Who Elected Elon Musk President of the World?

If there were ever a great example of why the world needs to rein in individual and corporate wealth, Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is it.  

Musk is certainly a very bright man with an excellent record of success in multiple industries.  His championing of electric vehicles has accelerated that technology dramatically and he deserves to be congratulated for that.  His forays in space exploration are also remarkable, though not as clearly beneficial for humanity.  In general, one can say that he has achieved much in his career and should be encouraged to continue to explore new technologies and ideas within his sphere of knowledge and expertise.

 

But he is also a very erratic and eccentric personality with a tendency toward megalomania and a huge ego. No one in their right mind would choose him as a leader or arbiter of civic values and ideas.  Moreover, he is not an elected official and has no mandate from the people.

 

Computers, cell phones and the Internet have centralized power, wealth and influence in a very troubling way.  The human social and herd instinct, as well as some very pernicious proprietary technology has compelled us to purchase or subscribe to astonishingly few products or social media.

 

We subscribe to Microsoft or Apple not because they are uniquely brilliant or creative, but simply because they long ago became the standard and it is too onerous or perhaps even foolhardy to experiment with or move to other platforms.

 

We use Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or Amazon or PayPal because everyone else does, not because of their ingenious design or technology.  The software technology behind these platforms is quite simple and it is only the random combination of luck, timing and momentum that propelled these specific businesses to such dizzying heights and allowed them to dominate.  

 

But the centralized nature of these products and services has rewarded their owners with unimaginable wealth and the all-too-common delusion that they are superhuman, imbued with superior knowledge and wisdom.

 

Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter is an expression of this type of hubris and megalomania, disguised as a mission to save free speech.  We need only reflect on the almost comical eccentricities of Henry Ford and Howard Hughes, among a long list of tycoons who believed they were uniquely qualified to dictate how the world should run, to realize that this too will not end well.

 

The world is not well-served by dictators or even well-intentioned plutocrats.  The progress of humankind is frustratingly slow, but it is best accomplished through communal deliberation and consensus leadership, not an ‘I know best’ mentality.  

 

We are in ever-increasing danger of having super-wealthy individuals and companies direct our future.  The only way to curb this phenomenon is to heavily tax massive incomes and wealth, and to break up monopolies or somehow encourage alternatives to centralized platforms.  The future will be dark indeed if the Elon Musks of the world are in total control.

The Meritocracy Trap

There is strong support in some political circles for the goal of making America a meritocracy.  Indeed, it is already proclaimed as one by many.   But what is a meritocracy and is it a wise objective for our country?  

Simply defined, a meritocracy is a political and economic system where power and wealth are commensurate with ability and effort – i.e. merited.  In contrast to an aristocracy, where power and wealth are hereditary and resistant to change, a meritocracy is in theory a fluid state where each person can rise to whatever heights can be attained based on skill and hard work.

 

Meritocracy is the idealized product of true capitalism.  The rewards of clever entrepreneurship, investment and diligent endeavor will produce a hierarchy of rewards and status based on merit.  The ‘invisible hand’ of the market, that so cleverly orchestrates the successes and failures in business, will also sort out the deserving and undeserving and allocate to them wealth and power commensurate to their contributions.  Or so the theory says!

 

The logic behind the meritocracy is that there are vast differences in ability, work ethic and initiative among human beings and that the best mechanism for progress and a better all-around world is to have a political and economic system that promotes and rewards people based on these attributes.  

 

But there are interesting and disturbing questions surrounding this adoration of merit.  What defines merit?  How is merit measured?  Does merit naturally rise to the top in a capitalist society?  What does a meritocracy do to human relationships and the social compact?  Is it truly ‘better’ for society to have a meritocracy?

 

Defining merit is tricky.  It could conceivably include any of the following:  intelligence, ability, acquired knowledge, acquired experience, diligence, initiative, risk-taking, industriousness and effort, to name just a few.  But each of these single attributes is actually a catchall for a spectrum of complex qualities that are neither easily defined nor described.  There is more ambiguity than precision in these terms.

