Showing posts with label www - OfTwoMinds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label www - OfTwoMinds. Show all posts

Friday, 26 September 2014

GDP = Waste

Source: Oftwominds

Any system that has no way to measure, much less prioritize, opportunity costs and maximization of utility is not just flawed--it is terribly misguided and structurally destructive.

We're told the gross domestic product (GDP) measures growth, but what it really measures is waste: capital, labor and resources squandered in quixotic pursuit of waste masquerading as "growth."

50 million autos and trucks stuck in traffic, burning millions of gallons of fuel while going nowhere? Growth! All that wasted fuel adds to GDP. Everyone who works from home detracts from "growth" since they didn't waste fuel sitting in traffic jams.

Repaving a little-used road: growth! Never mind the money could have been invested in repairing a heavily traveled road, or adding safe bikeways, etc.--in the current neo-Keynesian system, building bridges to nowhere is "growth."

GDP has no mechanism to measure mal-investment or the opportunity costs of squandering capital, labor and resources on investments with marginal or even negative returns.

Buying a new refrigerator that could have been fixed by replacing a $10 sensor: growth! GDP has no mechanism for calculating the utility still remaining in roads, vehicles, buildings, etc. that are replaced--throwing away all the fixed-investment's remaining utility to buy a new replacement is strongly encouraged because it adds to "growth."

Building and maintaining extraordinarily costly weapons systems that are already obsolete: growth! The gargantuan future costs of interest paid by taxpayers on the debt borrowed to pay for the obsolete weapons is not calculated by GDP. The staggering costs of indebting future taxpayers is ignored by GDP--the only thing that counts in GDP is "growth."

Tearing out a functioning kitchen to install granite countertops and new appliances: growth! GDP has no mechanism to measure the decline of quality in new appliances, or the marginal utility of granite countertops over the existing surfaces.

Writing complex derivatives designed to defraud the buyers: growth! The immense profits booked by investment banks and the bloated salaries of the financiers who wrote and sold the guaranteed-to-default derivatives add greatly to GDP.

Creating another huge bureaucracy to oversee the financiers: growth! Squandering taxpayers' money on more layers of bureaucracy adds to "growth" and GDP--never mind that the labor is all wasted, since a 12-page law could have achieved the same results at near-zero cost.

GDP has no mechanism to measure the value of alternatives that use less capital, labor and resources to get the same results.

Tossing out an item of clothing that was worn once or twice in favor of the latest fashion: growth! GDP has no mechanism to measure what else could have been done with the oil burned to ship the new item of clothing across the Pacific and truck it to the retailer; if a consumer spends money on the new clothing, GDP registers that as "growth" (the only economic metric we measure and value) without calculating what else could have been done with the non-renewable resources squandered on frippery.

GDP is another outmoded part of the Keynesian Cargo Cult that worships "growth" and spending (a.k.a. aggregate demand) as the only goal. The Keynesian Cargo Cultists believe that paying people to dig holes and refill them is an excellent strategy for "growth:" ordering bureaucrats to bury wads of cash in abandoned mines and then turning the unemployed hordes loose to find the cash is Keynes' own example of worthy ways to generate "growth."

This narrow way of understanding the world completely ignores the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels and the critical concept of maximizing the utility of capital, labor and resources.

Any system that has no way to measure, much less prioritize opportunity costs (i.e. what else could have been done the capital, labor and resources) and maximization of utility is not just flawed--it is terribly misguided and structurally destructive.

What Metric Are We Optimizing For?

Source: Oftwominds

If we choose metrics unwisely, we create self-destructive choices, policies and goals.


Yesterday, I explained why GDP = Waste. This raises a larger issue: we shape our choices and goals to optimize what we choose to measure.

If cholesterol is established as a critical metric of health, for example, then we naturally focus on our cholesterol levels and adjust our diet or take medications to optimize our cholesterol level to the ideal levels.

Do cholesterol levels really reflect health? Are they really critical metrics of well-being, longevity, etc.? If I take a handful of pills to optimize my cholesterol levels, have I become healthy, or does the optimization of that metric create the illusion that we've reached our goal of health?

