Questioning and Skepticism

Another Inconvenient Truth

Posted on April 1, 2014 by admin

An inconvenient truth is a truth no one likes to admit, and thus it is inconvenient and causes problems or difficulties for someone. The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives. Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it has become a true planetary emergency and we must recognize that we are facing a crisis. The 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, starring former US Vice President Al Gore, did raise public awareness – we seem to be sitting on a ticking time bomb. So why is it that some leaders seem not to hear the clarion warnings? Big oil companies have spent millions of dollars over the last decade trying to confuse the public on global warming in order to maintain the status quo.

An Inconvenient Truth identified the facts that humans are responsible for climate change, and the effects can be devastating. Since the 1970s, the extent & thickness of the Arctic ice cap has diminished precipitously. There are now studies showing that if we continue with business as usual, the Arctic ice cap will completely disappear each year during summertime. At present, it plays a crucial role in cooling the Earth. Preventing its disappearance must be one of our priorities. The message is current technology can reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 1970 levels. This response involves multiple approaches: reduction of oil consumption by the more efficient use of electricity in heating and cooling systems, lighting, appliances and electronic equipment; increased vehicle efficiency by manufacturing cars that run on less gas and putting more hybrid and fuel-cell cars on the roads; reduction of use of fossil fuels can be achieved by changes in transport efficiency, such as designing better mass transit systems, and increased reliance on renewable energy technologies that already exist. All these actions impact the oil industry’s bottom line.

The correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 1,000 years – as measured in the ice core record from Greenland – is striking. Nevertheless, the so-called global warming skeptics often say that global warming is really an illusion reflecting nature’s cyclical fluctuations. To support their view, they frequently refer to the Medieval Warm Period. But the historical thermometer shows the vaunted Medieval Warm Period was tiny compared to the enormous increases in temperature of the last half-century. There is a debate over how fast the polar ice caps will melt – and detractors use databases with the minimal rise in ocean levels excluding Greenland and Antarctica (because researchers could not quantify the amount of melt, not because it will not be significant). The documentary suggested the conveyor (thermohaline circulation) in the north Atlantic would disappear, while IPCC model has it slowing down by 30%. We don’t know what the consequences of a slow down will be, or when it will appear, because it depends on the efforts put in place to reduce the pollution that causes global warming. However, thousands of other facts in the movie have gone unchallenged.¹

Cigarettes did not become popular until the development of automated equipment to make them in the 19^th century. The tobacco industry was set up to reap huge profits. During the 1940s, the tobacco companies promoted the health benefits of cigarettes – preventing colds and relaxing individuals. Lung cancer was rare in the early 1900s but by the mid-20^th century it had become an epidemic. A 1950 medical report described a casual association between the smoking of cigarettes and lung cancer.

In 1952, a Readers’ Digest article decried the negative health consequences of cigarette smoking. The following year was the first year in two decades that the sale of cigarettes dropped. The tobacco industry responded by setting up the Council for Tobacco Research. This was the beginning of a survival strategy. This meant denying the health consequences of smoking. Deceiving customers about the true nature of cigarettes through marketing and PR, as well as damaging the credibility of industry opponents. This including introducing distractions by drawing attentions to other agents like radon gas, asbestos, arsenic, silica and chromium. The tobacco companies joined many associations who typically oppose taxation and promoted themselves as supporters of freedom of expression, but blocked making available any information linking smoking to death or any negative outcomes.

In the 1960s lung cancer was only a few per 100,000 in non-smokers, but over 300 per hundred thousand in smokers. At the time, the Tobacco Research Council funded studies that suggested there was no cause and effect between smoking and lung cancer, and suggested that air pollution should be considered. A long series of court cases (all of which the tobacco lobby won) were based on a lack of evidence – the illness was not causally related. In 1978 scientists discovered the suppressor gene p53 – when it detects DNA damage p53 halts cell division and stimulates the DNA repair enzymes that fix the problem. Mutations that inactivate p53 remove a key barrier to unrestricted cell decision. Benzopyrene, a potent mutagen found in cigarette smoke, binds directly to the tumor suppressor gene p53 and mutates it into the inactive form. This was the link proving chemicals in cigarette smoke cause mutations causing lung cancer and after this study cigarette companies abandoned their claim that cigarettes have not been shown to cause cancer.

In spite of the scientific revolution, new ideas from science can take awhile to have an effect. Corporations have adopted the disinformation programs perfected by the tobacco industry over the past fifty years. These tactics include introducing manufactured uncertainty by raising doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence, by setting up so called independent front organizations to publically promote its desired message. This includes cherry picking scientific spokespeople whose interpretations of the peer-reviewed literature suggest to the media and the public that the debate amongst scientists continues, and the results are not definitive. Industries sponsor sophisticated research activities that include both funding of established research institutions, as well as funding of advocacy and ideological organizations to conduct disinformation campaign – leaving public and law makers confused. The best example of recent public health advocacy and eventually control of a chronic disease was the success of 50 years of efforts in tobacco reduction strategy, and second-hand smoke control. ²

The chief propagandists of neoliberalism, were Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, who, in 1947, founded the Mont Pelerin Society, to coordinate the creation of an international network of think-tanks and foundations, to spread trickle down ideology.³ Subsequently, right-leaning think-tanks were established around the world “to improve public understanding … of the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.” Hayek inspired Antony Fisher to establish the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) in London during 1955, the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., during 1973, and the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research in New York City during 1977 and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in 1981. In turn, the Atlas Foundation supports a wide network of think tanks, including the Fraser Institute (established in 1974 in British Columbia). As the think-tanks evolved they took a page out of the tobacco industry playbook and incorporated it into their communication strategy.⁴

The oil industry is known for their heavy financial support to organizations that promote doubt over climate science, peddle fossil fuel use and attack clean energy alternatives. The Heritage Foundation has played a consistent role in promoting the oil ideology. Senator Jim DeMint became the president of the Heritage Foundation in 2013. As a Senator, he defended the fairness of giving billions of dollars in subsidies to Big Oil. As president of the Heritage Foundation he champions slashing funds for welfare programs to support a pro growth agenda. The problem, DeMint claims, is centralized planning of big government that doesn’t work – it creates a culture of dependency that can trap people. In fact, he is aware that Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute scoured dozens of research studies and found no evidence that income inequality causes less economic mobility or slower economic growth. This he claims, supports his ideas that government programs are stifling upward mobility.⁵

The Fraser Institute, a right-leaning think tank, has supported climate-change skeptics for nearly a decade. The Fraser Institute has argued that right-to-work states have seen more rapid employment growth than those without. An analysis of the Ontario conservative party plans for right-to work would put the middle class out of reach for many. Using Statistics Canada’s Longitudinal Administrative Databank, a recent Fraser Institute study, Measuring Income Mobility in Canada, tracks a cohort of over a million Canadians from 1990 to 2009 to see how their incomes changed. Their study claims that the middle class is not in trouble – over the period studied low-income individuals were advancing economically.⁶ However, Michael Wolfson, a former statistician from Statscan, had previously used the same database and came to the opposite conclusion. The authors of the Fraser Institute study have yet to publish the details of their income groups.⁷

A study reported in Psychological Science in 2011 claims that statisticians can prove almost anything. This is otherwise known as confirmation bias, or the tendency to favour ideas that fit with one’s settled positions. The study reports that it is not unusual for a researcher to falsely find evidence that an effect exists than to correctly find evidence that it does not. This report creates significant doubt on any researcher who claims his findings are ‘statistically significant.’ One field, which is losing credibility because of this factor, is psychology, and, in particular, social psychology that merges with economics. The root problem is researchers’ degrees of freedom – the flexibility on data use – that “lead to bias at best, and nonsense at worst”.⁸ The Fraser Institute article identifies the need for more details to determine the significance of the income mobility report. So just when there is a requirement for better data to target programs on poverty, Prime Minister Steven Harper, a politician well connected to the Fraser Institute, cancelled the long census form in 2013, that used to accompany tax forms – pandering to the speaking points of less government carries the day.

The agenda of organizations like the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute include industrial and environmental deregulation, the privatization of government services, deep reductions in federal anti-poverty spending and the transfer of authority and responsibility for social welfare from the national government to the charitable sector and state or provincial and local government. Occupy Wall Street protesters challenged the excesses of the corporations in general, and in particular, a government controlled by corporate money and the growing income gap between the very wealthy and the rest in society. The singular success of Occupy Wall Street is to put inequality on the political agenda. The truth is as income inequality increases social mobility decreases.

The tobacco industry was involved in over fifty years of minimizing the hazards of cigarette smoking through various methods, such as suggesting factors like air pollution may be involved in lung cancer. The consequence of these activities was the delaying of the decision to intervene with public health programs to reduce smoking in the general public to prevent chronic disease and early deaths. Another inconvenient truth, but a truth that must be addressed, nonetheless, is the increasing income gap between the wealthy and the rest of society and the subsequent loss of social mobility. There is a need in the 21^st century to circumvent activities by various think-tanks to create doubt of the effects of inequality that prevents progressive government initiatives to address the issue. Changes are necessary to address wealth distribution to ensure the freedom of individuals to reach their full potential.

¹Masters, Jeffery. “Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.” http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/gore.asp

²Horsman, Greg. Evolutionary Economics and Equality: An age of Enlightenment, p 25-26.

