Let's Reason

If you follow the financial news, you already know that Uber seems to have a better model for its ride-hailing service than its stock.  After priced at an offer price of $45 the stock opened at $42, a rare rebuke for a well-known and so eagerly anticipated IPO (initial public offering).  Four days later, it still trades under water.  It looks like Professor Mihir Desai of Harvard got his wish when he titled his NYT OP-ED piece “Let’s Root for Uber’s IPO to Fail.”

Interestingly, Professor Desai expressed a wish for an outcome that goes against the average performance of IPOs, which usually gain in price immediately after they are offered to the public, a performance identified as underpricing.   Setting a price for an IPO stock before the market has opened is a great challenge to the underwriting banks.  That’s why they organize presentations of the IPO firm to investors around major centers of finance in the so-called roadshows.  It is through this process that underwriters get a feel of the market’s receptivity of the new stock.  In Uber’s case the investors had reportedly placed (subscribed for) buy orders three times the number of shares offered, a sign of strong demand.  Despite pre-offering estimates about Uber’s stock value exceeding $100 billion and the oversubscription it garnered, the lead underwriter Morgan Stanley still decided to price the stock conservatively giving it a total market value of $76 billion.  To everybody’s surprise, however, even that lower offer price (of $45) wasn’t conservative enough.

The market for IPOs, which along with new issues of already traded stocks comprises the new issues market, is one of the most challenging types of markets to analyze and understand.  The hundreds of academic and practitioner papers written on the pricing of new issues can only tell us what we would expect to see on average.  Much less can be predicted on a stock by stock basis.  Thus, we know that on average IPO stocks are underpriced, that is, they are offered below the price the market sets when trading starts.  And this pattern is a global one observed around the world.  The main reason is that new stocks, no matter how known to the public, are surrounded by uncertainty that is perceived differently by the selling firm and the prospective investors.  The firm cannot know with certainty where demand and supply for the stock will balance to produce a price.  Investors, on their part, cannot know what the future prospects of the firm are because they can glean some but not all the information about the firm from the prospectus (i.e., the document that explains the operations and finances of the firm).  When sellers and buyers have different information about a product, economists call this asymmetric information.  (George Akerlof won the Nobel prize for analyzing such markets – an example of which would be the used cars market.)  Therefore, to entice investors, especially those less savvy about investments, to buy the new stock, underwriters set the price below what they expect the market will be willing to pay at the offering.  It’s like listing your home at a price below its estimated fair value.

But even with the roadshows and all their years of experience underwriters sometimes fail spectacularly.  Facebook, for example, was offered at $38 in 2012.  It closed the first day barely up at $38.23.  Then it fell and stayed below its offer price for the next 420 days.  Actually, the IPOs of Uber and Facebook defied the empirical evidence that stocks of firms with greater buzz about them are welcome by the market at much higher prices than their offer price.  Exhibit A of this phenomenon are the IPOs of internet technology-based firms whose IPOs in the dot.com mania years of 1999 and 2000 yielded initial market prices in excess of 77% of their offer price.  Unfortunately, publicity and anticipation did not work at all in that way for Uber.

The second thing we know about IPO stocks is that, on average, are poor investments for the first several years following their offer.  This means, if you buy IPO stocks at their market price the day they are first offered and hold them for three to five years you will earn a lower rate of return than if you buy a portfolio that is broadly diversified, like the 500 stocks of the Standard & Poor’s Index.  Again, this is a global phenomenon.  However, what holds for the average IPO stock does not hold for every individual IPO stock.  For example, after trading in losing territory for over 420 days, Facebook’s stock climbed over its offer price and never looked back.  It is now traded at around $185.

The longer-term under-performance of IPO stocks is a combination of two factors.  One is of behavioral nature.  In forecasting the future, we have a cognitive bias toward putting too much weight on recent events.  Investors look at the recent usually good news and performance of the IPO firm and extrapolate this good performance into the future ignoring the fact that eventually everything reverts to a more subdued normal level.  This law of reversion to the mean echoes the everyday saying that what goes up eventually comes down.  The other reason is that firm managers decide to have an IPO when news are still positive before negative developments sour market receptivity.  This is to say, managers time the IPOs.  When, subsequently, the negative news comes out investors sell the stock and the price falls.  But again, not every IPO stock falls victim of the bias or the timing.  Microsoft, Google, Apple, Facebook are examples of stocks that proved to be big winners for investors over the long haul.

The failure of the Uber IPO is noteworthy because the reputation of the lead manager (Morgan Stanley) and the co-managers (Goldman Sachs and Bank of America) as well as the financial backing of Uber by big venture funds should have added credibility of the offer price.  But, as in elections, you need to count everybody’s choice (in this case the investors’) before you know what the outcome is.  Perhaps the market is sensing that the gig economy in which Uber wants to operate is not settled enough to support reliable predictions.  However, Uber has just scored a big victory in this regard.  On Tuesday (5/14/19), the National Labor Relations Board determined that the Uber drivers are not employees and, hence, not eligible to unionize.  As a result, the price has jumped by about $2.  Still, however, the jury is out on how well Uber will do as the poster stock of the gig economy.

As for Professor Desai’s wish, did it come through?  He wished for a broken Uber IPO, that is, one with a market price falling short of the offer price, as a rebuke to large venture capital funds, like the Softbank Vision Fund, which tend to provide plenty of financing to glamorous firms like Uber at the expense of other noteworthy startups.  He apparently assumes that such funding bias is not driven by sound fundamentals and hence hurts the efficiency of the market in allocating capital to businesses.  On one level, Prof. Desai’s wish came through.  Months before the IPO, Uber’s shares were estimated to be worth between $100 and $120 billion.  At current prices, they are worth closer to $70 billion.  This means Uber’s financial backers were terribly off the mark regarding the value of this business when they sank money into Uber.  Therefore, Prof. Desai got his wish.  Will this chasten venture capitalists and make them more efficient in valuing startups?  It remains to be seen.  On another level, Uber’s broken IPO worked in favor of its backers and other shareholders.  They sold new shares at $45 when shortly afterwards the market determined they were worth only $42.  This means they sold overpriced shares!  This was a gain to them.  As more stories come out, we are learning that some dark clouds had already moved into Uber’s blue sky before the IPO.  It is very plausible that influential Uber shareholders (like its venture capital backers) pushed a higher offer price on the underwriters, thus, contributing to the eventual overpricing.

As I said, when it comes to a specific IPO, it’s difficult to make predictions.  As in other areas of economics and social sciences, we can recognize patterns that hold on average but can never accurately foretell how a particular case will break out.  Dismal sciences indeed.