If 3% GDP growth is established as the optimum, we shape our choices, policies and systems to reach that goal--even if the process of optimizing that metric is destructive to the economy and society. In other words, if we choose metrics unwisely, we create self-destructive choices, policies and goals.

Correspondent Lew G. recently submitted a fascinating article that describes our propensity for optimizing whatever metric is presented as critical: Economists Don't Understand The Information Age, So Their Claims About Today's Economy Are A Joke.

When we have a bad metric, even if we know it's a bad metric, we still tend to optimize for that metric, because that's what we have to measure progress, success, etc.

There are plenty of examples of questionable metrics: GDP (gross domestic product) as opposed to Gross Domestic Happiness, unemployment (rather than full-time jobs that can support families), and even test scores in education.

When the metrics--and the way they are measured--are both perverse, we get perverse incentives and perverse outputs.

By measuring GDP in the current way, it makes sense to burn the last of our cheap oil paying people to dig holes and then fill them, because the wages paid (even if they're paid with borrowed money) are counted as "growth."

For a variety of reasons, the agendas, priorities and incentives established by metrics such as GDP are rarely made explicit. For example, by focusing on test results rather than life-skills and professionalism, our schools incentivize optimizing test scores and cheating, as part of an implicit assumption that scoring well on tests prepares students for jobs in the real economy.

Yet the evidence strongly suggests that scoring well academically is poorly correlated to on-the-job performance, innovation, leadership, etc.

What if our education system stated this set of choices explicitly rather than implicitly? Then we'd have a clearer idea of the consequences of the metrics we've chosen to optimize. The explicit statement would be something like this: Instead of teaching you life-skills that are essential for successful adulthood and the eight essential skills of professionalism, we're teaching you how to take tests that advance your career in academia.

The same kind of perverse priorities and incentives are easily found in healthcare, defense, and of course economics.

Consider GDP: if I decide to ride a $100 used bicycle to work instead of buying a $30,000 auto with mostly borrowed money, the impact on GDP is horrendously negative: I didn't spend $30,000 on the car, thousands of additional dollars on insurance and fuel, didn't pay a bank thousands of dollars in interest and fees, and didn't pay bridge and highway tolls, or excise taxes on the vehicle, fuel, maintenance, etc.

The benefits to me and society at large of riding my used bicycle to work are not even counted: by riding a used bike insteadof driving a new auto, I can save capital to invest in productive enterprises, I've taken one vehicle off the road, lessening traffic, I've conserved precious fuel for following generations, and my health will improve from the daily exercise, very likely reducing the costs of my healthcare and the burden on wage-earners of caring for me.

But these unalloyed health benefits are a disaster for GDP as currently measured:GDP would rise only if I become ill and need medications, procedures, tests, etc. on a regular basis.

In other words, in the current way we measure "prosperity" (i.e. "growth"), healthy living, low-cost lifestyles and capital accumulation are catastrophes for the economy rather than tremendous benefits.

Clearly, we need an entirely new set of metrics and ways of measuring them. This will instantly create an entirely new set of agendas, priorities and incentives that change day-to-day choices without any central-state coercion, bureaucracies or top-down Central Planning. 

Tyranny of the Majority, Corporate Welfare and Complicity

Source: Oftwominds

When 60% of the employed citizenry pay no Federal income tax, then the nation is in danger of sliding into the Tyranny of the Majority: we vote for more largesse, and you pay more tax. Complicity has consequences. 

Sometimes I am accused of going out of my way to annoy people. That is not the case, though I understand how it may seem so. After all, there is an undeniable allure in being contrarian. But I am just "calling 'em as I sees 'em," and it is the Status Quo which is the source of the outrageous insanity, not the person who points it out.



With great hesitation, today I voice a very unpopular point of view: that citizenship should mean something other than a free meal ticket or other give-away. No, I don't mean listening to fine speeches and bothering to vote every two years--I mean citizenship where it hurts: paying taxes.

I am drawing upon key arguments made by James Madison in the Federalist Papers. I know civics lessons are also politically incorrect--though simulacra civics coursework is given lavish lip-service by the educational Elites and fiefdoms--but please read this brief excerpt by Madison to get a flavor for the Tyranny of the Majority:
"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
The Tyranny of the Majority is the primary topic of the Federalist Number 10, in which Madison tackles the Achilles Heel of democracy: undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people, which can then enact its will through the democratic government without difficulty.