³Horsman, Greg. ( 6 Oct 2012) “Trickle Down Ideology.” http://questioningandskepticism.com/2012/10/06/trickle-down-ideology/

⁴Livingston, David. The Fraser Institute and the Subversion of Canadian Society http://www.thedyinggod.com/node/108

⁵DeMint, Jim. (18 Jan 2014) Why President Obama’s Approach to Poverty Won’t Work http://blog.heritage.org/2014/01/18/president-obamas-approach-poverty-wont-work/

⁶Veldhuis, Niels, Lammam, Charles, Karabegovic. (Jan 2013) “The ‘poor’ are getting RICHER” http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/articles/poor-are-getting-richer-jan2013.pdf

⁷Wolfson, Michael. (4 Dec 2012) “In Canada, “Rags to Riches” Is a Myth.” http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/michael-wolfson/income-inequality-canada_b_2234034.html

⁸Brean, Joseph. Statisticians can prove almost anything, a new study finds. (20 Nov 2011) http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/20/statisticians-can-prove-almost-anything-a-new-study-finds/

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged Al Gore, Fraser Institute, Friedrich Hayek, Heritage Foundation, Jim DeMint, Milton Friedman, Occupy Wall Street | 1 Comment

End A Decade of Lost Opportunities and Invest in the Future

Posted on March 1, 2014 by admin

Working age poverty is defined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as the proportion of individuals aged 18 to 65 years with equivalized disposable income less than 50% of the median income of the entire population in a given country. A 2013 study of seventeen countries analyzed by the OECD reported that the three countries with the highest working-age poverty are Canada, Japan and the US. The countries with the lowest rate are Denmark, Switzerland, Finland and Austria. The working age poverty rates in Canada and the US are more than three times the working-age poverty rate in Denmark (the country with the lowest rate). High rates of poverty among working age populations indicate wasted human resources, opportunities, and public spending. The OECD concludes, “failure to tackle the poverty and exclusion facing millions of families and their children is not only socially reprehensible, but it will also weigh heavily on countries’ capacity to sustain economic growth in the years to come.”¹

The second largest bubble of the 20^th century occurred in Japan. Japanese industry gained a competitive edge by copying Western products, improving upon them and selling them back to the West for cheaper prices. The energy crisis of the 1970s reduced the appeal of the traditional large gas-guzzling American style cars and consumers turned to the smaller more fuel efficient vehicles made by Japanese auto makers. In the 1970s and the 1980s Japan dominated the global electronics industry as it manufactured the majority of the world’s consumer electronics products and introduced new innovative products such as the pocket transistor radio, VHS recorder, and the Sony Walkman. They also dominated in the manufacture of semi-conductor chips used in the manufacture of computers. These economic successes became known as Japan’s ‘economic miracle’.

The combination of Japan’s trading trade surpluses, financial deregulation and the country’s export “miracle” eventually led to overconfidence and over exuberance in Japan’s economy, which became the second largest economy in the world after the USA in just a few decades. Banks started to take increasingly excessive risks that were partly funded by 186 trillion worth of Yen borrowed from various capital markets. Aggressive speculation in domestic stocks and real estate pushed the prices of these assets skyward. From 1985 to 1989 Japan’s Nikkei stock index tripled and accounted for more than one-third of the world’s stock market capitalization.

The keiretsu (business) conglomerates practice of cross-holding each other’s shares played a significant role in boosting stock prices and cause Japanese corporate wealth to balloon along with stock prices. These firms obtained low interest rate loans and used them to purchase stocks and real estate – creating a Ponzi financial system in which earnings poured in as long as asset prices continued to rise. In 1989 the Bank of Japan became concerned and tightened its monetary policy. The Nikkei bubble burst and by 1992 had plunged from 39,000 to 15,000. The imploding stock bubble popped the country’s real estate bubble, throwing the country into financial crisis and halting the three-decade-old ‘economic miracle’ in its tracks. Japan lost its competitive edge against Asian exporters such as China and South Korea. The government tried to keep unprofitable debt-ridden companies afloat through repeated government bailouts. The near zero interest rates of the past two decades have failed to revive the economy. This economic downturn has become known as Japan’s ‘Lost Decades’.¹

Following the collapse of the Internet bubble, a long period of low interest rates was encouraged by the US government to support the ongoing expansion of housing as it became the main driver of the economy. There was confidence that the global economy didn’t require regulation, and could self-correct from any excess. The US banking oligarchy ensured politicians who needed funds for re-election were supportive of activities such as allowing banks to assign their own risk level.

The market was leveraged by bundling regular mortgages with high risk mortgages – creating new and alluring securities that could be bundled together and sold (to pension funds as low risk products) as alternatives to traditional bonds and traditional government bonds. To lure in more borrowers, the sub-prime mortgage with initially low interest rates was promoted – which worked perfectly as long as interest rates stayed low. It became a Ponzi finance system based on the idea that housing prices would appreciate into the foreseeable future. Homes were used as piggy banks at the height of the real estate boom. People refinanced high-interest credit cards with a low interest second mortgage on their home.²

The economic debacle of 2008 followed years of deregulation and manipulation of the banking system to maximize profits. When the economy slowed down the housing bubble burst. Subsequently US and European governments had to prop up the banks. Middle class workers lost their jobs, many their homes, and their pensions. Many now have to work longer than planned to shore up their pension funds. The costs of the global financial crisis, which has left its mark on all corners of the world, are not expected to disappear overnight – groups campaigning against poverty and globalization have been making this point for a while.

What are the characteristics of the three counties (Canada, US & Japan) with the highest working-age poverty rates? The answer lies in the fact that half of all employees in Japan under age 39 have part time jobs. These part time workers make about 40% less than full time workers and account for the working-wage poverty in Japan. Japan has experienced the burst of a bubble economy, financial crisis, and more than a decade-long deflation and stagnation. With respect to the West, the housing bubble burst, triggered a financial crisis in 2008, and the Western economies have yet to recover. Paul Krugman notes the Fed is projecting elevated unemployment nine full years after the 2008 economic debacle – on track for a lost decade.³ He claims the recession is greater than that that triggered the lost decades in Japan.

Initially Canada appeared to be riding out the storm – banks with less exposure in 2008 and spade ready projects in place in 2009. Today the Canadian economy is now limping along amid weakened demand for many of the country’s major exports. Part of the reason, says governor of Bank of Canada Poloz, is that the country lost about 9,000 exporting companies in the aftermath of the 2008-09 recession (this doesn’t include 1000 jobs loss in the potash industry and the 1700 from Bombardier announced since December 2013). Other factors include changes in trade advantages for Canada’s main trading partner: an increase in the number of right-to-work states in the U.S. that have brought down labour costs; a shale oil and gas revolution; and low gas prices that have decreased energy input costs for many U.S. manufacturers.⁴

In the mid-1990s Japan turned to short-term workers – disproportionately young. Under the old system of life-long employment, firms invested in training their workers. Now with the switch to short-term contracts, the firms are no longer interested in investing in the human capital of their employees. Thus young workers accumulated fewer skills and have poorer wage prospects whether in their current jobs or the outside labour market. Japan’s traditional manufacturers have become commoditized relying for profit on low-cost production based in low-income countries. One year after Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe launched abenomics in Japan driven by government infrastructure spending and increased real estate purchases prior to a sales tax increase, the Japanese economy remains tepid.

Canadian federal conservatives pride themselves in management competence. The present Canadian federal government no longer supports the long census with tax forms, so just when the requirement for better data to target programs on poverty, pandering to the speaking points of less government carries the day. Their job training program provides grants to companies to train workers often for jobs companies would need to do this anyway – part of the corporate welfare system. This government spends millions in advertising dollars to promote the success of the program. This includes spending money to advertise jobs that do not exist.⁵ Over the last decade Canada’s social safety net has been degraded – now more than 11% of working-age Canadians live in relative poverty.

The supporters of small government and minimal regulations – trickle down economics – in the US rely on the social program of job creation to address poverty. This means waiting for the markets to respond, or complaining for the need for less regulation to encourage job growth. Paul Krugman a representative of progressive policies, also embraces job production to fight poverty. His solution is to borrow money and invest in immediate massive government jobs program rebuilding infrastructure. The conservatives in the US Congress believe that not renewing long-term unemployment benefits is the right decision as it will force workers to work in minimum wage jobs to survive rather than being able to wait the a better job, (and in the process challenge Japan for the highest rate of working-age poverty).

In Canada and the US care is seen as parental responsibility with government intervening only to support the labour force participation of low-income families. The availability of the care and its quality tends to be of secondary concern, particularly when the objective is the employment of single mothers. In contrast, the Scandinavian countries have built an extensive network of income supports and public services to facilitate women’s economic and social contribution. A childcare system can only exist in the presence of a public policy framework developed on a national basis.

The Conference Board of Canada notes the debate about the most effective way to reduce poverty revolves around striking the appropriate balance between a ‘benefits strategy’ and a ‘work strategy’. The debate hinges on the apparent trade-off between ensuring adequate income assistance for those in need, while providing incentives for people to work and be self-sufficient. The relationship between social spending and poverty rates is striking. Among the working-age population, relative poverty rates are lowest in countries where social spending (as a percentage of GPD) is the highest.⁶

Countries that have reduced poverty rates have turned away from passive, benefits-only poverty reduction approaches in favour of national anti-poverty strategies that incorporate a number of ‘active’ policies. Active policies are social policies that integrate strategies across governments, departments and service providers to reduce poverty, and increase self-sufficiency. For example active job policies may be set up to help people overcome obstacles to get jobs through a combination of funding job training, providing childcare, introducing tax incentives for lower paid workers. The answer lies in funding ‘real’ job training, providing childcare, and tax incentives to reduce working-age poverty.