On May 6, the United Nations released its Global Assessment report with truly devastating findings regarding the state of plant and animal life on earth.  Over the past 100 years, grazing, farming, logging, fishing, poaching and mining have dealt an unprecedented catastrophic blow to our planet’s biodiversity.  Hundreds of animal species have become extinct, millions of acres of forests have been cut down, and seas are been fished at depleting rates.  As arable land is being extended into formerly forested areas, its over-exploitation leads to its degradation and eventual uselessness.  The degrading of natural resources and life because of economic activity is one more threat to human life in addition to climate change.

Meanwhile the human population is projected to grow from its present size of 7 billion to 11 billion by 2100.  If population growth to the current level has inflicted such a devastation, imagine what it can do to the planet earth when 4 more billion humans compete for natural resources.  More consequential than the population growth itself is the certain prospect that billions of people will move from the third World to the second and first Worlds in the not too distant future.  As incomes rise, so will consumption and resource usage.

It’s time, therefore, to seriously think and act on the imperative of sustainability.  These days we talk about sustainability on various levels.  Sustainability of capital resources; sustainability of human resources; sustainability of natural resources; sustainability of climate.   Sustainability is satisfied when “a living system operates in a way that it does not use up resources more quickly than they can be naturally replenished.  Or a sustainable economic system operates in a way so that expenditures are either equal or less than the income.”   For example, as workers, we spend energy on our jobs, but if we have enough rest, nourishment, and recreation, we can restore our physical, mental and emotional stock and continue to be productive at the same or even higher level.

The above description of sustainability echoes the definition of income from capital the British economist Sir John Richard Hicks (a Nobel Prize winner) gave in his book Value and Capital eighty years ago.*  He defined it as that amount we can spend without depleting the capital.  Applied to sustainability, it requires that we recognize the natural world and the climate that sustains it to be our capital.  Thus, we need to determine how much we can take out of this capital without impairing its ability to restore itself.  But before I go further down on this line of thought, it is useful to talk about the concept of positive and negative externalities because of their serious impact on our lives and pockets

A positive externality is when I do something good but receive no monetary gain.  For example, I buy a hybrid car.  I pay relatively more and refueling it is more burdensome.  My good choice helps the environment and, hence, everybody.  But I don’t get any monetary break.  So, I pay for a positive externality from which all others benefit as free riders.  Hence, why do it?

For a negative externality, think of a factory that pollutes the air.  The price of products the factory makes does not factor in the damage to air quality.  That cost is born by all of us.  Without any laws or regulations, the factory will continue to do this, profit from it, and pass the cost to us.  Unfortunately, unfettered markets fail to monetize the positive externalities or capture the cost of negative externalities at the individual level.  But as we say in economics “there is no such a thing as a free lunch.”  When the air gets to be too foul to breath and sickness multiplies, it is society as a whole that pays the price in higher health insurance premiums, higher medical costs, etc.  The market fails to preserve the air quality because it fails to pass the cost as part of a higher price to the individual consumer of the factory’s products.  The point here is that the inability of markets to incorporate the positive and negative externalities of various economic activities contributes to the problem of degradation of human and natural resources.

Environmental sustainability can be also discussed in the context of the theory of the commons.  Commons are goods, like pastures, forests, sea areas, that belong to all.  In a 1968 influential article published in Nature, Garrett Gardin coined the term The Tragedy of the Commons.  He argued that if each individual, driven by personal gain, over-exploits a commons resource, like a pasture, that would lead to its demise.  Similarly, if we think the air is part of the commons, each factory owner can foul the air in pursuit of profit without effective self-regulation through the market system.  The solution to the problem is collective collaboration among the people having jurisdiction over the commons.  The economist, and 2009 Nobel Prize winner, Elinor Ostrom, an advocate of collaborative management of the commons, has documented many examples of collaborative and effective management around the world.  Peter Barnes also advocates to treat our natural resources as the commons in his book Capitalism 3.0.

It is time, I believe, we treated our natural resources, biodiversity, and climate as commons.  In some cases, it may be enough to leave the custody and management to a local community or a state.  In other cases, we may need international, even global, collaboration.  Of course, we should be prepared to hear the opposition voices.  Some of them will come from big corporate interests that want to remain unaccountable custodians and users of all available resources.  Others will come from the ideologues of unfettered markets who are divorced from empirical reality and pragmatism.

We also need to acknowledge the challenges.  Restricting our total consumption to the “income” that can sustain our natural capital may mean we live with less than our voracious wants demand.  The biggest challenge is that most of the remaining untouched natural resources are in less developed countries whose populations rightfully desire to match our standard of living.  How are we going to convince them to refrain from exploitation of their natural resources, when it was the exploitation of ours that propelled us to this prosperity?  That will require a global coordination and assistance so these countries can attain prosperity by means other than those that degrade nature.  Are we at this point in our current state of world affairs?  Not really, considering that our own government wants to open up our national parks to commercial exploitation.

The good thing is that sustainability in its various forms has acquired a momentum of its own.  Institutional investors, like pension funds and investment companies, do offer us opportunities to invest in firms based on their environmental and social responsibility.  And a multitude of organizations (think of the Sierra Club and Greenpeace) around the world strive to promote sustainability.  For the good of the planet, their cause must become our cause.

 

*  I am not sure whether Hicks was the first to define capital income this way, but I cite him because it’s a definition that stuck in my head since the days of my undergraduate studies.

The recent attack against a Jewish temple in California six months after another murderous act of violence befell a synagogue in Pittsburgh gives a measure of the crisis we are going through in this country.  Before and in between these terrorist attacks, we have witnessed other lethal paroxysms of racial or religious hatred and intolerance.  Many people are asking: How all this hateful mayhem can be happening at a time the US is experiencing peace and economic expansion, notwithstanding the sense of economic inequity and insecurity among its less fortunate citizens.

Until the 2016 presidential election, the established political and intellectual forces had succeeded in tamping down the feelings of discontent and unease that developed among an amalgam of the citizenry that included less educated Americans, rural and working class people, and a white slice of the population that represents what we call Old America.  The discontent is powered by a mix of grievances and fears.  The new knowledge economy is accumulating financial, political and intellectual power in the hands of Americans residing in the eastern and western coasts of the US.  The influx of immigrants along with the declining birth rate of whites is causing a shift of political and cultural influence away from white, mostly of European-descent, Americans.  American global economic power is slipping as China keeps rising and taking jobs away from American workers.  Ceding sovereign power to international agreements, especially on climate, challenges the nationalist spirit of a going-it-alone America.