Put another way: the Power Elites of a democracy can buy the complicity of the majority by showering them with government giveaways and extracting no income tax from them. For 60% of the American public, the Federal government is a source of welfare/entitlements/giveaways. Yes, workers pay a modest 7% in Social Security taxes, but that is understood to be a "pay as you go" retirement system in which their modest contributions (the 7%) fund their elders' Social Security payments.

The Federal government--the global Empire, the source of Medicare and Medicaid, the grantor of Section 8 housing vouchers, the funder of missions to Saturn, the entity which spends $3.5 trillion while collecting only $2 trillion, etc.--gets essentially little funding from workers' Social Security contributions. Yes, surpluses go to the general fund, but those surpluses have dried up.

So 61% of the populace is all in favor of more largesse and more taxes on the 19% who pay most of the taxes. The 60% who pay little to nothing are delighted to receive "what's owed to me" and the top 1% which receives the vast bulk of corporate welfare and tax giveaways--recall that the top 1% own about 43% of all the wealth of the nation--are also delighted to shift the tax burden to the 19% below them who earn most of the wages and thus end up paying most of the taxes.

Here are the numbers. Nearly half of US households escape fed income tax Recession, new tax credits have nearly half of US households paying no federal income tax.

This article outlines how a family of four (with two children under 17) and an income of $50,000 ends up receiving a small tax credit; they pay zero tax but get a small refund anyway.

This document from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) displays the Effective Tax Rates (CBO) for American households.

After including earned-income tax credits, the bottom 60% of households paid less than 1% of all Federal income taxes, and the households between 60% and 80% paid 13%.

The top 20% paid 68.7% of all Federal taxes: Income taxes, Social Security and Medicare, excise and corporate taxes. The top 10% of households paid fully 72.7% of all Federal income tax, the top 5% paid 60.7%, and the top 1% paid 38.8%.

In essence, this is a vote-buying scheme by the Status Quo: the top 1% control the policies of the State in alliance with the State's own Elites, and together they buy the complicity of the bottom 60% to passively accept their dominance.

This is the worst of all possible simulacra of democracy. In the Wikipedia entry linked above, Mancur Olson is cited as arguing in The Logic of Collective Action that narrow and well organized minorities are more likely to assert their interests over those of the majority.

In other words, the top 1% Financial Plutocracy asserts its interests over the 99% and then buys the complicity of the bottom 60% with largesse paid for by the top 19% of earners.

In Who Rules America?, Sociologist G. William Dumhoff draws an important distinction between the net worth held by households in "marketable assets" such as homes and vehicles and "financial wealth." Homes and other tangible assets are, in Dumhoff's words, "not as readily converted into cash and are more valuable to their owners for use purposes than they are for resale."

Financial wealth such as stocks, bonds and other securities are liquid and therefore easily converted to cash; these assets are what Dumhoff describes as "non-home wealth" on his website "Wealth, Income, and Power in America."

As of 2007, the bottom 80% of American households held a mere 7% of these financial assets, while the top 1% held 42.7% and the top 20% held fully 93%.
In a classic "divide and conquer" tactic, the State's Power Elites have sold a slew of new taxes to fund the guaranteed-to-implode "healthcare reform" (a.k.a. increased funding of sickcare cartels) on those earning $250,000 or more.

Everyone earning 10%-20% of that sum loudly applauds "sticking it to the rich" (the Tyranny of the Majority in full flower) while failing to note that the truly wealthy--the ones who don't have any earned income because they don't work in salaried jobs, the ones who own roughly half the nation's productive assets--pay nothing but a slice of their unearned income--much of which is protected by various tax breaks.

Complicity has consequences. This entire strategy of operating the State as a fiefdom for the Financial Power Elites--and by that I mean the people earning not $600,000, but those earning $600 million or more each a year--yes, they do exist-- and then buying the silence and complicity of the lower 60% with enough largesse to keep them quiet or at least distracted, has costs which are simply being shunted forward.