The majority of the elected politicians in the Canadian Parliament and the US Congress are proponents of meritocracy and argue that it is more just and productive, allowing for distinctions to be made on the basis of performance. Meritocracy is a concept that eventually turns into an oligarchy. Chris Hayes notes, over time, a society will become more unequal and less mobile as those who ascend its heights create means of preserving and defending their privilege and find ways to pass it on across generations.⁷ The consequence is that income inequality has been growing in Canada and the US for the past 40 years. During the same period social mobility decreases while the new elite uses the dogma of small government and minimal regulations to defend their success.

The small government and minimal regulations mindset has heralded the globalization of indifference that prevents progressive government initiatives to address the issue. Under globalization countries compete for the world’s investment capital, which removes traditional government accountability – affecting the ability of elected leaders in democratic countries to make decisions in the interests of the workers. This creates a lack of ability of those affected by decisions to protect their legitimate rights and interests. The consequence of this economic policy, exacerbated by the economic debacle of 2008, is a decade of lost opportunities for many workers in Canada and the US. The question is how to end this indifference. Governments need to be more accountable to the people. The success of the top countries in maintaining low working poverty rates is attributed to a universal welfare policy that has been effectively combined with job creation strategies that support gender equality and accessibility. This is about investing in the future.

¹Colombo, Jesse. (4 June 2012) “Japan’s Bubble Economy of the 1980s.” <http://www.thebubblebubble.com/japan-bubble/>.

²Horsman, Greg (2012) Objectivism Lost: and an Age of Disillusionment. p 163

³Krugman, Paul. (13 Dec 2012) Lost Decade Watch. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/lost-decade-watch/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

⁴Canadian economy missed expectations in 2013. Will 2014 perform better? (1 Jan 2014) http://business.financialpost.com/2014/01/01/canadian-economy-missed-expectations-in-2013-will-2014-perform-better/

⁵Curry, Bill. “Government spends millions on ads for ‘Economic Action Plan’ that ended two years ago.” (25 Jan 2014) http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-ad-spending-exceeds-projections/article16503725/

⁶Working Age Poverty http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/working-age-poverty.aspx?pf=true

⁷Hayes, Christopher. Why Elites Fail. http://www.thenation.com/article/168265/why-elites-fail

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged Lost Decades, meritocracy, right-to-work, working-age poverty | Leave a comment

Removing Barriers to Good Health

Posted on February 1, 2014 by admin

In 1986 a World Health Organization (WHO) statement stated that in order to reach a state of health “an individual or group must be able to realize aspirations and satisfy needs, and to change or cope with the environment.” Health is affected by the inequalities in the social determinants of health. The social determinants of health are the conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age. These circumstances are shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. In 2003, a WHO working group identified ten social determinants of health: social gradient, stress, early life, social exclusion, work, unemployment, social support, addiction, food and transport. There is a strong and widespread consensus that income and social status are the most important determinants of health across populations. The lower people are on the socioeconomic hierarchy the higher their risk of developing chronic diseases, and the shorter their life expectancy. Income level interacts with other determinants to create differences in life experiences – quality of early life, education, employment and working conditions, food security, housing, social exclusion, etc. – and differences in health status.

Inequity and inequality are not interchangeable. Inequity is unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption or cultural exclusion. It is the result of human failure giving rise to avoidable deaths and disease. Health equity is the absence of systemic disparities in health (or in the major social determinants of health). In the past, health inequalities were not considered inequities, and thus did not deserve attention (for if differences are not unfair differences or unjust differences, then they can be minimized and shrugged off). There is a new reference framework – consider every health inequality or disparity as a health inequity until it can be proven it is not – by grounding thinking in the human right to health or wellness.

The World Conference on Social Determinants of Health brought together Member States and stakeholders to share experiences on policies and strategies aimed at reducing health inequities. The World Conference in October 2011 developed the Rio Political Determinants of Health, a political statement of commitment for the implementation of the social determinants of health approach to reduce health inequities and to build support for the implementation of action on social determinants of health. The meeting identified nine broad areas, or social determinants themes. Two of the themes identify that the type of health care system is important. One theme identifies that globalization affects health and the social determinants of health through changes in social stratification, differential exposure to vulnerability, health system characteristics. The other theme identifies that health systems as important determinants of health, and, in particular, the way health systems are designed operated and financed act as a powerful determinant of health.¹ In November 2013 WHO launched the Economics of Social Determinants of Health project to describe and discuss the potential for economic rationales to make the case for social determinants of health interventions, and to summarize economic evidence in key public policy areas.

The health care systems in Canada and the US are important determinants of health. In 1968, the Canada Health Act set out to develop relatively uniform level of resources dedicated to health care across Canada. The Canada Health Act contains five principles: public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability of benefits, and accessibility. Three of the five variables that define the architecture have a pan-Canadian dimension – who pays, what is covered and who decides. But the other two factors, namely, where care is delivered, and by whom are decided by the provinces. In the US the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was signed into law to reform he healthcare industry by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. The goal of Obamacare is to give more Americans access to affordable, quality healthcare insurance, and to reduce the growth of healthcare spending in the US. The Affordable Care Act expands the affordability, quality, and availability of private and public health insurance through consumer protections, regulations, subsidies, taxes, insurance exchanges and other reforms. States have either implemented a state run health insurance exchange, or let the federal government run the health insurance exchange for them. Neither system was an attempt at social engineering.

The profound improvements in health in industrialized countries are primarily not due to advances in medicine or health care, but rather in the kind of societies in which we live, and are due to improvements in general living conditions. There is a growing body of evidence about what makes people healthy. This evidence suggests that the contribution of medicine and health care is quite limited, and that spending more on health care will not result in significant further improvements in population health. It appears that lifestyle behaviours – smoking, diet and physical activity account for small variations of incidence in heart disease, cancer and diabetes. It is now apparent that social determinants of health are more important to the health of Canadians and Americans than biomedical and life style factors.

There was a time when the middle class – really anyone who falls between the rich and the working poor – occupied a wide and comfortable place in society. It meant a stable job, a house with a yard, a two car garage, a perhaps a nice pension. Where did the middle class come from? During the 1950s the gradually expanding economy created prosperity throughout North America. The 1950s are considered the decade that eliminated poverty for the great majority of Canadian and US citizens. The decade was associated with the shift from suburban areas to suburbs, with the supply of housing increasing 27%. With a shorter workweek and increased disposable income the middle class adopted conservative values. The problem during the last four decades is the middle class has not grown (household incomes peaked in 1973). The existing middle class is now earning less compared to those higher up on the wealth scale, and they are working harder for what they get.

The economic system that created the middle class and eliminated poverty in Canada and the US differs from the economic system of trickle down economics that has evolved over the past 30 years. While the actual gap between the rich and the rest is far greater in the US, the inequality is growing faster in Canada than the US. The US has the most unequal society of any industrialized country, so saying “things are better in Canada than the US” does not represent a great achievement considering how low the benchmark is set. The growth in inequality is being driven by an accumulation of wealth among the very top income earners, while the middle class lower income earners continue to stagnate. The great equalizers – universal health care, education, and pensions are under threat, as cash-strapped governments look to trim budgets. Today the middle class is under tremendous pressure – many believe the deck is stacked against them.²

Hope and optimism of the future is key to health and well-being. A study by Wilkinson and Pickett, researchers from the United Kingdom, claim that societies like Japan and Norway, where the middle class is prominent and the pendulum swing from excessively wealthy to poor was far less, has the greatest health, longevity well-being and the least anxiety and depression. Living in a society that tolerates large gaps between the rich and the poor is bad for your health. In a big gap society those lower down the ladder experience more chronic stress that those towards the top.³

A big part of wellness is having meaning in one’s life and the sense that one is contributing to the world whether it be making a difference in the lives of friends and family, ecology or vocation. This has a great deal to do with attitude. Not surprisingly, much stress in in society can be attributed to economic inequality. In fact, economic inequality may have an effect on our overall health than any other single factor. Research has shown economic inequality to be a primary cause of illness.

Health is a resource for everyday life. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources as well as physical capabilities. The inequities of health are measured by the spread in life expectancies between poor and rich neighborhoods, and the need to disseminate knowledge and learning to all local authorities and their partners. These social determinants of health are the social, economic and environmental conditions that influence the health of individuals and populations. They include the conditions of daily life and the structural influences upon them, themselves shaped by the distribution of money, power and resources at global, national and local levels. They determine the extent to which a person has the right physical, social and personal resources to achieve their full potential.⁴

In addition to an individual’s income affecting whether he or she stays healthy or become’s ill, research is finding that the overall health of all members of a society is more determined by the distribution of income rather than by the overall wealth of the society.⁵ The healthiest (and happiest) countries in the world are not the richest, rather the countries where wealth is shared widely and more equally. These differences create health inequities. Removing barriers to health creates health equity – allowing everyone to reach their full health potential and not be disadvantaged from attaining this potential as a result of their class, socioeconomic status or other socially determined circumstance. This includes removing barriers to those with disabilities and creating opportunities to access good healthcare. Removing barriers to good health requiress addressing the income gap between the wealthy and the rest of society.