Different segments of American citizens seem to defend different views about these developments, thus leading to tribalism.  But manifestation of tribalism within a country is a sign of a national identity crisis.  This should not surprise us.  The US has come finally to the point that its multi-ethnic, multi-creed, and multi-racial society has to ponder with the challenge of forging a national identity that can accommodate its diversity.   The American Republic was the product of a ruling class, which like the majority of the population, was made up of white men bred in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture.  It was inevitable then that when slavery was finally abolished and immigration waves brought Catholics, Jews, and other ethnic and religious peoples there would be resistance and tension.   Despite the encroaching diversity, the cultural, political and economic power remained in the hands of white Protestants all the way through and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War.  Things started to change though after the 1960s as non-Protestant Americans climbed to positions of power and the Civil Rights laws empowered African-Americans.

Although, as said above, conservative and liberal politics had managed to marginalize nationalist anxieties, the seeds of apprehension and of the eventual “rebellion” had been already sown.  Since the early 1990s, Pat Buchanan had started to preach his fear of white “suicide” coming in the hands of immigrants from the less developed non-European world.  “This is the great issue of our time.  And the real question is whether . . . America has the capacity to halt the invasion of the countries until they change the character – political, social, racial, ethnic – character of the country entirely.”  That’s how Buchanan saw immigrants thirty years ago.  Thus, when Donald Trump decided to play the nationalist card, the stage had been set.  “These courageous patriots did not shed their blood, sweat and tears so that we could sit at home while others tried to erase their legacy and destroy our proud American heritage” is what President Trump (speaking of the European settlers of the Midwest) told his white fans in an Iowa rally before the mid-term 2018 election.  No wonder Politico Magazine described Trump “Pat Buchanan with better timing.”

It seems to me that the schism between Middle America and Coastal America or Old America and New America boils down to a difference of minds as to how loyalty and patriotism are understood by each side.  Old Americans foremost appreciate loyalty to the old American values that they inherited from earlier generations of Americans; values that are unalloyed by the influence of immigrants insufficiently steeped in the American tradition as this is understood by Old Americans.  Old Americans build their loyalty to their group around these shared values.  These values are also part of the national narrative of Old America, which is one of individual freedom unrestrained from government infringement, of limitless opportunities, of an America self-sufficient and unbound by international treaties and institutions, of a going-it-alone America.  If this narrative romanticizes the past or ignores contemporary realities does not seem to matter.  Coastal and New Americans, on the other hand, have a more expansive and universal scope of values.  They are more receptive to the values of others and because of osmosis with other people – whether they are fresh immigrants or live in foreign countries – New Americans have become comfortable living in multicultural environments.  Old Americans are suspicious that the values of New Americans can undermine the traditional American values and that their heed to international norms and relationships makes New Americans less patriotic.  New Americans are resented for being too willing to extend and share the privileges of this country with new comers, sometimes at the expense of law and order.  On their part, New Americans are eager to take advantage of new opportunities that emerge within a globalized world and their greater understanding of other peoples’ cultures.  They also feel that just as America absorbed and successfully assimilated old waves of immigrants, legal or illegal, so can it do this again.

How the different definitions of loyalty and nationalism will play out in the future is uncertain.  If “white extinction anxiety” (a term coined by Charles Blow of the NYT) persists, the tensions and frictions will continue with their ugly consequences of violence.  By 2050, the US non-white minorities of Latinos, Blacks, and Asians will have reached a majority-minority status, meaning that together they will outnumber white Americans.  So, we inevitably are walking into a new phase as a nation.  America is heading to becoming a truly multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-creed and multi-cultural democracy, a feat never attained before.  Maintaining a functional liberal democracy stitched together out of such diverse groups of citizens is a great challenge without a guaranteed successful outcome.

To achieve this, both sides need to acknowledge the other side’s concerns and the root of their mistrust.  New Americans must convince Old Americans that their embrace of more universal values and cultures does not make them less of Americans or patriotic.  Old Americans must convince New Americans that their clinging to old values will not come at the expense of the dignity and rights of others because of their creed, culture, gender or sexual orientation.  Regrettably, the fact that the present occupant of the White House has no interest in helping to bridge the gap makes this project all too more difficult and distant.

Within a few days of the fire that destroyed the roof and spire of Notre Dame de Paris, a handful of French billionaires had pledged almost one billion dollars toward the reconstruction of the famous church.  No sooner had the donors come forward and the populist cries of the Yellow Vests and others rose to denounce the offers of the wealthy as acts of vainglorious competition in light of their resistance to paying higher taxes that could better serve their less fortunate compatriots.  Funny how things play out from different perspectives.

As the news and people’s reaction came streaming, I started thinking about our human experience with building and destroying symbols and houses of worship which, over the course of history, looks like a tapestry of all the good and bad that human nature is capable to produce.  So here I share these thoughts with you.

First, what is it with the human inclination to consume extravagant amounts of treasure and effort to build monuments and temples dedicated to the worship of God?  Humans have a long history of dedicating some of their most impressive and expensive structures to Gods.  Thus, I found that long before the Stonehenge circle was put in place, another people had erected huge curved stones as a sign of worship in Gobekli Tepe in southeastern Turkey around 11,000 years ago.  And let’s not forget that of the seven wonders of the ancient world, three were religious structures.

Why have humans dedicated large amounts of resources and aesthetic attention to houses of worship?  One view is that we consider temples and churches to be the House of God although we don’t believe that God necessarily resides in them.  But as with so many attributes we ascribe to God, what we actually do is to project our own anthropocentric ideas as to how great a house of worship ought to be and look.   And, as in other areas of human life, houses of worship become tools of antagonism as we try to show that our God is superior and deserves more grandeur.  So, a few centuries after Christianity had triumphed over polytheism, Christians built Hagia Sophia to outshine the Parthenon.  And centuries later, as the Popes were trying to assert their preeminence in the Western Christian world, Rome built the St. Peter’s Basilica to outshine Hagia Sophia of Byzantine Constantinople.  Ironically, caught up in this race for bigger greatness, houses of worship that are supposed to summon the exaltation of virtue are not always erected by virtuous means. Parthenon is such a case.  After Pericles had moved the Treasury of the Delian League from the island of Delos to Athens, he did not hesitate to expropriate its funds to pay for the construction of the Parthenon.