Most importantly, citizenship has devolved to advocacy for a larger share of the Federal government's swag. The government "should" do more for me/us because it's giving away so much swag to some other fiefdom/cartel.

Meanwhile, the slow poison of gargantuan deficits is eating away the soul of the nation.The Federal government gets $900 billion in individual income taxes and borrows $1.56 trillion each year. That is a rather stark number: the government borrows almost double what it collects in individual income taxes.

The "deal" is obvious: the costs of borrowing that $1.5 trillion are hidden from both the bottom 60% who are recipients of government funds and also from the top 1%, who believe that socializing risks and bailouts and privatizing profits is the ideal system of governance.

When interest rates rise and the payments on this exploding debt rise, then the "solution" will be "obvious"--borrow more money from somebody, anybody, and pay whatever it takes to keep the corporate welfare, subsidies and tax breaks flowing, and also the giveaways to the bottom 60% to buy their votes, silence, passivity and complicity in the fiscal destruction of the nation.

Madison feared the Tyranny of the Majority; I fear we are already living it.
If you want to read more about the partnership of the Power Elites and the State, you'll have to slog through the 396 pages of Survival+: Structuring Prosperity for Yourself and the Nation or the abridged 134-page version Survival+ The Primer

America's Nine Classes: The New Class Hierarchy

Source: Oftwominds

Eight of the nine classes are hidebound by conventions, neofeudal and neocolonial arrangements and a variety of false choices.


There are many ways to slice and dice America's power/wealth hierarchy. The conventional class structure is divided along the lines of income, i.e. the wealthy, upper middle class, middle class, lower middle class and the poor.

I've suggested that a more useful scheme is to view America through the lens not just of income but of political power and state dependency, as a Three-and-a-Half Class Society(October 22, 2012):
The three-and-a-half class society is comprised of: the "entrenched incumbents" on top (the "half class"), the high-earners who pay most of the taxes (the first class), the working poor who pay Social Security payroll taxes and sales taxes (the second class), and State dependents who pay nothing (the third class).
This class structure has political ramifications. In effect, those paying most of the tax are in a pressure cooker: the lid is sealed by the "entrenched incumbents" on top, and the fire beneath is the Central State's insatiable need for more tax revenues to support the entrenched incumbents and its growing army of dependents.
A recent Foreign Policy article on China's New Class Hierarchy: A Guide inspired me to assemble America's nine classes.


1. The Deep State. Mike Lofgren offered this description of the Deep State in Anatomy of the Deep State:

The Deep State is a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the nation without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.

I describe the U.S. Deep State as the National Security State which enables a vast Imperial structure that incorporates hard and soft power--military, diplomatic, intelligence, finance, commercial, energy, media, higher education--in a system of global dominance.

The key feature of the Deep State is that it makes decisions behind closed doors that the surface government ratifies and implements.
The number of people in the Deep State class is small: senior Federal officials (NSA, Pentagon, State, Treasury, etc.), Executive Branch officials and key private-sector players.

Membership in the Deep State class is not dependent on wealth so much as on relationships and power.

2. The Oligarchs. Oligarchy is in the news--for example We're Headed for Oligarchy--and a number of descriptors are somewhat interchangeable: corporatocracy, plutocracy, etc. I have used Financial Aristocracy to invoke the neofeudal structure of our economy.

Whatever word you prefer, this small class is more or less the top .01% who owns a majority of the nation's financial wealth. They essentially own the political machinery of the nation, writing the rules of legislation that is supposedly regulating their industries, taxes, etc.

3. New Nobility. This is the super-wealthy class just below the Oligarchs. They own a singificant percentage of all assets but do not directly manage the political process like the Oligarch class. They hire lobbyists to protect their interests and constitute an influential political-financial class with global connections.

4. Upper Caste. I use this term to describe the technocrat/professional class that manages the Status Quo for the upper classes. They serve in both government and the private sector.

5. State Nomenklatura. In the Soviet Union, the Nomenklatura were the key administrators in all sectors. In the U.S., the Nomenklatura are well-paid government administrators with security and power. Collectively, they administer their own share of the swag, gaming the system to maximize their pensions, benefits, etc.

