugging to the state.

mmmnnn!

1. I suppose it depends whether you attach any credence to the scriptures. Most people thankfully don't.

2. I assume therefore that you send back your state pension that was mugged from me and Alison and have returned any tax relief you obtained on a personal pension?!

3. I also assume that you would never use the NHS and would always go private.

4. Have you returned your winter fuel allowance?

5. Charities I'm afraid have very little money to give away. As Chair of Age UK Richmond I know this to be true.

This is perhaps the least good-tempered exchange between us. I am sure that cousinly love will prevail.

Observations:

I am certain that a lavish and expensive welfare state is not in the interests of the “makers” or the “takers”. Firstly, because the makers are unjustly expropriated. Secondly, because every pound taken from a maker means that he cannot spend it with another entrepreneur, thereby helping him to pay his mortgage and feed his children. Thirdly, because money siphoned from makers is not available to them to invest in their own or other businesses, money which might otherwise create wealth and jobs. Fourthly, paying people to be idle and feckless does not do those people any favours. Of course, not all benefit recipients are idle and feckless; some are schizophrenic; some are paralysed; but some are indeed idle and feckless. One child in five in the UK is born into a “family” where nobody works, has ever worked. Young women are encouraged to produce and raise children who scarcely know their fathers. Those children are likely to grow up dependent. Their life chances are likely to be blighted by academic failure, substance abuse and crime. One economist has said, “People respond to incentives; the rest is commentary!”

These are the moral fundamentals which we need to address.

Can we move from our current catastrophic decline at the stroke of a pen? Of course not. But we cannot hope to recover without admitting that we are in decline: morally, politically and economically. Catholic theology has much to say about the relationship between repentance and salvation – I do not demand that Geoff takes Catholic theology as his starting point; but he might grant that an obese person has no chance of escape from obesity without admitting that he is obese. If Mr Fatman decides to do something about his condition, we achieve little by observing that he should have drunk less beer, eaten fewer pies. Let's applaud his resolve.

I am implicitly accused of hypocrisy in the exchange above. By using the NHS, by accepting my state pension (an acknowledged Ponzi scheme), without which I would eventually starve, I am hypocritical for not applauding the whole panoply of the welfare state. No, there is no silver bullet. But reform is always possible. We happen to have, astonishingly, a couple of cabinet ministers who are working towards reform (of benefits and education): Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove.

Conservatism does not promise Heaven on Earth. It says that there are things we can fix, provided that vested interests don’t stop us. Conservatism says open your eyes! Observe what works. Perhaps Conservatism’s most important lesson is: BEWARE OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. Abandon the infantile “ wouldn't it be nice if...” attitude.

Arthur Brooks is moving up my list of heroes. He is an economist but is also a moral philosopher. He claims that free market economics has won the intellectual argument. In other words, if you want to help the poor, the sick and the disadvantaged, embrace free markets. History endorses you! Logic endorses you! He freely admits that he can lose the argument to his sister-in-law (in an instant) as soon as she makes reference to a little girl who lives with her mother in a car!

I've been there myself a million times. I have a Catholic friend, a thoroughly decent human being, who frequently tells me that I make a good point. This I know very well. But I am defeated, in his head, by failing to convince him that if he cared at all about the poor he would be a free marketeer.

We need to win the moral argument. The moral argument for liberty and free markets is the crux.