More consequential and historically fateful was the construction of St. Peter’s Basilica on the site of the old church dedicated by Emperor Constantin to St. Peter around 320 CE.  Twelve centuries later, Pope Julius II decided to construct a much more monumental and elaborate church.  However, lack of funds led him to intensify the sale of indulgences, which for some reason were a lot more popular among the faithful of North and Central Europe.  It was the unscrupulous promotion of indulgences as a way to shorten one’s stay in the Purgatory that, among other reasons, spurred Martin Luther to write his 95 Theses and nail them to the door of the Wittenberg castle church on 31 October 1517.  And, as we say, the rest is history.  And what history it has been indeed!

Unfortunately houses of worship have fallen victims of antagonism and friction in other more devastating ways.  Thus, in their second campaign against the Greeks in 480 BCE, the Persians destroyed the old temples on Acropolis.  One hundred fifty years later, the conquering armies of Alexander the Great avenged that offense by burning Persepolis to the ground without sparing its sacred structures.  The Jewish Temple of Jerusalem twice was destroyed within seven centuries, first by the Babylonians and then by the Romans. By the time Hagia Sophia was completed under Emperor Justinian I in 537 CE, the Roman and Greek temples laid in ruin or were converted into Christian churches and shrines as the successors of Emperor Constantine outlawed the worship of the old Gods.  The same fate awaited the shrines of Druid and Nordic Gods as the new religion spread across Europe.  In our days, we have witnessed the destruction of Buddhish and Hindu temples by the Taliban in Afghanistan, of Babylonian and Assyrian religious monuments as well as Christian churches and Islamic mosques in Iraq, and ancient Roman and Greek religious monuments in Palmyra by ISIS.

In all cases, the voice of history speaks volumes of our sectarian sense of religious superiority and, worse, of intolerance.

So, coming back to the Notre Dame, let’s dare ask, should it be rebuilt?  Of course, from Macron down the reaction has been a resounding “We ‘ll rebuild it!” But a rebuilt Notre Dame will not be the same.  Twentieth first technology applied to a medieval structure will yield a mongrel of architecture. But these are the times of theme parks and Disney Lands.  We like to live the past or exotic in the present.  Resurrecting authentic monuments of bygone eras into modern versions of their original selves does not help us relive history.  If that was possible, we would have rebuilt Parthenon long ago.  But it would be a sacrilegious thing to do.  Do we want to walk through theme parks of history or through the relics of history as they have come down to us in full manifestation of the inglorious or accidental events that defaced them so we learn from our mistakes and transgressions?

And if Notre Dame is to be restored, let’s ask “for whom?”  I would say, not for the wealthy of France; not in the name of human vanity; and, out of respect for the divine, not for God’s glorification.  The damage of Notre Dame saddened religious and secular people.  Our human progress is that today most of us, irrespective of ethnic origin or religious beliefs, look at the destruction of religious and cultural monuments by natural causes or fanatic sects as our collective loss.  Like the Parthenon, Notre Dame and the great historical religious monuments of other faiths and cultures have transcended their original purpose.  They belong to all of humanity.  Notre Dame will remain a grand symbol of Catholic faith, but let the new Notre Dame summon us to a new sense of universal tolerance.  Although it suffered in the hands of the French Revolution, let it stand for liberté, égalité, fraternité.

The title refers to the general election that is underway in India, which was the subject of a NYT article last week.  As the reporter states, democratic voting is simple: we count one vote per person.  But how we make it possible or desirable for eligible voters to cast that one vote and how we make sure each vote counts can be complicated and also say a lot about a country’s commitment to the most basic principle of democracy.

There is no other country that can exemplify the challenges of democratic voting as dramatically as India.  First, an incomparably large number of voters, expected to reach 900 million in this year’s general election.  Then, the expanse of the country and its diverse, often difficult, terrain of cities, jungles, mountains and remote areas.  To make voting possible at this scale, the election that started on April 11 will last until May 19.  Voters will cast ballots in one million polling stations which will be staffed and aided by 12 million officials.  Ballots will be cast electronically using voting machines (many of them portable) and verification will be ensured by a voter-verified paper audit trail that generates paper copies of the ballots.

What should impress us all, though, is the extraordinary efforts election officials take to enable Indian voters to exercise their right.  They will climb (figuratively speaking) mountains, cross deserts, and reach deep into jungles to seek out voters.  To this effort, they will put to use 700 special trains as well as boats, airplanes, camels and elephants!

If India is the world’s most populous democracy, America, we like to claim, is the world’s greatest or best functioning democracy.  Qualifiers like “greatest” or “best functioning” can mean different things to different people.  But here, I am more interested in looking into how well we succeed in regards to our engagement in democracy as voters.  We first need to understand that elections are not the same as voting.  We may participate in election rallies, phone banks, flyer distribution, debates with friends and strangers – all that as part of the election process – and yet unless each one of us is empowered and willing to cast a vote, elections may not reflect the true choices of the people.

We also need to distinguish between votes cast as percent of eligible voters (i.e., age voting population) and votes cast as percent of registered voters.  By the first measure (% of eligible voters) the US ranks only 26 out of 32 developed countries that are members of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development).  Thus, in the 2016 US elections, the voting rate was 56.7%, compared to voting rates over 75% in Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.  A different picture emerges, though, when we count votes cast as percent of the registered voters.  Now the US climbs to the top of the rankings side by side with Belgium and Sweden.  Thus, in the 2016 elections, 87% of registered voters did vote.  By the way, the same measure stands at 66.4% (in 2014) for India.  However, the higher percentage of registered voters that vote is only the result of the fact that registered voters are a lot less than eligible voters.  For example, in 2016, there were 255 million eligible voters in the US but only 157 million were registered to vote.  In general, it is estimated that at least 25% of eligible voters do not register to vote across various election cycles.  Therefore, the US has a serious problem of unregistered voters in addition to the problem of a relatively low turnout rate.

The reason that a significant percentage of eligible voters do not register to vote in the US is that registration is left up to each individual as a matter of personal responsibility.  Other countries, though, take the view that a well-functioning democracy requires the broadest possible participation of citizens in the voting process.  Thus, Sweden and Germany, among other countries, automatically register voters once they reach the eligibility age.  Other countries (including Australia and UK) apply aggressive campaigns to turn eligible voters into registered voters.  In contrast, a Pew survey found that 62% of eligible to vote Americans had never been asked to register by a state agency or private organization.  And among those who had been approached, only 16% had been asked by a state agency, like the Motor Vehicle Department of their state.