1 “Rio Political Declaration on Social Determinants of Health.” http://www.who.int/sdhconference/declaration/en/

2 Horsman, Greg. Occupy Wall Street Success (1 Dec 2012) http://questioningandskepticism.com/2012/12/01/occupy-wall-street-success/

3 Rabin, Mitchell. “The Stress of Inequality and its Powerful Effect on Health.” <http://www.naturalnews.com/031674_inequality_health.html>.

4 “The Social Determinants of Health.” <http://www.local.gov.uk/web/guest/health/-/journal_content/56/10171/3510325/ARTICLE-TEMPLATE>.

5 Wilkinson, R.G Unhealthy Societies:the Afflictions of Inequality. New York: Routledge, 1996.

Posted in economic inequality, Health | Tagged income gap, inequity, social determinants of health | 1 Comment

1984 And Big Brother

Posted on January 1, 2014 by admin

George Orwell’s novel, 1984, written after the Second World War, introduced a concept of reality control that the population could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday language and thought. Doublespeak was the method for controlling thought directly. Doublethink is the ability to simultaneously believe in at least two or more mutually contradictory concepts without any cognitive dissonance. You know better and what’s really true, but you keep on believing your own lies. The system requires that all citizens believe every thing that the Party says, even though they know for a fact that it is not true. Ingrained in this concept is also the idea that your mind makes it real. If everyone believes that something is true, then it is true. Thus the Party can literally dictate reality.

Doublethink becomes essential for the functioning of the Party – to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing them and to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies – all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able to control the course of history.

The use of fear and perpetual war was used to keep the citizens of Oceania under control. The fact they handed over the power to a small cast seems natural, unavoidable condition of survival. In Orwell’s 1984 there was a daily period in which party members of the society of Oceania must watch a film depicting the Party’s enemies, and express their hatred of them. This process created a sense of community. There also included the hate week excitement to divert attention from domestic problems, promote national unity, and, where necessary, to motivate people to kill other people in wars. Hatred makes people stick together to form a community.

Ronald Reagan’s re-election campaign in 1984 was about packaging images – it was about his administration’s ability to manipulate news coverage. Rather than focus on rational dry issues Reagan’s handlers recognized how to appeal to the people, consequently developed a plan to focus on the image the campaign conveys. This is illustrated by a how a visit to the Rockwell plant in California where the B1 bomber was made was handled. In order to focus the attention away from the B1 bombers, there was a huge ‘Prepared for Peace’ sign behind Reagan when he made his speech. This eliminated the negative that Reagan was more likely to get the country into war than his opponent. (He presided over the largest military buildup in US history.) The mainstream media dutifully reported Reagan is preparing for peace. Reagan’s handlers were brilliant – they knew that facts are secondary to what is reported on TV.¹

During this time the mainstream media was becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of corporate owners. With maximization of profit the driver, the quality of the media is negatively impacted. In television money comes from advertising, not the quality of the programing. Advertisers pay based on the amount of viewers a station has. In this competition, issues and hard news do not attract people. This presented opportunities for the Reagan administration to present the media with pre-packaged stories, frame the issue for them, then allow them to ‘cover it’. Reagan enjoyed a resurgent economy, and American citizens wanted to deny the many political problems in the country, and turned to a leader who reassured the nation that respect and prestige for America was re-established – once more it was “morning again in America”.² After the 1984 Ronald Reagan landslide election, his second term set in earnest to dismantle the welfare state and shrink the size of government – the Reagan revolution continued unabated.

In 1984, Charles Murray published Losing Ground. It was described by the New York Times Review of Books as a “persuasive . . . new variation on Social Darwinism.” Its central thesis was that all government welfare programs should be abolished, supposedly because welfare hurt the very people it was intended to help by “rewarding bad behavior” such as “illegitimate babies.” Murray also called for ending food stamp programs. The New York Times wrote in 1985 that Losing Ground became “this year’s budget-cutters’ bible” noting, “in agency after agency, officials cite the Murray book as a philosophical base” for slashing social programs.³

Murray’s manipulation of data claimed to show welfare programs were the cause of minority poverty, rather than the cure. In order to get the numbers to work to “prove” that liberal social welfare spending created poverty, Murray excluded government spending on the elderly from his “evidence.” As Lester Thurow, former dean of MIT’s Sloan School of Management noted, 86% of federal social welfare spending went to programs to help the elderly; and the poverty rate for the elderly dropped from 25.3% in 1969 to 14.1% in 1983, refuting Murray’s thesis. (The welfare system was actually working.) Thurow’s conclusion: “The purpose of Losing Ground is to help President Reagan shoot a silver bullet into the heart of the monster called social welfare spending.”³

In a 1997 speech at an event hosted by the Libertarian Party of Los Angeles County, Murray cheered the explosion of wealth inequality since the start of the Reagan Revolution, noting that greater concentration of wealth meant the rich had much more political power, “making it harder for politicians to bash the rich than it used to.” While the majority of the people on welfare are white, Murray’s efforts triggered a war on African American welfare recipients by painting them as undermining the free market system and family values, which, in turn, united various sectors of the right.³

Thirty years after Reagan’s re-election in 1984 the economic theory that claims cutting the taxes of the rich will provide jobs for the rest of society has become the dominant economic theory. This policy of minimal taxes and government continues to create a growing income gap between the wealthy and the rest of society – removing social mobility for most of society. The program is perpetuated by fear – if taxes are raised unemployment will rise and existing jobs will disappear. This goal is achieved through using perceived and real crisis by triggering so-called crisis management situations that require government program reductions. Ongoing tax reductions create budget implications of deficit financing that dictates this crisis management – (with decisions that support their talking points on less government) such as the need to cut government programs that include environmental monitoring, and social safety nets.

Previous dictators made the mistake of mixing equalitarian propaganda with their purpose. The oligarchy presently manipulating the system is not making that mistake. They claim that inequality is a key part of the economic system, and rely on doublespeak to explain it. Their argument is meritocracy is more just and productive, allowing for distinctions to be made on the basis of performance.⁴George Orwell’s prophesy in his novel 1984 was the appearance of a state in which the truth does not exist; it is merely what ‘big brother’ says it is.

The conservatives have done such a skillful job of selling the crisis, many middle class folks who are being harmed by these economic policies actively support trickle down economics. Even when individuals may be exposed to new ideas the conservatives have their own media – radio and television – to control cognitive dissonance by ensuring that any new ideas that do not support their dogma are countered, such as reassuring everyone that cutting taxes and small government will address economic issues, and everything will be fine. Thirty years after Charles Murray began his attack on welfare, the US poverty rate for children is the second highest in the world among similar developed economies (just behind Romania).⁵ While conservatives promote policies that support the family, the consequences of these economic theories are that many families need two incomes to meet monthly bills, and quality time for their family has been significantly eroded. The war on poverty became a war on the family.

Today because of various levels of manipulation only 50% of what you read or hear in the media is true. There are mixed messages from the media explaining the effects of Edward Snowden’s disclosure of the extent of government surveillance. One explanation is that it is part of the war on terror and the world is much safer because of it. The other explanation is this establishes that big brother exists and the state is interfering in your privacy through massive spying initiatives. The challenge is – what part of either statement is true? Well, big brother exists, but is comprised of global corporations rather than the government, and the scope of interference is greater than just monitoring – it is about controlling what you think. The big oil companies, one of the biggest contributors to carbon dioxide emissions and climate change denial, control the debate on climate change, as well as the response to climate change – the solution being new cleaner fuel – natural gas obtained from fracking. Agribusiness not only relies on the special formula of sugar, fat and salt for sales, the product image includes the psychology and the marketing that compels us to toss packages of processed food in the cart – you are hooked on inexpensive food.⁶Corporations monitor your activity through your electronic purchases and diverse Internet activities. The big banks control what you think through proxies who control the information and communication supporting laissez-faire capitalism, and through their lobbyists who influence what most of your politicians believe – the need for small government and less regulation to drive a global economy.

“Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” is an Orwell quote from 1984. Thirty years ago (the past) the plans began in earnest to dismantle the welfare state and shrink the size of government with the introduction of trickle down economics which has created an economic system with increasing income disparity between the rich and the rest of society. Today, the oligarchy manipulate the media and control the politicians (in the present) to ensure messaging that creates fear of change to such ideas as turning to a system with emphasis on stability, social conscience and regulation. Until nation states restore the primacy of politics (management of the state) over commerce, and individuals continue to be lulled to complacency by the narcotic of technological innovation, big brother will continue to tell you what is true.

1 “Reagan on the News” http://it.stlawu.edu/~quack/seminar/reagan_news.htm

2 “Presidential Politics.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-presidential/

3 “Project S.H.A.M.E: The Recovered History of Charles Murray.” (10 Jan 2013) http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/project-s-h-a-m-e-the-recovered-history-of-charles-murray.html

4 Horsman, Greg. The Average Man (1 Oct 2013) http://questioningandskepticism.com/2013/10/01/on-the-average-man

5 “U.S. Child Poverty Second Highest Among Developed Nations: Report.” (31 May 2012) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/us-child-poverty-report-unicef_n_1555533.html

6 Moss. Michael. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. (2013) Toronto: McClelland & Stewart pp 331-356

Posted in economic inequality, United States Economy | Tagged Charles Murray, doublespeak, doublethink, Edward Snowden, George Orwell, Ronald Reagan | Leave a comment

On Virtual Feudalism

Posted on December 1, 2013 by admin

During the Age of Enlightenment people believed that the reasoning of men could free them of their ills, and lead to peace, security and good government. It was believed that reason would ensure the progress of humanity, and change the corrupt environment of the 18th century. The Enlightenment thinkers introduced questioning and critical thinking to replace the dead weight of tradition and challenge the blind faith in institutions, and sought to advance the public good. This period coincided with the rise of the ‘nation state’ thus one of the issues explored was what constituted the proper relationship of the citizen to the monarch or the state. It was believed that truth and freedom would enable individuals to build a better world.