 

If we are hard-pressed to adequately define the components of merit, then how much more helpless are we in attempting to measure them?  For example, if we wish to measure effort, diligence and industriousness, shall we use the number of hours a person works?  Or how fast they work?  Or how cleverly they work?  Already we find ourselves stymied in finding adequate yardsticks for these simple, yet elusive, qualities.

 

And when we move on to intelligence and talent, we find ourselves in a morass of stereotypes and fables.  We have learned in recent years that IQ and SAT tests are unreliable in terms of assessing intelligence or aptitude.  There are so many diverse aspects of intelligence and capability that any attempt to make a simple assessment is foolhardy and bound to be skewed in some way or another.

 

In practice, we do not generally ‘measure’ merit except in academic settings.  There, it is true that for the most accomplished students there is the opportunity to ascend to the most celebrated undergraduate and graduate institutions and thereby somewhat guarantee one’s future success.  But there are so many gifted students that this becomes a veritable lottery that serves only a small portion of the talented applicants.  It is highly unlikely that the lucky few are any more capable than the legions left out of these elite launchpads.  And even more unsettling is the fact that the great majority of the lucky few have been expertly groomed for these positions in upper class homes, academies and tutoring scenarios.

 

Once out of school, in the crucible of the business world, the assessment of merit is haphazard and subject to the whims of chance and human foibles.  Success may come because of being in the right company at the right time or in the right position.  It may come as a result of having a personality or style that appeals to a senior executive.  It may come by launching a product or company at the right time with the right backers, with the right angel investors.  It may come by sheer luck.  It may come by devious, selfish or unethical means.  And yes, it may come because one is capable and does a good job.  Anyone who has worked in several different companies has witnessed the fact that merit, however one may define it, is not always or even generally the path to success.

How many of us who have been rewarded highly for our work can truly say that we have merited such a disproportionate amount compared to others who have worked more hours or have overcome more hardships or obstacles?  The market may dictate our higher reward but is it just, is it fair?

One may argue that if we do not allow the market to work its magic then it will lose its efficiency and human progress will be jeopardized.  Even if that is the case, which I believe is certainly not an accepted fact, then let us call our political/economic system a marketocracy rather than a meritocracy and concede that 'merit' is not the secret ingredient to wealth and power.

 

For when merit is associated with power, wealth and fame, and we prize those things above all other achievements, we create a hierarchy of human value that is not only false but harmful.  We use the meritocracy to justify vast inequalities of income and wealth as though they are somehow inevitable or expedient.  

 

If we promote the illusion that our society is a meritocracy and we view all accomplishment through that lens, associating all material and worldly success with one’s ‘merit’, then we condemn a large portion of our fellow human beings to a category of ‘less merit’ or ‘no merit’.  The dedicated teacher, the social worker, the public service lawyer, the small-town doctor, all of whom have chosen a path that has little material reward, must wrestle lifelong with the demons of self-doubt and the lack of societal acclaim.

 

The meritocracy is a trap.  It is a trap because the concept of merit is subjective, undefinable and unmeasurable.  It is a trap because success is also subjective and relative.  It is a trap because merit and success are only casually related.  But most importantly, it is a trap because human value is not based on either merit or worldly success.  And it is a trap because it allows us to pretend that there is not a desperate need to continue to do the difficult work necessary to create a more equitable and humane society.

Capital and Ideology - Well Worth Reading

I am about to finish Capital and Ideology, a 1000 page book by French economist Thomas Piketty.  It is requiring a major commitment but it is well worth it.  I want to mention several of the most interesting things that Piketty writes in this massive tome.

 

Piketty surveys the history of what he calls ‘inegalitarian regimes’ right up to the current growing inequality of the 21^st century.  His approach is very analytical and he makes use of data and statistics that he and his associates have gathered from historical archives and many other sources.

 

Piketty clearly believes that income and wealth inequality, especially in extreme forms, are an unhealthy condition for society.  He is not a Marxist or a communist, but he is also supremely skeptical of the efficacy of the so-called ‘invisible hand’ of pure capitalism. 

 

The first part of the book tracks the long history of what Piketty calls the ‘ternary’ regimes – regimes that consist of some sort of religious/clerical class, a warrior/noble class and a peasant class.  These regimes dominated the world for many centuries.  The inequality in these societies was extreme – the peasant class, by far the largest in number (usually close to 90%), essentially owned nothing or very little.