So, we naturally need to ask why state authorities take this nonchalant approach in this country.  I suspect it is less out of respect for personal responsibility and a lot more because lower and, especially demographically, selective registration fits the interests of politicians and their parties.  Besides convincing eligible voters of the merits of their proposals, politicians and parties also seek to maximize the number of registered voters that are likely to lean their way and minimize the number of registered voters that are likely to favor the rival side.  One way to achieve the latter result is to make registration process costly, tedious, or onerous by choosing the registration criteria that are most likely to hinder likely voters of the rival side.  It is not a secret that such registration obstacles usually target African-Americans and immigrant citizens.  That’s why, each election cycle, we have numerous court fights regarding the enactment of criteria that one political side finds harmful to its registration efforts.

Regrettably, politicians and parties go a step further in undermining voting participation.  They engage in various unethical and dirty tricks with the goal to dissuade voters of the opposite side from voting.  Such tactics went into overdrive in the presidential election of 2016, in many cases with the help of foreign trolls.  Partisan gerrymandering practices, registration obstacles, undermining the willingness to vote, and onerous conditions in the exercise of voting itself are serious symptoms of our declining standards in the practice of democracy.  Despite our praise of elections as celebrations of democracy, our system does a darn good job to let as few as possible celebrants in.

Even without going into the equally challenged state of ballot counting and verification in a country far advanced in technology, we should all take a pause and ask ourselves: “do we want to serve our narrow political interests or the democratic norms?  As we reflect on that question, let’s try to envision an Indian election official riding an elephant into a remote hamlet so that his or her fellow citizens are able to exercise their most basic democratic right.

Looking across the globe, from China to Brazil and from America to Russia, we see businesses of all forms and sizes that operate with less or more interference of the state, and more or less regulatory and legal restrictions.  But all businesses experience the same common condition: they cross paths and live within a network of markets.  It is in the marketplace they sell their products; they find their employees; and raise the capital they need to fund their operations.

Given the ubiquity and indispensability of markets, it is not surprising that their quality is the main factor by which we also judge the quality of an economic system.   The fact that markets are the ground where unethical even criminal business behavior takes place leads to frequent criticism of markets as if they were the actual moral agents.  Markets, in reality, are mere mechanisms that bring parties together and facilitate a trade or transaction.

As a social institution, markets are artifacts of human design.  Thus, they can be designed to function efficiently or to function poorly.  For example, restricting competition prevents buyers and sellers to arrive at a fair price.  But the quality – or “integrity” – of markets also depends on the integrity of the buyers and sellers.   Good markets result when market participants are honest and trustworthy.  So, when I am about to sell you my used car, do I disclose to you what repairs my car has had so far?  That’s where personal ethical responsibility comes into place.  Thus, to preach something like “make markets moral” misses the point unless this admonishment means “make market participants behave morally”.  But market participants do not always behave honestly.  Therefore, we need to have laws and regulations to ensure markets work with more not less integrity.

Interestingly, even in the absence of laws and regulations, markets, like living organisms, can defend themselves as if they had an immune system.  Although, they can be corrupted (infected) by bad participants (the bacteria or viruses) they can also counterattack in order to prevent the infection from spreading or becoming endemic.

Thus, if corporations try to manipulate information about their operations in order to boost the value of their shares (the overvaluation infection), when the true information comes out, share prices collapse even below their fair level due to the loss of the market’s trust.  This happened in the case of the dot.com mania of the late 1990s that led to the burst of the stock bubble in 2000.  Managerial malfeasance and irresponsible or misguided forecasts by analysts had pushed prices to fantastic levels disconnected from reality.  The same way, lenders (like banks) that are stiffed by borrowers, or bondholders that are stiffed by bond-issuing firms refuse to do business with such unscrupulous borrowers.  Sometimes, investors are unable to tell which firm’s stocks, bonds or loans can be trusted.  In that case, investors reduce or avoid their participation in the market for such financial instruments across all firms.  The most serious case was that of the disappearance of the market for mortgage-backed securities in the wake of the housing market collapse in 2008.

Other times, the malfunction affects the product markets because of unethical business practices.  False advertisement, subpar quality of products or poor delivery of services can betray the consumers’ trust and cause losses.  Again, reaction by consumers is the only way a market can cleanse itself from bad participants.

Markets also can discipline firms that adopt or foster a culture of irresponsible actions related to how they operate.  The case of setting up fictitious accounts of unsuspected customers of Wells Fargo is an example.  In other cases, businesses have been accused of wrong doing in regard to the compensation, working conditions, or rights of workers.  Business practices related to the   environment and sustainability are also being subjected to scrutiny and ethical judgment.

In general, markets not only facilitate transactions, they can also serve as disciplinary mechanisms that allow participants and society at large to check the behavior of businesses when they are not honest about their value or their products, or fail to fairly treat their employees, their communities or the environment.  But to function as a disciplinary mechanism, markets need responsible participants who are willing to act on their values.

For a society to efficiently monitor and discipline businesses through the market mechanism, it needs to have enough information so that it can react appropriately.  To that effect, we need sufficient disclosure from law and regulatory enforcement agencies, from the press and other media, and even other private sources.  In sum, we need to have an unfettered system of information disclosure that exposes the behavior of market participants.

Even so, in some extraordinary cases, our choice about a market is reduced to a binary decision.  We either decide to enter a market or not.  The clearest example is Facebook.  The disclosure of news regarding the use of customers’ data and the privacy issues raised have created a lot of unease and resentment against Facebook.  But absent a real alternative, what choices do consumers have, if they want to be on a social platform?  Similar cases exist in other markets with extremely limited choices for consumers.  In such cases, the remedy may lie with political action that either regulates firm behavior or expands consumers’ choices so that the market can regain its disciplinary function.

In sum, ethical markets require that we behave ethically as market participants.  And for markets to perform their monitoring and disciplinary function, we need sufficient information about business behavior as well as people willing to act on this information.

But I need to add a cautionary note.  Because we can use the markets to reveal our economic, social and political preferences, it doesn’t mean each one of us will get the outcomes we like.  If the majority of people are indifferent to the environment, they will keep buying gas guzzlers (like SUVs) and there is nothing the market can do.  If enough people are willing to patronize a misbehaving firm, again, the market will not correct that.   As in politics, the integrity and disciplinary power of markets as well as the outcomes depend on the choices and morals individuals bring to the marketplace.

If you are part of an elite group (academia, wealthy, high-end professionals) most likely you live on the East or West coast of the US.  If you are a member of the fly-over country you reside in the states between the two coasts.  The story of the 2016 presidential election, we are told, was a revolt of the middle country against the elites.  Here are the titles of two columns by David Brooks in the NYT:  “The Strange Failure of the Educated Elites” and “What Rural America Has To Teach US”.  A Roll Call opinion piece included the following sentence: “People’s views of elites isn’t a passing fad.  It is an existential threat to government, political parties, the media and even business and academia”.  The views in these articles are worth exploring because we need to understand what separates elites from ordinary Americans.