To the Enlightenment writers, feudalism symbolized everything that was wrong with a system based on birth privileges, inequality and exploitation. Voltaire denounced feudalism as being a system exclusively dominated by aristocrats who possess all the financial, political and social power. Historian, Peter Gay, asserts that the Enlightenment broke through ‘the sacred circle’ whose dogma had circumscribed thinking. The sacred circle is a term he uses to describe the mutually reciprocal relationship between the hereditary aristocracy, the leaders of the church, and the text of the Bible. The interdependence manifests itself as kings invoking the ‘Devine Right of Kings’ to rule. Thus the church sanctioned the rule of the king and the king defended the church in return.¹

The church was the dominant institution in the 18^th century, while in the 21^st century the corporation is the dominant institution. The aristocrats of the 18^th century have been replaced by the investment-bankers of the 21^st century. The text of the Bible has been replaced by the writings of Hayek and Friedman. Their followers accept unquestioningly every word of their writings that support laissez faire economics. Friedrich Hayek claimed that human cooperation, social order, and economic prosperity are only possible where human freedom is maximized, subject to the restraints of a legal and moral code. Milton Friedman believes, “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” These new ideas are incorporated into the ideology of minimal governments and deregulation of the past four decades.

Actual feudalism was based on the immobile resources of property with an economy marked by extreme exploitation and a wide gap between the rich and poor. In medieval and Renaissance periods, the state was restricted by the need to work through a host of intermediaries. This system existed because of poor communication, where localism thrived in return for loyalty to some central organization. On the other hand, virtual feudalism is based on the rapid movement of money and information around the world, and on corporate ownership of abstract forms of wealth. Large companies now have more wealth and power than small states. Like actual feudalism, virtual feudalism has in common the exercise of public power by private partners. This includes some powers of government (justice and defense) that are now controlled by private contract. Privatization of previous public services is proliferating – schools, pensions, water treatment plants. Those without negotiable skills will become impoverished in this world of overlapping jurisdictions while the economic divide between the wealthy and the rest of society continues to grow.

All elements of the elite establishment of the 21^st century are aligned with the existing political hierarchy. Richard Moore observes that the Western leadership class has been systematically alienated from its popular constituencies by the process of globalization – the leaders now identify with their role in relationship to the shadowy global elite, and view their (voting) constituency as a flock to be managed. The visible Western leaders are dependent on this upward relationship (with the bankers) for their political survival, just as third-world dictators are dependent on foreign backers. The investment banker has emerged as the new royalty. Like the aristocrats of the 17^th century they are for the most part a non-productive parasitic class – the super-rich use the vast amounts of virtual capital they withdraw from the production for purchasing and privatizing all tangible resources and assets of the planet. But unlike the aristocracy of old, it knows how to maintain its tentacles of power in the face of changing circumstances. This is seen in the ability of corporations to misappropriate buzzwords – sustainable development, renewable energy, and green technology.²

The dogma of deregulation and minimal government feeds the growth of globalization. Corporations are increasingly relying on outsourcing, acquisition and mergers, relocation of plant and equipment, and aggressive money management – all made possible by computer communication technology. As the power of the nation state declines, sovereign power will come to be exercised by corporations – the welfare and security of individuals will depend on contracts with these organizations. These arrangements now mirror the political economy of the Middle Ages – ushering in virtual feudalism. The consequences of this virtual feudalism is a middle class under attack with a growing economic gap between the wealthy and the rest of society, and half-way around the world workers toil at wages that provide a subsistence living while they manufacture goods for the West.

The new aristocracy around the world is returning to a feudal social structure to the benefit of Wall Street. This is a more insidious servitude than that of the 17^th century. The global corporations through virtual feudalism have engineered the economic decline of many individuals. Medieval feudal society was founded on the concept that at various levels men would control large groups of people by providing them security. The serfs relinquished certain liberties in exchange for the security provided for by the barons. Security for the individual today is not a component of virtual feudalism.

Nietzsche observed, “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.” Dogma is the unshakable belief that something is true regardless of proof. Even in the face of convincing evidence that should give reason to pause, “dogmatic people will not,” as Churchill said, “change their mind or change the topic.” They simply refuse to see things any other way, and fail to consider the possibility they might be wrong.

Dogma as an unchallenged belief puts many constraints upon our knowledge. Not only does it prevent us from realizing the possibilities of other worlds, but also it even changes the way we perceive the world we are in, and what we regard as truth. Simplifying decisions is an essential part of our nature; we are unable to cope with the vast amounts of information at any one time. Facts are not isolated objective things, but exist relative to our values and within a vast web of associations. We recognize that theories are only one way out of many structuring our world, and assumptions behind them restrict our viewpoint considerably. We now see that selected facts can bias our understanding and lead to prejudicial actions based on dogmatic values.

How can we ensure our thoughts are valid? Truth or falsity is just opposite ends of a continuum of probability, with most concepts somewhere between, neither true nor always false. Dogma can be seen as a constraint on our knowledge, a portioning of the world by axioms that are valued in only restricted circumstances. We can view our belief system as a bubble selecting and enclosing those concepts of interest to us, but excluding at the same time many other possibilities.

We need to square the circle – to find a good solution to a problem when that seems impossible, especially because the people involved have very different needs or opinions about it. The facts are as income inequality increases social mobility decreases. In squaring the economic circle we need to address wealth distribution and the freedom of individuals to reach their full potential. The solution involves softening the social consequences of deregulated global competition. This means moving closer to the Northern European model with its emphasis on stability, social consensus, and regulation.

We go through our daily lives feeling pretty confident in our knowledge and understanding of the world, but that confidence is mostly an illusion. Daniel Boorstin (1914-2004), American historian, observed, “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Beliefs and new ideas must be met with questioning and skepticism to keep them from becoming dogma. We need a new Enlightenment to question the workings of society and government, explain the purpose of government, and describe the best form of it to create a new middle class wealth boom.

¹“The Political Revolution” https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/american-life-during-the-revolution-1763-1789/the-political-revolution/the-political-revolution/

²Moore, Richard K. “The Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution.” http://www.serendipity.li/capitalism/enlightenment_and_industrial_revolution.htm

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged Enlightenment, feudalism, Friedrich Hayek, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Voltaire, Wall Street | 2 Comments

On Becoming a Nietzschean Society

Posted on November 1, 2013 by admin

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) claimed there are no facts only interpretations. In his view there was no objective fact about what has value in itself – culture consisted of beliefs developed to perpetuate a particular power structure. The system, if followed by the majority of the people, supports the interests of the dominant class. For Nietzsche power, strength and dominance, and control are of the highest value. Morality that supports ideas such as equality, and virtues like humility and pity, he claimed, were artificial boundaries that constrain the strong from reaching their full potential.

It is generally accepted what made civilization possible was the invention of agriculture, but more fundamentally than agriculture were ethics. For only through ethics is it possible for large groups of people to live together. Agriculture was clearly necessary to support a large sedentary population, but there would have been no significant grouping of co-operative people to invent agriculture if they did not have a unifying, objectively valid code to begin with. Fundamental ethical principles include concern for the well-being of others and an obligation to bring about good in all our actions. We have an obligation to respect the autonomy of others, which includes respecting the decisions made by other people concerning their lives. We have an obligation to prevent harm to others, or at least don’t increase the risk of harm to others. In public life we have an obligation to treat all people equally, and fairly, refusing to take unfair advantage of them. These principles are applied equally to all people, with no distinction between strong and weak, and are what we expect of one another without needing to articulate the expectation or formalize it in any way.

Nietzsche, in contrast, viewed the imposition of the will of the strong over the weak as an inevitable consequence of nature. Nietzschean behaviour is not predicated on the good and the bad, but only on the strong and the weak. The strong seek their self-interest without inhibition of conscience, while the weak have no means of resistance. Nietzschean political culture is clearly bad by being unethical. There are economic consequences of the unethical exercise of authority. Societies where the strong behave unethically can be shown to be inefficient and the cost of these inefficiencies is born exclusively by the weak.¹

The two sources of inefficiency in the Nietzschean society are (1) that the weak are not working (no work, lack of transportation to jobs, etc.); (2) that resources are diverted from productive activity when the strong attempt to appropriate. The greater the likelihood for the weak to be productive (make more money); the greater the likelihood the strong will spend resources in appropriation. The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) develops model bills such as No Rights at Work bill (promoted under the guise of creating jobs and job security) and bills attacking prevailing wage, minimum wage and living wage laws (that support a wage suppression agenda). Americans for Prosperity, funded by the Koch brothers, supports ALEC, as well as pushes other anti-worker, pro-business agenda by supporting union-busting activities such as concession bargaining. These activities benefit global corporations and billionaires, not the workers or the weak.