 

During the industrial revolution a new elite joined the traditional noble class, but inequality continued to be extreme.  The age of revolution and social consciousness in the late 1800’s ushered in a political will to address these inequalities, starting with Bismarck’s social security policies in Germany.  Later, the two world wars and the depression in the early to mid-1900’s caused major disruptive changes and resulted in a more active role for government in the world economy.

 

The post-WW2 period from 1950 to 1980 was a period of rapid economic growth, but also a period of serious efforts to redistribute wealth and income.  The level of inequality was dramatically lower than ever before in history.  Higher income and wealth taxes were utilized partly for war debt repayment but also to fund social programs and national infrastructure development.

 

But moribund economic results in the 70’s caused a shift away from redistributive tax structures (the Reagan and Thatcher era) and a return to full-throated worship of the free market.  The abject failure of communism seemed to place unfettered capitalism on an unassailable pedestal. The period from 1980 to 2022 has propelled income and wealth inequality to new heights and has caused a total stagnation of middle and lower middle-class incomes.

 

What is particularly interesting in Piketty’s analysis is the evolution of political alignment in the years from 1950 to the present.  From 1950 to 1980, the parties of the left were primarily supported by voters with lower income and lower education.  Conversely, those with higher income and education strongly supported the parties of the right.  This held true for all western democracies.

 

Since 1980, there has been a dramatic shift in these allegiances.  More highly educated voters have moved to the parties of the left (you can see this in my summary of the 2020 election poll by the Pew Charitable Trust - https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-2020-election-demographics-what-do.html) and the less educated have moved to the right.  But there is still a significant high-income group (not necessarily highly educated) that has remained faithful to the parties of the right.  Piketty terms these two groups the ‘Brahmin Left’ and the ‘Merchant Right’.

 

Piketty believes that this evolution is due to a couple of factors:  one, that lower income voters have not seen their circumstances significantly improved by the policies of the left and thus have become disenchanted, and two, that the globalization and meritocratic focus of the left has mainly benefited the ‘Brahmin Left’, leaving much of the population behind but attracting well-educated voters.  

 

Piketty posits that the policies of Clinton, Blair, Obama and Macron have not been significantly different than their conservative opponents in terms of reducing income and wealth inequality.  He sees the nativist/identity issues (immigration and nationalism being the primary ones) as secondary, though recognizing that these also play an increasingly noisy role.

 

Another interesting analysis in the book is how the lack of transparent international financial recording and the competition between countries for business by providing tax havens has allowed massive fortunes and profits to be realized and kept hidden from view.  This has clearly accelerated the global accumulation of absurdly disproportionate wealth by the top earners.

 

I have not yet read the final chapters that propose a new international approach to socio-economic challenges.  But it is clear that the current trends are unsupportable in the long run and can only lead to social and political instability.  Whether the world will be able to address this problem while facing climate change and the resurgence of totalitarian regimes is a weighty question.  If we cannot overcome the inertia of today's political chaos then there may be hell to pay.

 

  

The Problem with Inflation

I am not an economist, but I find the subject fascinating.   What is particularly interesting is that it is far from being a true science, but rather has quantitative, psychological and sociological components.  I have read a great deal on the topic and also done some online coursework to become more familiar with the concepts.

 

The developed world is experiencing substantial inflation for the first time in many years.  The last period of high inflation in the USA was in the late 70’s and early to mid 80’s.  The USA and the EU both have inflation currently, though from what I have read the inflation in the USA is somewhat higher than in the UK and EU.

 

There are many causes for the inflation.  Some of the causes are left over from supply chain problems caused by the pandemic.  Another possible cause is the surplus cash infused into the economy as pandemic relief through the American Rescue Plan.  And of course the recent invasion of Ukraine by Russia, with the ensuing economic consequences and energy embargos, will be a significant contributor to inflation.