Together, the Upper Caste and the Nomenklatura comprise about 9% of the 121 million households in the U.S.: roughly 8.7 million households who earn between $145,000 and $250,000 annually. This class is the bulk of the top 7%, i.e. the top 90% to 97%.Household income in the United States.

The top level of the Upper Caste (2.8 million households) earns more than $250,000 annually. The Nomenklatura and Upper Caste number in total about 11.5 million households.

6. The Middle Class. While others attempt to define the middle class by income alone (many see a household income of around $50,000 as qualifying), I define the middle class not by income alone but by purchasing power, benefits and assets owned. What Does It Take To Be Middle Class? (December 5, 2013).

By this definition, the middle class is the cohort between 70% and 90%--households earning $80,000 or more. Even this is problematic, because in high-cost cities $80,000 is not enough to sustain middle-class conventions (owning a home, two vehicles, etc.) while it may be ample in lower-cost regions.

This 20% comprises about 24 million households.

The lower middle class--what I define as having some but not all of the attributes of full middle class membership--is the cohort between 50% and 70%--households earning more than $55,000 annually.

This class also comprises about 20% (24 million) of all households.
If you think this is too restrictive, please read my above analysis of middle class membership. It may change your view of what constitutes middle-class.

7. The Working Poor. Roughly 38 million households have earned income but it is not sufficient to secure the basics of middle class life. Many qualify for social welfare programs such as food stamps and Medicaid.

This class is about 30% of all households.

8. State Dependents. Though often labeled "poor," those with minimal legal employment may be living better than the working poor, due to generous social welfare benefits such as Section 8 (housing), Medicaid (healthcare), child care, food stamps, disability, etc., and black-market sources of cash income. This class is comprised of the bottom 20% of households.

9. Mobile Creatives. This is an emerging class that ranges across many income classifications and thus cannot be described by income alone. Some earn Upper Caste incomes, others are Working Poor. This class is self-employed, free-lance, entrepreneural, sole proprietors with adaptive skills. They may collaborate with other Creatives rather than have employees, and may have part-time jobs.

There are roughly 5.5 million incorporated self-employed people in the U.S.; these tend to be professionals such as attorneys, engineers and physicians. These self-employed are generally members of the Upper Caste.

The Mobile Creatives (which include small farmers, craftspeople, independent programmers, etc.) number around 10 million, or 8% of the workforce. I use the wordmobile here not to suggest mobility between physical places (though that is one factor in this class's flexibility) but mobility between sectors and ways of earning income.

Members of this class might take a short-term paying gig if the pay and circumstance is attractive, and then return to self-employment. They tend to foster multiple income streams and in general operate by the principle trust the network, not the corporation or the state.

Some members of this class joined the cohort involuntarily, as the result of layoffs; others pursue this livelihood for its freedom, flexibility (important to parents of young children or those caring for elderly parents) and potential for self-expression.

This is the "wild card" class that falls outside all conventional class/income hierarchies. It includes those seeking outlier wealth and those who have chosen voluntary poverty.

Though this class wields little conventional financial or political power, it has a potentially large leadership role in social and technical innovations. This is the 4% Pareto Distribution that can exert outsized influence on the 64%.

The other eight classes are hidebound by conventions, neofeudal and neocolonial arrangements and a variety of false choices and illusions of choice, including democracy itself.

I will end this examination of the Nine Classes of America with this question: which class is having more fun? Your answer may say more about your aspirations and worldview than the class hierarchy itself. 

The Three-and-a-Half Class Society

Source: Oftwominds

The top 20% are supporting the entire Status Quo. This is an unstable arrangement. 

The U.S. has a three-and-a-half class society. According to demographer Joel Kotkin, California has become a two-and-a-half-class society, with a thin slice of "entrenched incumbents" on top (the "half class"), a dwindling middle class of public employees and private-sector professionals/technocrats, and an expanding permanent welfare class: about 40% of Californians don't pay any income tax and a quarter are on the Federal Medicaid program.



I would break it down somewhat differently, into a three-and-a-half class society: the "entrenched incumbents" on top (the "half class"), the high-earners who pay most of the taxes (the first class), the working poor who pay Social Security payroll taxes and sales taxes (the second class), and State dependents who pay nothing (the third class).