In a Nietzschean society people who do not work (or who do not work consistently) are not parasites encouraged to be lazy by misplaced benevolence, but merely the weak confronting the strong. Poverty becomes institutionalized – poorer schools, poorer transport, and the weak are left behind in their own cities. Because the strong are unaffected by the inefficiencies of the economic system, they have no personal incentive to implement a program to correct the source of the inefficiencies, and a policy dialogue aimed at reforms cannot expected to be effective.

Interactions between the strong and the weak are repeated over time. With repeated encounters the weak announce they are prepared to work, but they will never work again if their output is ever appropriated. However, the threat of the weak that the appropriation (the action) will trigger indefinite withdrawal of their productive effort is an empty one.¹ The utility of the strong is to maximize their value (profits) by such actions as moving manufacturing plants. When strong unions got good wages for the workers in Detroit, the car manufacturers moved the industry to states with weaker unions and lower wages. Detroit and the suburbs are now a tale of two cities – one city with such things as excellent schools, rapid response security and efficient transportation, and the other city, Detroit, at the opposite extreme with terrible schools, high crime and third-rate services.

Democracy is inconsistent with the Nietzschean principle that the strong are destined by nature to do as they wish to the weak. In the face of perceived political change, the strong have an interest in the rule of law and the assurance of the rights of ownership. The interest in the rights of ownership is more pressing for the strong than for the weak. A democracy favors or provides an opportunity for the re-distribution of the property of the strong. The strong expend resources to secure a plutocracy (government by the wealthy) to ensure their vulnerability to appropriation by the weak through voting by the majority is countered.

The tax base is more extensive when the weak are productive and provide taxable income. In an efficient system both the strong and the weak are productive. In this model, the strong gain by having the weak share in the financing of public expenditures. This arrangement is only effective in changing the behavior of the strong provided the strong place sufficient weight on long term benefits – the strong have an interest in circumstances where the weak are consistently productive. However, the corporation’s imperative for short-term profits and providing managers maximum compensation creates an obstacle to this alternative. In fact, to ensure this model works in depressed economies the strong call for opportunistic cuts in corporate taxes with corresponding reduction in government programs.

Karl Marx (1818-1883) observed societies with poverty and inequality, and, in response, developed a theory based on exploitation and class antagonism. Marx proposed the solution of collectivization of property. His thought is not the comprehensive system evolved by some of his followers under the name of dialectical materialism. The very dialectical nature of his approach meant that it was usually tentative and open-ended. Marx sought to end exploitation, but the system that sought to apply his ideas gave rise to its own version of exploitation of the weak by the strong.¹

Nietzsche explains how social constructs of guilt and conscience work to control us by burning moral values into memory. He says we must let go of these inscribed memories to be liberated from obstructions that inhibit intensity. Because the weak alone bear the cost of inefficiency, the strong have no incentive to introduce efficiency enhancing change to break the cycle of poverty, and society remains under the rule of the strong, and not the rule of the law. Without interventions many unemployed and under employed workers will either endure sustained periods out of work or drop out of the labor market entirely leading to permanent skills erosion. The consequence of the prolonged recession for workers in manufacturing related industry is long-term unemployment. Consequently, one finds broad poverty in the midst of selective and privileged plenty.

Nietzsche believed that true genius is innate and never acquired – one is born superior which determined social rank. This Nietzschean hierarchy is none other than a meritocracy – a system of success based on persons luckiest in health and genetic endowment, luckiest in social and economic resources. Charles Murray’s Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960-2010 describes the development of a meritocracy in the US – a ‘new upper class’ that still hews to traditional American values of industriousness and intact families, and a ‘new lower class’ in which hard work and marriage are, fatally, no longer the norm. Murray’s new upper class is smart, marry within itself, and flourish as a self-sustaining upper class. In the US, lower-income Americans have a higher incidence of a range of diseases. Lower income Americans are much more likely – risk ratio of 2.52 – to die from cardiovascular disease than highest income Americans (US Department of Health and Human Services 1998). There are three main ways in which low income contributes to cardiovascular disease. Low income is associated with material depravation during early life and adult, excessive psychological stress, and the adoption of health threatening coping behaviours. Each of these serves as a pathway from low income to cardiovascular disease – the leading cause of mortality among Canadian and US citizens.2

Nietzsche’s philosophy is pessimistic – life is disappointing and that for every satisfaction that occurs there are many more negative experiences. Neitzschean behavior yields pessimistic conclusions about economic progress. Over the last couple of years we have been told to get used to the new normal. The new normal is characterized by slow economic growth and what some call a ‘natural’ rate of unemployment that is higher than in the past. This is creating a chronic under class that years of entitlements have not significantly reduced. The pessimism is consistent with the growing inequality between the rich and the poor following the economic debacle of 2008 – the consequence of Wall Street bankers manipulating the system and almost tanking the economy. Five years later the overall economy has still not recovered and remains a dysfunctional system in which the burden of insecurity is borne by the weak.

Accountability is the key requirement of good governance. Accountability is about the obligation to answer for one’s actions. In addition to being responsible for one’s actions, one may be required to explain them to others. A government is accountable to those who will be affected by its decisions or actions. Central to the principle of accountability is information sharing and transparency, which should be promoted by governance structures. Accountability cannot be enforced without transparency and the rule of law. Triggering these characteristics of good governance requires the recognition of the role of ethics in governance. The lack of good decision-making accountability and transparency of corporations puts us on track for becoming a Nietzschean society.

¹Hillman, Arye L Poverty, Inequality, and Unethical Behavior of the Strong. IMF Working Paper, International Monetary Fund, 2000. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2000/wp00187.pd

²Raphael, Denis and E. Sarah Farrell. Beyond Medicine and Lifestyle: Addressing the Societal Determinants of Cardiovascular Disease in North America. Leadership in health Services 15/4 (2002).

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged accountability, Americans for Prosperity, Charles Murray, Koch brothers, Nietzsche | Leave a comment

On the Average Man

Posted on October 1, 2013 by admin

During the 1830s there was a shift from the enlightened or rational man to the average man. The rise of statistics in the 19^th century attests to the loss in faith in the power of individual reason with respect to the masses. The average man embodied a form of political activity that could no longer be understood or rationality determined for certain. Adolphe Quetelet (1797-1874) invented the term ‘the average man’ to give individual representation to society – recognizing no real person would have all the characteristics of the average man.

Quetelet portrayed the average man as the center of a symmetrical distribution that we know as the normal or bell curve. Similar to measurements in astronomy the average stands for a true value of something that you are trying to measure, and the spread of measures around the mean is just a distribution of error. From science or statistical point of view the figure of the average man more closely represents society as a whole than any flesh-and-blood individual can.

The strength of the argument was the stability of the average. From Aristotle he adopted the concept as seeing the extremes as vice and the average as a virtuous balance. Instead of thinking of a continuum of low ability to high ability he imagined a spectrum of passions or politics, where both extremes are dangerous while the average means stability – the foundation of steady progress.

The study of the averages supported a program of social amelioration based on treating legislation as a kind of social experiment. You try out some new law or new legislation, such as making schooling available to populations who did not have it before, and you see how this affects crimes or illegitimate births. Then you can plan other legislative changes based on that response. The concept of the average man provides a predictable measure of society that the individual cannot be. Quetelet was seeking to relocate the rationalism which had become problematic at the individual level and shift it to involve all of society.

Since the turn of the 20^th century, there has been a belief that technology and reason could make us masters of our environment. By the end of the 20^th century, individualism, happiness, and capitalism were part of the core values of Western culture. Individualism is the belief that one’s place in the societal hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own efforts, and the right to make free choices which feeds consumer capitalism. Individualism fueled the American Dream – the hope for a better quality of life through following the rules, leading to a higher standard of living than their parents had. Meritocratic individualism creates a blind spot to social supports provided by the community, allowing individuals to then give full credit to themselves for their successes.

The proponents of meritocracy argue that it is more just and productive, allowing for distinctions to be made on the basis of performance. In fact, meritocracy serves to justify the status quo – perpetuate the existing upper class – merit can always be defined as what results in success, thus whoever is successful can be portrayed as deserving success, rather than success being predicted by criteria for merit. If wealth accrued based on merit, one would expect wealth to be distributed according to the bell-shaped curve, which it is not. Meritocracy inevitably becomes an oligarchy as demonstrated by the growth in income inequality and a reduction in economic mobility.

In the latter part of the 19^th century, statistical thought shifted from an emphasis on normal populations to an emphasis on variation, or abnormal populations. Francis Galton (1822-1911) proposed to replace Quetelet’s ‘average man’ with statistics coupled with biology to upgrade man, to a better race, and in the process introduced eugenics. Also in the late 19^th century August Weismann (1834-1914) promoted the theory that genetic information was stored in the nucleus of cells, which governed the interpretation of the DNA within each living cell. Weismann believed that nothing that happened to somatic cells could be passed on to the germ cells; the somatic cells did not transfer information to future generations. He firmly opposed Darwin’s idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics. At the turn of the 20^th century, statisticians using the bell curve to identify abnormal populations turned to the genetic theory for more scientific support – genetics (it was believed at the time) accounts for the majority of the inheritance/control of the IQ. (The Galton Chair of Eugenics at University College London was renamed the Galton Chair of Genetics in 1963.)