In “What Rural America Has To Teach US”, David Brooks provides some interesting information about two towns in Nebraska, McCook and Grand Island.  Unemployment and crime are low, life expectancy is high, and, despite a sizable Latino population, residents do not seem to have changed their life styles nor do they feel culturally threatened.  On the other hand, incomes are not high, a high percentage of pupils qualifies for free school lunch, and many young people leave after they graduate from high school.  What caught my attention is the high degree of civic engagement in these towns.  This is worth noting because a 2018 article in The Atlantic described civic engagement in America to be in significant decline since the 1990s.  Brooks makes the widespread civic engagement of these towns a teaching point for the rest of us.  When I checked how the counties of these two towns had voted in 2016, I found that Donald Trump was their overwhelming choice, namely, by 83.2% in one county and 66.3% in the other.  Liberals would say that if civic associations are the laboratories of democracy with its emphasis on transparency, factual information and checks and balances, this voting pattern is rather inexplicable.

I tried to find statistics about the demographic profile of people engaged in civic activities.  A by now dated Pew survey from 2009 shows that urban and suburban Americans had a higher percentage of civic engagement than rural Americans.  More recently, a 2018 Pew survey found Americans with post-graduate and college education to have a much higher knowledge of civic matters than people with a high school or less education.  These findings do not support the view that elites – at least educated elites – fail to master or participate in the mechanics of democracy.  So, I wonder whether Brooks’ teaching point is valid.

Whether rural America can teach the rest of us is more complicated.  For sure some rural communities excel in civic life, living styles, work ethos, and so on.  But the data overall do not paint a picture of socially robust America in the fly-over country.  In a past column in the NYT titled “Blue States Do What Red States Preach” Nicholas Kristoff points out that in many indicators of social health, rural America is falling way short.  Teenage births, divorce rates, prostitution and adultery, early sexual activity, and child marriages are in general higher in red states than blue states.  In addition, rural America is ravished by the opioid crisis.  Interestingly, as Kristoff argues, it is conservativism that is responsible for the underinvestment in education and social services that contribute to these social ills.  Furthermore, conspiracy theories, end-of-the-world beliefs, creationism, denial of evidence of climate change, and other fantastical ideas find a very fertile ground with people of lower education and less exposure to the outside world.  One needs to read Susan Jacoby’s Freethinkers and Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland to appreciate the extent of the problem.

What about the alleged failure of educated elites?  Brooks argues that educated elites have led ordinary Americans astray and instead they try “to pass down privilege to their children, creating a hereditary elite…”.  I would counter-argue that educated parents most often become role models for their children in regards to acquiring an appreciation for learning which mostly contributes to their succeeding later in life.  In contrast, children of less educated parents live in places of less affluence and often low appreciation of education and thus of fewer opportunities to make it in our knowledge-based economy.

Nonetheless, there are types of elites that fail to live with a balance of privileges and responsibilities.   For example, if we need to find a culprit for the hereditary passing of privilege to children, that’s the moneyed class.   But then how can I explain that the good people of Nebraska were so enthralled by a presidential candidate, like Trump, whose success and that of his children is exhibit A of hereditary privilege.  Wealthy Americans also exhibit an off-the-wall desire for extravagant life styles that, in my opinion, undermines society’s appreciation for middle class values.   I would also argue that the careers and financial success of many members of the elites, including high-end professionals, businesspeople, artists, and even academics, are often more closely linked to the global economy and trends than to what happens in middle America.  When our best customers and opportunities can be found abroad, we become less attuned to the needs of the more parochial fellow Americans.

Coastal Americans are more cosmopolitan and feel less threatened by foreign cultural influences.  Living in the midst of or close to immigrant communities, teaching foreign students, and doing business with foreigners makes us more citizens of the world than our working class or rural fellow Americans feel it is patriotic.  Loyalty vs betrayal is one factor in the matrix of moral foundations that according to Jonathan Haidt (The Righteous Mind) informs our political preferences.  Whether fair or not, the fly-over country perceives elites as less loyal to team America.  Add to that the fact that the ranks of our volunteer army are overwhelmingly populated by the sons and daughters of working class and rural families who thus become the protectors of the privileged lives of the elites.

Being or becoming a member of an educated, or ethnically diverse, or international business community naturally produces regard for fact-based discourse, receptivity to cultural diversity and endowment with broader economic opportunities.  Becoming a member of an elite by virtue of such conditions is the positive side of elites.  But using these associations to look down on others, promote hereditary rights, or display decadent life styles does separate one from the ordinary person.

Elites win society’s respect if they prove they deserve their status.  If the elites are to regain their credibility, they must become less smug about their success and show willingness to share more of the cost of being American.  Enlightened members of the elites must educate the bad and shellfish members of the group about their duty to think and operate with a more community-oriented spirit.

As I wrote in my last blog, opportunities for a decent education and a productive life are created long before young people decide what to do in their adult lives.  Before retiring, my wife taught kindergarten and primary school classes for 37 years.  For reasons unforeseen at the start of her career, she had the unique experience to teach in three widely different school environments that tell the story of primary education in modern America.

Her first public school district was in central Pennsylvania, not far from State College, the site of Penn State.  Back in the 1970s, the children of this district came from families of coal miners, truck drivers, other blue-collar workers, and some professional people. Their experiences of the outside world were limited.  The social ills that years later would become commonplace in rural America, like alcohol and drug abuse, divorces, out of wedlock births, had just started to take their toll on the social fabric of the local community.

Her second tour of teaching brought her to two exclusive private schools in Upper West and Upper East Manhattan.  There, the children’s parents worked in Wall Street or law firms or other top professions.   On Fridays, school would end early so the students could go to their country homes.  Every fall, they would come back to school telling their teachers the foreign cities they had visited during summer vacation.

The third and longest part of her teaching career took place in a minority suburb of Long Island.  The children came from African-American or fresh immigrant Latino families. They lived in modest homes or crammed apartments.  In the winter, some came without coats and they would do with whatever their teachers could find in the lost and found pile of clothing items.  The teachers would buy, with their money, crayons and blocks and the cupcakes and drinks for birthday parties and special days.  The same social ills that plagued the white rural district in Pennsylvania were the nemesis of these Long Island children.  Coming to school and been received by a smiling and affectionate teacher made their day.