 

The problem is that once inflation rises over a modest 1-2%, there are positive feedback effects that are difficult to predict or control.  Positive feedback means that when some quantity increases, the effect of that increase on other things tends to cause the original quantity to increase further.  This is a recursive effect that can spiral out of control in the worst case, and often does in countries where there is limited financial stability.

 

If prices rise, then consumers (especially at the lower end of the pay scale) struggle to make ends meet. This in turn will cause upward pressure on wages to ease that burden.  In a labor market that favors workers (i.e. low unemployment and lots of jobs available) wage increases will certainly occur.  This is the current situation. 

 

If producers are forced to increase wages, then they will raise prices further – positive feedback.  The rise in prices may eventually reduce demand for products, which can then stabilize the wages and prices without a further spiraling effect.  But when this will occur is difficult to predict or control.

 

There are other factors that can increase inflation once an inflationary cycle begins.  One example is that opportunistic producers may raise prices unnecessarily to increase profits, hiding behind the general inflationary trend.  And even if some or all of the inflationary pressure is driven by temporary problems with the supply chain, it is unlikely that prices will return to their original levels.

 

The Federal Reserve will attempt to rein in inflation by raising interest rates.  This will have the effect of reducing the cash flow and availability, which in theory will reduce demand and stabilize prices.  How quickly this stabilization will occur is the key question, and whether it will occur without seriously reducing economic growth and threatening a new wave of job losses.

 

Once anything is out of equilibrium in the economy there is the danger that there will be some major problems – inflation, recession, unemployment, etc.   How well the Fed can manage to hold things together while the world is still recovering from the pandemic and in the midst of a major conflict is a question that has no immediate answer.  We will hope for the best.

 

  

Are Liberals Hypocritical or Simply in a State of Paralysis?

I sympathize somewhat with the conservatives who sneer at limousine liberals.  There is something a bit ironic and unsettling about fabulously wealthy movie celebrities, rock stars and sports heroes who speak out for progressive causes as they private-jet around the world to their luxurious homes and vacation spots.

Do liberals lack the strength or will to incorporate their convictions into their lives? Is there a profound disconnect between their beliefs and their actions?  Is this an example of bad faith, weakness or simply a fairly understandable paralysis born of financial inertia?

 

If we look at most people in the wealthier part of the income spectrum, we see that their income is based on market conditions.  Of course, there are kleptocrats who obtain wealth by illegal or unethical means, but for the most part the upper class are simply acquiring their wealth through one or more of several legal and accepted means – inheritance, salary, stock acquisition/options, real estate, entrepreneurship, or appreciation of previously-owned assets.

 

Wealth begets wealth.  The rich get richer.  It is well documented that financial assets grow faster than wages, and the greater the asset base, the more avenues there are for even greater returns.

 

Most people who have a certain level of wealth also try hard to avoid taxation.  It is deemed perfectly acceptable for everyone to use any legal tax avoidance strategy at their disposal.  The rationale may be described as:  “Why should I pay more taxes if everyone else is legally avoiding them?”  And there are armies of tax lawyers, accountants and financial advisors whose profession it is to maximize this avoidance.

 

For the most part, liberals who are wealthy wish for a more equitable world.  Many of them vote for representatives who are likely to promote programs to reduce financial inequality and possibly raise taxes.  Are they sincere in their political stances, or are they simply assuaging their consciences, knowing unconsciously that their wealth is likely to remain secure?  

 

How far would most progressives be willing to go to create a less inegalitarian society? What is clear is that the vast majority of them are not willing to take steps on their own to get the ball rolling.  You don’t see anyone following Jesus’s advice to the young ruler to give up all his wealth. 

 

No, in fact you see the wealthy, whether liberal or conservative, living ever more lavish lifestyles because they are simply able to and because the friendship circles they inhabit are all pushing the luxury envelope further each year.

 

I number myself among them, not because I am fabulously wealthy, but because I participate in a lifestyle that is much more luxurious than most the world could afford.  I try to be generous but I acquiesce in the general upward trend of my finances.  

 

Would I welcome a much higher rate of taxation that would reduce my wealth?  I believe I would accept it if I felt that everyone was making a similar sacrifice relative to their means.  But I would certainly chafe at paying more if I felt the gazillionaires at the top weren’t being aggressively unburdened of their wealth.  