Cognitive function was analyzed for changes in a 1970 birth cohort over 10 years in the United Kingdom. In this study, cognitive performance was measured at 22 months of age and followed periodically. Children who ranked low at baseline rose through the ranks if their parents were affluent, and conversely, children who ranked high at baseline fell back if their parents were poor. These finding suggest that the majority of those born without congenital disease, and regardless of level of access to health care, a poor social-economic environment is likely to undermine development and later health prospects. Head Start in the US and Sure Start in the UK are designed to interrupt the intergenerational cycle of deprivation. Fixation on the bell curve introduced the notion of ‘abnormal bodies’ and ushered in the reign of the tyranny of the bell curve. Under this reign, social commentators, like Charles Murray, have made convincing arguments that the IQ is primarily genetic and the difference between affluent populations and poor populations indicates the evolution of classes – supporting inequity in the system. The British birth cohort study disarms his hypothesis.

With the completion of the human genome project in 2003 it became known that genetics accounts for about 10% of diseases, and the remaining causes appear to be from insults from environmental and occupational sources. In the 21^st century, the epigenetics revolution is rewriting our understanding of genetics, disease and inheritance. (Epigenetics is the study of changes produced in gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying sequences.) From believing that our biological fates were written in our genes, it is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically our perception of the environment, directly controls our behavior and genetic activity. Individuals are much more sensitive to exposures from their environment, diet and lifestyles than previously thought. Epigenetics highlights the effects of inequality in living and working conditions, as well as a range of disparities in societal opportunities including income, housing, employment, and access to health care.

Taking action on epigenetic harms to reduce heath inequity requires a paradigm shift, from treating high risk or diseased individuals which does not have much impact on population health levels overall, to changing a risk factor across a whole population by just a small amount that can have a great impact on the incidence of a disease or problem in the community. For example reducing salt intake in processed foods by a small proportion across a population (at a level individuals would not notice) would reduce blood pressure levels and in time reduce death rates from cardiovascular disease.

Stephen McNamee and Robert Miller of the University of North Carolina, argue in their book, The Meritocracy Myth, that belief in meritocracy is sustaining a myth that disguises economic inequality in North America and prevents progressive government initiatives to address the issue.¹In such a society the average man no longer shares in the American Dream.

¹Williams, Ray. (13 June 2010) “The Myths of the Self-made Man and Meritocracy.” http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201006/the-myths-the-self-made-man-and-meritocracy

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged American dream, Charles Murray, epigenetics, meritocracyFRancis Galton, Quetelet | Leave a comment

On the Emperor’s New Clothes

Posted on September 15, 2013 by admin

The class orientation of past regimes was public and open. The monarchy, the church, and the nobility ran matters for their own interest. In the last half of the 19^th century during the first era of globalization the new rich were unrepresented in governing councils. However, during the second era of globalization, in the 21^st century wealthy citizens have made their interests and presence felt – elected governments act on the basis of their interests. The rationality used to support the global corporations is the emperor’s new clothes for the laissez-faire economic system of small government and minimal regulation which first of all looks after its own welfare.¹

The emperor was vain and his only worry in life was a healthy economy and good jobs for everyone. He loved to show off his success to the people.

Word of the emperor’s refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two weaver’s who heard of the emperor’s egoism decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves to the palace with a scheme in mind. The chief of the guards heard the weaver’s strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the incredible news. The Emperor’s curiosity got the better of him and he decided to see the two weavers.

“We are two very good weavers and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary process to weave an economic ideology so light and fine that it looks invisible. It is built around individualism (the belief that one’s place in the societal hierarchy – their occupational class, income and wealth, and power and prestige as well as the placement such as health and disease status – comes through one’s own efforts), and the right to make free choices which feeds consumer capitalism. As a matter of fact, it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality.”

“Besides the consequences of this ideology being invisible, your Highness, this material being created will ensure ongoing economic growth.” The emperor agreed to reduce taxes and reduce government regulations in exchange for their promise to begin working on the idea immediately.

“Just tell us what you need to make it work and we’ll give it to you.” The two spinners asked for change from progressive to regressive taxes and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor thought he had modified his policies quite well: in addition to getting a new ideology to support job growth, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.

“Go and see how the work is proceeding,” the Emperor told him, “and come back to let me know.”

The prime minister was welcomed by the two spinners.

“We’re almost finished, but there is a need for a lot more money. Here, Excellency! Admire the clever ideas!” The old man bent over the document which described relying on a system to harness the selfishness of people and direct it to the public good, thus freeing itself from the need to depend unrealistically upon the uncertain moral virtues of its participants. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.

“I can’t see how this provides equal opportunities for all,” he thought. “If I see nothing, that means I’m stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!” If the prime minister admitted that he didn’t see anything, he would be discharged from his office.

“What a marvelous theory,” he said then. “I’ll certainly tell the Emperor.” The two spinners rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More money was freed up to make the project work – the prime minister justified the reduction in the size of social safety nets, decreasing the eligibility for benefits, and reducing the absolute level of these benefits.

Finally, the Emperor received the announcement that the two spinners had come to take all the measurements needed to develop his new ideology.

“Come in,” the Emperor ordered. Even as they bowed, the two spinners pretended to be holding a large document.

“Here it is your Highness, the result of our labour,” the spinners said. “We have worked night and day but, at last, the most beautiful economic ideology in the world is ready for you. Look at the ideas and see how fine they are.” Of course the Emperor did not see any principles to back the theory – he observed that the decreased taxes and government services resulted in more money for the wealthy and served to both increase the incidence of poverty and sustain people in poverty rather than lifting them out. He panicked and felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the new ideology providing equal opportunities, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent. And the Emperor didn’t know that everybody else around him thought and did the very same thing.

The farce continued as the two spinners had foreseen it. They identified other measures – the two identified how to trigger cuts to government programs cycling real or perceived crisis in tax revenues with ongoing tax cuts.

“Your Highness, you’ll have to try on your new ideas about controlling the welfare state.” The two spinners explained: “Markets are the best and most efficient allocators of resources in production and distribution; (2) societies are composed of individuals who have the ability to control their own destiny through their own decisions; (3) competition is the major market vehicle for innovations – there is little need for entitlements.” The Emperor was embarrassed but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.

“Yes, this is a beautiful ideology and it looks very good to me,” the Emperor said trying to look comfortable. “You’ve done a fine job.”

“Your Majesty,” the prime minister said, “we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary ideology and they are anxious to see details behind it.” The Emperor was doubtful about showing the trickle down economic theory to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would consider it deficient except the ignorant and the incompetent.

“All right,” he said. “I will grant the people this privilege.” He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.

Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: “Look at the Emperor’s new ideology. It’s beautiful!

“What a marvelous outline!”

“And the fonts! The packaging of that beautiful theory! I have never seen anything like it in my life!” They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see anything of substance, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two spinners had predicted.

A concerned citizen, however, who had no vested interest and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the procession.

“The naked truth is that this economic system supports the growing income gap and inequality between the wealthy and the poor,” he said.

“Fool!” the writer for the conservative think tank reprimanded, running after him, he cried, “Don’t talk nonsense!” and quickly emailed an article for the ‘Analysis and Comment’ section of the newspaper describing inequality as a complex factor not easily understood – everything is fine. But the concerned citizen’s remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

“The gentleman is right! The naked truth is that this economic system supports the growing income gap and inequality between the wealthy and the poor! It’s true!”

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He thought it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn’t understand the theory was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly by his position, while off to one side a wealthy citizen looked on and smiled knowingly.

¹Kierkegaard Revisited: Proceedings from the Conference Kierkegaard and the Meaning of Meaning It. Ed. Niels Jorgen Cappelorn and Jon Stewart (1997) p 150.

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged individualism, inequality, trickle down economics | 1 Comment

The End of History – A Journey

Posted on September 1, 2013 by admin

The Enlightenment was a movement to displace the dogged adherence to established opinions and customs, and to enlighten a population the system had kept in the dark. Voltaire (1694-1778) relied upon his books to spread the light (knowledge) across Europe. Georg Hegel (1770-1831) insists that progress in history be measured by the spread of light. Only the spread of light (freedom) gives meaning and significance to the historical process. There can be no progress, according to Hegel, without struggle. History’s final goal is the complete saturation of the world with light, with the development of freedom and the consciousness of freedom.

The struggle that Hegel envisioned is the great tension between ‘is’ and ‘ought,’ between the way things are and the way they ought to be. The world of fact was chaotic and evil – an affront to man’s senses of order and good. The necessary ingredient for Hegel’s philosophy was freedom of action, not just freedom of thought. For Hegel, the idealist, there is a spirit or creative energy involved in the struggle. The spirit can understand freedom and work to realize it.

The spirit is always active in search of some aim, in realizing potential. Hegel’s philosophy of history is that of a dialectical progression. This begins with an existing thesis, with contradictions inherent to its structure. These contradictions create the thesis of a direct opposite, or antithesis, bringing about a period of conflict between the two. The synthesis that emerges from this struggle then discovers its own internal contradiction and starts the process anew. It is considered a progressive process because each new thesis represents an advance over the previous thesis, continually until an end point is reached.¹

With the 1989 break up of the Soviet Union it appeared that the liberal free market system had triumphed over the communist system as envisioned by the former Soviet Union. Francis Fukuyama discussed this in an essay he wrote in the same year, titled, The End of History.² He proposes that human history be viewed in terms of the battle of ideologies which have reached an end, with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, and with no alternative challengers at hand. Soviet socialism was not superior to the West in any respect but was a monumental failure. In addition, the free market system has been established in China while Marxist-Leninism no longer serves as its ideological underpinning.