The one type of school district my wife didn’t teach is the affluent small-city or suburban school district of mostly white families with their well-funded school budgets, their special programs, and impressive athletic and artistic facilities.

These four types of school districts occupy the spectrum of primary and secondary education in today’s America.  They stand apart in terms of race or wealth.  They are the result of a segregationist reality that the American society prefers to ignore.  The blame is not with the existence of private schools.  Actually, many parochial schools do not have more resources than peer public schools.  Despite the noble and sincere intentions of the “No Child Left Behind” law, American public schools produce unequal results across districts, states, and racial groups.  This topic is huge and I don’t pretend to know all that can elucidate its many dimensions.  But here are some of the facts that have come to my attention.

First, family background matters.  It matters for academic attainment as well as for a child’s adult life.  A recent NYT article “Data Zooms In on the Springboard to Prosperity” refers to research findings that show that students who attended schools in the same district attained different results as adults because of differences in family backgrounds.

Second, school funding matters.  Financially strong schools are able to hire more accomplished teachers, give them more teaching resources, and expose students to a wider menu of educational, cultural, and athletic programs and opportunities.  The Wall Street Journal reported that in at least 12 states school budgets are now below their 2009 level.  State data from the National Center for Education Statistics shows that quality varies directly with funding.

Fourth, attracting high-skill individuals to teaching matters.  Contrary to widespread belief, teacher salaries are not competitive enough to keep incumbents in or attract new teachers.  Erika Christakis, writing in The Atlantic reports that there will soon be a shortfall of 100,000 teachers.  The WSJ also reports that the teacher turnover ratio is at an all-time high as teachers leave for better-paying jobs.  As, years ago, job opportunities for women (who make the bulk of teachers) expanded into finance, law, medicine, and other professions, the relatively higher salaries of these fields attracted many female students that in previous times would have entered a teaching career.   Thus, unlike countries, as for example Finland, teaching has not been viewed favorably as a well-rewarding career in the US.  If teacher salaries were competitive by market standards, careers in teaching should be in high demand and turnover a lot lower than it is now.  So, the market test puts the lie to the argument that teaching is an easy career that need not be better remunerated.

Fifth, society’s regard for teachers matters.  Many working and middle-class Americans resent teachers by falsely believing that they earn disproportionate benefits thanks to their union power.  The fact that school funding comes mostly from local taxes feeds into this resentment.  However, the information in the previous paragraph suggests that even with unions teachers do not extract extra benefits.  Research has also shown that districts with strong unions perform better because unions help in weeding out bad teachers.  Demonization of teacher unions, non-competitive salaries, and inadequate support contribute to keeping competent individuals out of teaching.  Despite the misinformed view that public schools performed better in the 1950s-1960s, findings show that math and reading scores have improved while teachers are now faced with greater challenges as they have to teach more students from dysfunctional families or from non-English speaking families (E. Christakis, The Atlantic).

The current drive for charter schools risks pushing further back the public’s awareness and appreciation of education as a social good.  The individual’s right to seek the educational provider of choice (the charter schools’ argument) collides with society’s goal to offer all children educational opportunities that are as equal as possible with as little as possible regard to wealth and race.  If we neglect as a society to provide a good education to our children, we all stand to lose.  Social studies have shown that crime, broken families, alcoholism and drugs, poor earnings, and low work skills are the results of poor education.

The fact that government subdivisions, down to the local school district, are left with the power to administer the education of their children is not an excuse for all of us to turn away from the inequalities and poor results that afflict the less fortunate children.  After all, they are not responsible for what is delivered to them as public education.  As they grow into adulthood, these less educated children of America will deliver their indictment when they ask what their country has done for them.

An often-heard narrative about the American system is that though no one is guaranteed success in life, everybody is offered an equal opportunity to succeed.  Nothing can better prepare a person to fight for success in life than a good education.   Education is perhaps the greatest social equalizer.  Quite early in its history, the US recognized the value of education for the democratic and economic health of the nation.  By 1870 all states had free elementary schools.  However, even after ignoring the recent bribe scandal regarding college admissions, opportunities in education are increasingly tied to the income bracket of the students’ families.

As a result, educational opportunities are uneven and this shows in the social mobility of Americans.  For example, the likelihood that children will grow to move to a higher income class (intergenerational mobility) has declined in the US and is below that of other industrialized countries.  College education is what primarily makes upward mobility possible.  International data show that across countries lower intergenerational earnings mobility correlates with higher income inequality.   Given the high cost of college education, it is not a surprise, therefore, to see that the US, which is very high in income inequality, is also very low in intergenerational mobility relative to other industrialized democracies.

At the same time, access to a good education is far from open to all.  In 1985, 54% of the students admitted to 250 selective colleges came from the bottom 3 quartiles of income distribution; but in 2010, only 33% belonged to these income brackets.  In 2017, 38 elite colleges had more students from the top 1% of earners than the bottom 60%!  Tuition and fees in top colleges tripled relative to the national median salary between 1963 and 2013.  (The Atlantic, June 2018).  The average annual cost of tuition, room and board of all public universities was $19,189 in the 2015-16 academic year, hardly what a typical family would consider affordable.  Averages mask, though, individual university costs. In quite a few top national public universities tuition alone approaches or exceeds $20,000 a year.  The main reason is declining state support for higher education.

To make matters worse, state support most often ignores non-tuition costs for books, room and board, and thus fails to help poor students who cannot afford these costs.  As a result, benefits designed to help the needy end up helping disproportionately more those who can afford to pay (NYT, “When ‘Free’ College Isn’t Free” 3/19/2019).  And, of course, earning a higher education degree often comes with the life-long burden of student loans whose national aggregate has topped $1.5 trillion, spread across 45 million Americans.

The need to hold part-time jobs while studying is another source of unequal opportunities to quality education.  When I was still teaching, one of the most frequent excuses students gave for incomplete homework and assignments was their work schedule.  Inability to dedicate adequate time to studying due to work is also one of the reasons students drop out of college.

Affordability is intrinsically related to meritocracy.  The affordability-related question is: Can every student who wishes and qualifies for college education have one?   The meritocracy-related question is:  Does likelihood of admission correlate with candidate qualifications?  The above data suggest that because of low affordability, not all those who wish and can receive a college education.  And not all those who enter prestigious colleges deserve this over other better academically but worse-off financially candidates.  As Ross Douthat (NYT, 3/17/2019) writes, the interest of elites for intergenerational continuity coupled with the need of private universities for loyal alumni and streams of donations has led to the present uncomfortable balance of opportunities and meritocracy.   Private and top national universities engage in legacy and donations-based admissions to secure the resources that enable them to extend scholarships to needy students.  Thus, we simply recognize that we are willing to sacrifice meritocracy for wider societal goals.  Besides, there is another reason why universities, especially those that attract elites, should also enroll less advantaged students.  Without the latter group, elite colleges and universities would not offer their more privileged students a full social awareness of the other side of the tracks.  The problem remains though, how colleges that are much less populated by elite student groups would provide social awareness to their underprivileged students about the life and attitudes of the elites.