This class structure has political ramifications. In effect, those paying most of the tax are in a pressure cooker: the lid is sealed by the "entrenched incumbents" on top, and the fire beneath is the Central State's insatiable need for more tax revenues to support the entrenched incumbents and its growing army of dependents.

Let's start our analysis of the three-and-a-half-class society by noting that the top 25% pay most of the Federal income tax, and within that "middle class" the top 10% pay the lion's share of all taxes.

The top 25% of taxpayers--34 million workers out of a workforce of 160 million and 140 million wage earners--pay almost 90% of all Federal income taxes. Where Do You Rank as a Taxpayer?
An adjusted gross income (AGI) of $66,193 or more puts you in the top 25% of earners. The top-earning 25% of taxpayers reported 65.81% of all AGI and paid 87.30% of total federal income taxes ( $755.9 billion).
How much do you need to make to be in the top 50% of earners? Just $32,396. Fall below that level and you are in the bottom half, along with nearly 70 million of your fellow taxpayers. All told, that group earned just 13% of the income reported on 2009 tax returns. And they coughed up 2.25% of all the income taxes paid.
The second class is made up of the working poor: 38 Million Workers Made Less Than $10,000 in 2010-- Equal to California's Population (The Atlantic magazine)

Only 104 million tax returns actually pay any Federal tax: Many Unhappy Returns?(America's aggregate 1040, from IRS tax data).
In 2009, the IRS reported 140.5 Million personal income tax returns were filed. From this starting point, 36.3 Million returns (or, one quarter of the total) are lost to the tax base because of losses, exclusions or deductions. By line 43, taxable income, only 104.2 Million returns survive. In aggregate dollar amounts, total income from all sources falls from $7.7 Trillion to $5.1 Trillion — a decline of more than one-third. This latter amount is what truly constitutes the tax base, since it is the income ultimately subjected to tax.
According to the Census figures, the median annual income for a male full-time, year-round worker in 2010 — $47,715 — was virtually unchanged, in 2010 dollars, from its level in 1973, when it was $49,065.
After including earned-income tax credits, the bottom 60% of households paid less than 1% of all Federal income taxes, and the households between 60% and 80% paid 13%.

The top 20% paid 68.7% of all Federal taxes: Income taxes, Social Security and Medicare, excise and corporate taxes. The top 10% of households paid fully 72.7% of all Federal income tax, the top 5% paid 60.7%, and the top 1% paid 38.8%.

Here are the source documents:


A number of commentators have noted that the incomes of the super-wealthy (which I define as the top 1% who own most of the productive assets of the nation) have risen even more than their taxes. They also note that the Social Security tax of 7.65% (employee and employer each pay 7.65%) is regressive, as those making $500,000 a year only pay tax on the first $108,000 of income: 47% Of American Families Pay No Income Tax! Really?

My conclusion is this: by heavily taxing earned income, the system extracts the highest taxes from the most productive citizens, leaving the less-productive with essentially no income taxes and the super-wealthy with the huge tax break offered to capital gains and other unearned income.

In essence, this is a vote-buying scheme by the Status Quo: the top 1% control the policies of the State in alliance with the State's own Elites, and together they buy the complicity of the bottom 60% to passively accept their dominance.
In other words, the bottom 60% pay relatively modest taxes or are recipients of Central State aid and the top 1% who "own" the political process limit their taxes by favoring unearned income (what they collect from sales of securities, stock options, rents, etc.). Thus the productive quintile (top wage earners) pay the highest tax rates and most of the taxes.

It's a partnership of "Tyranny of the Majority" and "entrenched incumbents Elites." If the political Status Quo alienates the majority by making them pay more taxes, they risk losing power in the next election. If they alienate the top .5% who fund their multi-million-dollar campaigns, then they will also lose power. So they heap the tax burden on what remains of the middle class.

When that 20% rebels, falters or opts out, the system collapses for want of tax revenues. Not coincidentally, that happens to fit the Pareto Distribution: the 20% "vital few" exert outsized influence on the 80%--once the pressure cooker blows.