In his 1989 essay Fukuyama described America as a ‘classless society’ even though there remained a mix of rich and poor people, and the economic gap between them was growing. Fukuyama maintained, “The root causes of economic inequality did not have to do with the underlying legal and social structure of our society, which remains fundamentally egalitarian and moderately redistributionist [and] black poverty in the United States is not the inherent product of liberalism [or laissez-faure economics], but rather the legacy of slavery and racism…”² However, the era of accelerated deregulation and individuals moving money around the world with the click of a button had just commenced when Fukuyama recorded these observations.

Three years after the economic debacle of 2008 the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protests began – connected by the anger of the common person against the banks for manipulating the system and tanking the economy. OWS challenges the excesses of the corporations in general, and in particular, a government controlled by corporate money and the growing income gap between the very wealthy and the rest in society. OWS warn the middle class that they have been taken advantage of by a financial system that favors the rich – identifing extreme inequality as the hallmark of a dysfunctional economy.

The results of five decades of regressive taxation and deregulation is a weakened economy that no longer reliably and consistently transmits productivity gains to workers. This era of trickle down economics has been associated with growing income disparity and a shrinking middle class. The consequences of the economic decisions driving globalization have been the loss of social mobility and the disappearance of Fukuyama’s classless society as income inequality increases with the lower paying service jobs and many of the tech jobs that don’t offer long term certainties or opportunities. However, as Fukuyama predicted, nationalism and ethnic tensions have become a significant source of strife around the world.

Without the active opposition of an antithesis working through the dialectic, Hegel asserts, existence is simply an empty task. During so-called periods of harmony, times when the antithesis is missing, what is left is habit – the average citizen is disengaged from the state. Under globalization countries compete for the world’s investment capital, which removes traditional government accountability – affecting the ability of elected leaders in democratic countries to make decisions in the interests of the workers. This creates a lack of ability of those affected by decisions to protect their legitimate rights and interests. Hegel claims, there can be no progress in history without struggle of the elements or ideas. In comparing the past four decades to the last four decades of the 19^th century (the era of the robber barons) – history is standing still – amongst a climate of economic uncertainty in which the rich are getting richer while the economic gap between the rich and the poor is growing.

Hegel believed in a freedom of action that included struggle through rational deliberation – when we cease to strive to realize a potential then we live by habit, by rote. The light of progress spreads and can be generated by individuals who have the freedom and opportunities to grow and reach their full potential Hegel affirmed. Today’s dialectic would be the tension between the present minimal government and regulation and a system that decreases the economic gap and creates more choices and opportunities for individuals to reach their full potential.

The half-century following the Persian Wars Athens grew as a maritime power and prospered with a free society. Hegel notes, as the trade and wealth of its empire increased, power fell into the hands of the few. Those in power ruled in their own interest, without regards for public welfare. Out of this disharmony of interests and common disregard of the public good had come the collapse of the polis. Similarly, the West enjoyed a period of economic equality from the end of the Second World War to 1970 when the rate of economic gains was equivalent between the wealthy and workers. Subsequently, sixty years of tax cuts for the rich have been linked to income inequality, a shrinking middle class and the loss of freedom to make choices they desire (social mobility). If history’s final goal is the actualization of freedom in the modern state – then the end of history is a journey, not a destination.

¹An Outline of European Intellectual History: Locke to Hegel, Harold J. Foster, Ed, Forum House. 1969. p. 151-167.

²Fukuyama, Francis “The End of History?” The National Interest, Summer 1989.

Posted in economic inequality | Tagged Francis Fukuyama, Hegel, middle class, Occupy Wall Street, Voltaire | Leave a comment

On Self-actualization

Posted on August 1, 2013 by admin

Georg Hegel (1770-1831), philosopher and historian, had to decide what to retain and what to jettison of the French Enlightenment tradition that had permeated German culture. From the Enlightenment he chose freedom of action, not just freedom of thought. The other important element brought forward was reason – reason reveals itself through the struggles of man. Hegel introduced a system to study history called ‘a dialectic’ – a progression in which each successive movement emerges as a solution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement with the development of freedom and the consciousness of freedom.

Hegel turned to the study of Greek history to determine why freedom was so elusive. The fall of Athens had been brought about by the symbiosis between the individual and society being shattered following a combination of events – rise in trading empire, rise of aristocracy and imperialist wars. As the wealth of the polis increased, political power fell into the hands of a few. Those in power ruled in their own interest without regard to public welfare. The fall of the polis, Hegel explains, was the result of the spirit departing from it. The death of the spirit in a people involves the loosening of a sense of the citizen’s identification with his state.

Then Hegel applied logic to support his principles. The law of identity states that A is A. What is the nature of this statement? Behind it, Hegel points out, lies the statement ‘A is not non-A.’ In other words, the principle of identity rests on the principle of exclusion. What is negated is part of what is affirmed. Hegel’s new idea is to claim everything is linked to its opposite. “To be what a thing really is,” he says, “it must become what it us not.¹” That means, an idea or concept must establish itself against its opposite in order to be authentic.

The world is chaotic and evil and not what it should be. There is a significant gap between what is and what it ought to be. Hegel believed strife is the essence of progress and life. If the tension and struggle ceases man becomes a mere creature of habit. He developed a philosophy of action. The spirit is always active in the search of some aim, in realizing one’s potential or self-actualization. When we cease to strive to realize a potential, Hegel maintains, then we live by habit, by rote. When we accept a definition of ourselves, when we have no further goal or aim, when we feel we are as good as we can be, then the let down sets in. When we no longer strive to close a gap between potentiality and actuality, we are dying. This is true for both states and individuals.

The spirit stimulates man to be what is not yet and ought to be. The spirit or creative energy can understand freedom and work to realize it, or it can create new things. Self-realization occurs through tension and struggle. This allows the development of thesis by comparing opposing points of view and disregarding those elements of the respective arguments advanced which are shown to be false, one may ultimately arrive at the truth which in effect is something of a synthesis of the opposing points of view.¹

The world is chaotic and mean and not what it should be, in Hegel’s time as well as today. Four decades of government deregulation has fed the growth of global corporations that allows wealth to be concentrated in the hands of a few. Global corporations are responsible for the removal of traditional government accountability to a fixed population from most of politics. This creates a lack of ability of those affected by decisions to protect their legitimate rights and interests. In this world of economic uncertainty, the middle class is under siege while economic gap between the wealthy and the rest of society grows.

The World Health Organization declared “The social determinants of health are the (economic and social) conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age, including the health system.” British workers (Wilkinson & Marmot, 1998) have identified the social gradients, stress, early life, social exclusion, work, unemployment, social support, addiction, food and transport as key determinants of health. Poverty is a key factor underlying whether these determinants of health can be obtained.

Health equity suggests that everyone can reach their full health potential and that they should not be disadvantaged from attaining this potential as a result of their class, socioeconomic status or other socially determined circumstance (Whitehead and Dahlgren 2006). Inequities reduce the freedom and opportunities for an individual to reach their full potential in general, and wellness or good health, in particular. Inequity is the biggest factor affecting the health of the population. The present economic situation has seen an increase in inequity and poverty.

Many now believe it is not enough to define poverty as not having enough material resources to merely survive, but rather having enough resources to participate in society in a meaningful way. Peter Townsend’s definition of poverty: people are deprived if they cannot obtain at all, or sufficiently the conditions of life – diets, amenities, standards and services – which allow them to play the roles, participate in relationships and follow the customary behavior which is expected of them by virtue of their membership in society.² The consequences of lack of participation is disengagement from school, community and political affairs.

Many have discussed Hagel’s ‘failure’ to theorize a remedy for the poverty that disrupts modern society.³ Peter Townsend’s definition of poverty works with Hegel’s philosophy of action. Today the growing income gap limits previous choices and freedom of action – Hegel focused on relative poverty (that sinks below a certain standard of living) and was concerned about workers not receiving the freedoms of civil society.⁴He saw the importance of one always striving to reach their full potential (or self-actualization) – to ensure the health of the state as well as the individual.

The solution to today’s inequality and poverty can come from the dialectic process described by Hegel. The present trickle down economics of small government and minimal regulations which makes decisions through the lens of individualism that is responsible for the increasing income gap constitutes one opposing view while making economic and environment decisions through the lens of the social determinants of health to counter inequity in the system makes up the opposing thesis. We accept progress results from the conflict of man’s interest and passions – assuming he has choices not limited by social or health inequities. Somewhere between the two thesis lies the goal of the individual struggling to reach the self-actualization envisioned by Hegel.

¹An Outline of European Intellectual History Locke to Hegel, Harold J Foster, Editor Forum House: Toronto 1969, p. 151 – 167.

²Raphael, Denis. Poverty, Income Inequality and Health in Canada. CSJ Foundation for Research and Innovation, 2002.

³Fraser, Ian. Speculations on Poverty in Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, from The European Legacy: Toward New Paradigms, Volume 1, Issue 7, 1996, p 2055

⁴Balaney, David and Naeem Inayatullah. Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism, 2010, p. 135.

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy | Tagged Hegel, individualism, poverty, social determinants of health | Leave a comment

Questioning and Skepticism

Another Inconvenient Truth

End A Decade of Lost Opportunities and Invest in the Future

1984 And Big Brother

On Virtual Feudalism

On Becoming a Nietzschean Society

On the Average Man

On the Emperor’s New Clothes

The End of History – A Journey

Books for Download

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Meta