Of course there is the possibility that some or perhaps many so-called liberals would shift their allegiances immediately if there were truly an effective move toward a significant re-distribution of wealth.  

 

The financial world is complex, and fairness will never be assured.  There is also a powerful state of inertia that exists, keeping the wealthy at the top and the rest below.  Moreover, the marketplace is broken and tends to over-reward the top 25% or so while keeping the majority in a state of financial stagnation.  It will take fairly dramatic steps or, preferably, a steady flow of baby steps to turn the tide.

 

Thus, the good-intentioned liberals are in a state of paralysis.  Their good intentions are not quite strong enough to motivate them to selfless acts or self-sacrifice, but they seem at least to recognize that their wealth and lifestyles are somewhat grotesque and out of synch with their convictions.  Perhaps this disequilibrium will be enough to provide momentum for true socioeconomic progress before social unrest and incivility resurrect an age of revolution.

A Pragmatic Way to Change the Nation

The idea I want to explore in this piece is whether identity politics and racial justice should be downplayed in an effort to reduce partisanship in the bottom half of the income distribution and encourage a common goal of reducing income and wealth inequality.

By any measure, the US is growing increasingly inegalitarian.  The bottom half (50%) of US wage earners has only 1.5% of the total wealth in the nation, while the top 10% has 70%.  This disparity grew very large in the late 1800’s – the Gilded Age – and then peaked in the late 1920’s.  The depression and two world wars reduced the chasm significantly and the years of high taxation in the 50’s through the 70’s kept inequality at a much lower level.  The top 10% had about 35% of the wealth during this period.  

 

But the Reagan tax cuts, the double-income multiplier (https://rvgeiger.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-double-income-family-amplifier.html) , and the hyper-capitalism of the 1990’s to the present time catapulted the top third of the population into dizzying heights of wealth, while the average worker saw his or her inflation-adjusted earning power stagnate.  We are now at a stage of wage and wealth disparity that rivals South America, Africa and the Middle East.

 

The stagnation of wages, loss of industrial middle-class jobs, and resultant decay of many small towns and rural areas created a populist movement that allowed Donald Trump to attain the presidency.  This populist movement was able to frame the problem of decreasing economic opportunity in terms of nationalistic, racist and xenophobic tropes.  The average white blue-collar worker, formerly a solid union supporter in Democratic ranks, fled in desperation to Trump, who promised to revitalize American industry, stop immigration and defy political correctness.

 

Instead of building a coalition to demand better infrastructure, free education, free healthcare and a bigger share of the financial pie, low-wage workers split into multiple ‘identity’ groups – African Americans, white, Hispanic – and found themselves at odds with one another over issues such as policing/BLM, systemic racism, crime, drugs and immigration.  People of color went one direction and the white groups another.

 

Somehow, white voters in the bottom half of the wage spectrum have bought into the idea that America needs to have a wealthy superclass to drive the economy and that all blame for their own plight rests on the shoulders of ill-defined elites who greedily offshored our industrial power, and the huddled mass of poor and immigrants who supposedly lap up endless entitlements, crippling our economy.

 

Meanwhile, people of color, fed up with their long history of persecution and lack of opportunity, promote the BLM movement, historical analysis of structural racism, police defunding and Critical Race Theory (CRT), which would all be worthwhile topics for public discourse if there were any chance of a reasonable conversation.  

 

However, the right wing gleefully takes these hot button items, along with the religious right’s top three of abortion, homosexuality and transgender issues, and employs them in a highly cynical and hysterical fear campaign to paint a picture of a violent, immoral and dystopian future that alienates the white working class from its brethren of color.

 

If the US tackled its most basic problem – grotesquely unequal financial benefits and services for ALL lower income people – many of the other issues would probably be addressed as well.  At a minimum this would mean establishing free, quality education up through vocational or college years, subsidized childcare, better transportation systems and universal healthcare.  These would be paid for by increased taxes (income and wealth) on the top 10%.  

 

These basic but dramatic changes in social services and infrastructure would remedy many of the legacies of systemic racism. They would restore health to urban communities and begin the process of reducing policing dysfunction. They would provide a basis for revitalizing small towns and rural communities.  Immigrants would be more successfully integrated into society.