This being the state of higher education in the US, what should we do?  Making public college education free is one of the proposed solutions on the Democratic Party side.  But we need to consider some side effects.  First, a free good invites too much demand even by those that assign it very low value.  Thus, we might have too many students pursuing college education even if this is not in their best interest.  Also, unless there is a cap in free tuition, public colleges will lose the incentive to be cost-efficient thus risking unchecked growth of costs.  Another unintended casualty might be vocational education that could generate better income results than college education for many young people who are less inclined to do academic work or are more gifted in other types of jobs.  Free public college education could very well crowd out vocational education unless it also gets a cost relief.  Private colleges will also face stiff competition.  On the other hand, reducing the ranks of marginal private colleges will allow those that provide a value-added educational experience over and above that found in public universities to strengthen their position.   Like the need for affordable care, affordable higher education is sorely needed but it will require long and careful thinking and design if it’s going to work as intended.

Even if we make progress in leveling the playing field for college education, the challenge we still face is how we prepare more students for a college education.  That requires our prime and secondary education become less unequal in the quality of education they provide across the many school districts.  Unless we also reduce inequalities in pre-college education, the candidates that enter the halls of higher education each year will misrepresent the demographic profile of the country.  This is a story for the next post.

Talking about socialism has never made most Americans comfortable.  Equating it with communism has rendered socialism a “dangerous”, even unamerican idea.   This taboo was broken in 2016 when Bernie Sanders openly campaigned as a Democratic Socialist.  In the 2018 mid-term elections, other candidates campaigned and won under the mantle of democratic socialism.  And by a slight majority, millennials have a more positive perception of socialism than capitalism.  It’s time, therefore, we talked about socialism like mature and informed citizens and not like cynical politicians.

I have written before that ours is not a pure capitalist system.  It hasn’t been for a long time.  Elements of socialism are all around.  More importantly, our capitalist system is not exactly the type we read about in textbooks.  Beyond any impurity brought about by socialist programs, our capitalist system suffers from afflictions of its own doing.  Consider, for example, cronyism (the corruptible influence of lobbyists and the revolving doors from business to regulatory agencies and back to business) plus plutocracy, and kleptocracy.  (About the last two, I refer you to “How Kleptocracy Came to America” in the March issue of Atlantic – link below)

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/03/how-kleptocracy-came-to-america/580471/

That doesn’t mean American capitalism is deep across the board in any of the above maladies.  The fact is, however, that despite a well-functioning justice system, laws and regulations, economic interests (corporate and personal) often distort the playing field at the expense of most of us.  Here is a sobering statistic.  In 2018, the US ranked only 22^nd in the Corruption Perception Index compiled by Transparency International.  Greater infusion of socialism may not necessarily improve the US standing, since corruption can occur in any system, but we should take note of the fact that #1 in the rankings was socialist Denmark.

So, how would we appraise our economic system?  American capitalism does a very good job in creating wealth.  Our economy usually exits recessions faster than other economies and often grows faster despite its mature state of development and size.  American capitalism also has an unique ability in inventing new products and services.  However, it is in the distribution of wealth and incomes that our economy has taken a less fair path over the last 40 plus years.  Indeed, average real wages (wages measured in purchasing power) have remained the same since 1972 (Pew Research Center).  As surprising as it may sound there is not one intervening year in that period when average real wages surpassed the 1972 level!  Income growth has been the privilege of the top 20-25% of Americans, while the proverbial 1% has hogged the lion’s share.  Whereas from the 1940s to the early 1970s wage growth matched the gains in labor productivity (output per work hour), in contrast, between 1973 and 2013 wages grew by a total of 9.2% while productivity grew by 74.4% (Economic Policy Institute).

Undeniably, something happened after the 1970s that depressed the growth of wages and accelerated the growth of capital and business profits.  One culprit is the declining bargaining power of labor unions.  Thus, income inequality certainly originates at the point where wages and profits are produced.  But then it becomes worse through a tax system that in many ways favors high earners and the wealthy.

These developments are not unrelated to the distinctly different stands the two main American parties have taken with regard to the production and distribution of income and wealth.

Republicans tend to emphasize the importance of production whereas Democrats tend to emphasize the importance of distribution.  The productive capacity of an economy is important because unless gross domestic product (GDP) rises at the same or higher rate than the population living standards will decline.  To Republicans it is expansion of the pie (GDP) that matters, not how we split the pie.  To this effect, they favor lower taxes for incomes from capital and business and policies that allow less restrained utilization of labor and natural resources.  Republicans defend the 2017 generous tax relief to wealthier Americans because the expansion of GDP has given more people (many of them minorities) jobs and incomes.  That is, working class people as a whole are earning more than before. This argument, of course, ignores the fact that in nominal and relative terms the top earners and wealthier Americans are even greater winners.  Republicans also believe that each one of us creates his or her opportunities and success or failure.  (Though the recently revealed college admissions scandal shows that opportunities can be also bought.)

Democrats care more about how we split the pie.  To Democrats, income distribution is equally important because uneven reward of labor and capital prevents some segments of the population from enjoying their fair share of the economic output and can breed social unrest.  Democrats see the strength of the country in a social contract that balances the interests of labor and business and safeguards the sustainability of the environment.  They also believe that the state has a duty to improve the opportunities and, hence, chances for success of those who may not be lucky enough to be endowed with the conditions for either.

Beyond any appeal to fairness and social peace, the data show that unfair income distribution and lack of an adequate safety net can cause serious social ills.   Despite the fact the US is the richest country, its standing in critical social indicators lags that of other countries.  Consider, for example, that in poverty, infant mortality, life expectancy, reading and math skills, health insurance coverage our rankings are far from stellar.  These poor results are directly related to income inequality and inadequate protection of the weaker and less lucky among us.

It is this gap between our capacity to produce wealth and our commitment to use it properly in the interest of the common good and welfare that the socialist talk of Democrats is all about.  It is a discussion well having.  And as for those who want to disparage it, they should then have the moral courage to do away with the socialist benefits they enjoy:  Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, lower than otherwise home mortgage interest rates and so many more.