 

The deeper, more complex challenges of a post-industrial and global economy will have to be attacked as well to ensure that dignified, satisfying employment is available for all who are capable of working.  This will have to be accomplished with some level of social engineering, which is of course anathema to the free-market zealots whose belief in the ‘invisible hand’ remains unshaken.  

 

The achievement of such a comprehensive political victory and its associated socioeconomic programs would require a combined popular movement of all the working class as well as the progressive side of the middle and upper classes.  There is no chance for such a movement as long as the working class is bitterly divided over ideological red herrings.  Taking an idealistic stand on such issues as systemic racism, immigration and BLM would be a noble act in a saner and less partisan society, but that is not the society where we find ourselves today.  Taking a longer view and finding common ground where all can stand arm in arm is more likely to produce the desperately needed changes. 

 

 

The 2020 Election Demographics – What Do They Tell Us?

 The Pew Charitable Trust post-election survey for 2020 yields some very interesting results.  The survey is done with validated voters and is probably the closest thing to an accurate portrayal of the election that one can find.  The link is here:  https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/06/30/behind-bidens-2020-victory/

The first and probably most dramatic, if not surprising, finding is the difference between white and non-white voters.  White voters favored Trump 55 – 43 (2% voted for a 3^rd party candidate), while black, Hispanic and Asian voters favored Biden by 92-8, 59-38 and 72-28 respectively.  One expects the black vote to be so one-sided, but I was surprised (and gratified) at how strong the Asian vote for Biden was.  

 

The second noticeable characteristic of the vote is the gender gap.  Men voted for Trump 50-48 versus the female vote of 55-44 for Biden.  

 

A third set of noticeable gaps is between generations.  Millennials and GenZ’ers favored Biden by 20 points, 58-38, while Gen X’ers still favored Biden, but only by 51-48.  Baby Boomers and Silent Generation went for Trump 51-48 and 58-42 respectively.  The strong preference for democratic candidates by youthful voters could be problematic for Republicans in the future, but it is also possible that the gap could be at least partly be caused by the typical evolution of political affiliation from more liberal to more conservative with age.

 

The urban/suburban/rural demographic is no surprise, but still impressive.  Urban voters went for Biden 66-33, suburban for Biden 54-43, and rural for Trump 65-33.  This clearly depicts a major schism in American society.  What that schism represents in terms of cultural, economic and political ideology has been explored in depth but is still a bit elusive.

 

Somewhat related to this geographic split is the religion angle.  White evangelicals, who account for 19% of all voters, made up 34% of Trump’s support, voting 84-15 for Trump.  But what amazes me is that white non-evangelical protestants and Catholics favored Trump by a significant margin, 57-43.  This is a stunning statistic, as I cannot imagine a less Christ-like candidate than Donald Trump.  This speaks volumes about Christianity in America.  Unaffiliated voters preferred Biden by a whopping 71-26.  

 

The final, and for me, most interesting demographic is the level of education.  Voters with postgraduate education favored Biden by a large margin, 67-32.  College grads favored Biden 56-42, still a very significant margin.  Voters with some college education were almost a toss-up, preferring Trump 50-49, and high school grads (or less) voted strongly for Trump 56-41.  These numbers indicate a profoundly different political stance at higher levels of education.  The right will characterize this as liberal elitism and hypocrisy, while the left will portray it as a sign of enlightenment that comes with more education.  In any event, this disparity is troubling, and does not bode well for political stability.

 

The US voting population is clearly divided into very distinct and hostile camps.  Whether this partisanship will fade over the coming years or become even more divisive and dangerous remains to be seen.  America has always had sharp and noisy differences between its political parties and different demographic groups.  Will the current stress find relief as (and if) the pandemic retreats and the economy stabilizes?  

 

There are numerous pitfalls ahead as we face uncertain effects of climate change, income inequality and cultural issues, not to mention foreign affairs challenges with Russia and China.  Will these contribute to the political rancor or will they tend to unite us and cause us to be more accommodating toward one another?  Only time will tell.