A Comparison of Sweden and the US

The other day someone pointed out that if Sweden were a U.S. state it would not rank very high on per capita GDP. This was a Facebook conversation and the tone of the post was "see you socialist left wing fanatics, even in the best case your socialist state is worse off than almost all of the U.S.". This, of course, created a small firestorm of posts, which I think was the object of the provocation. The comparison is interesting though.

There are cases where the differences in governance, national attitude and results are stark. For example, Haiti and the Dominican republic share an island, but the contrast between the two is stark. The same can be said of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Sweden is not, of course, a socialist state. The U.S. and Sweden are both industrialized nations with relatively educated populations. The U.S. has a leg up because of its vast natural resources.

Given the general similarity of status of Sweden and the U.S. as industrialized nations, a comparison of social policy and the results for the average citizen is worthwhile. I think the differences between Sweden and the U.S. are largely a reflection of basic philosophical differences in national attitude. As a nation the U.S. attitude is: social darwinist, each man for himself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, if you cannot make it here don't blame anyone but yourself, government always does a worse job than the private sector. I have never been to Sweden so I cannot report firsthand on conditions there. From the outside its social policy seems more: we are all in this together, each does better when all do better, we are all people and things happen so let us support each other, government programs work well at providing the basis for us to build strong lives.

The Swedish GDP for 2010 is about 458,000 (millions). With a 2011 estimated population of 9,415,300 the per capita GDP is about $48,640. This is roughly the same as North Dakota at 47,714 which ranks as the 20th highest state GDP per capita. There is some disagreement about these numbers. For example the wikipedia article on the Swedish economy gives a per capita GDP of about $37,775, which would make it closer to Michigan, the 42nd poorest state. Sweden cannot prop up its social welfare system with natural resources like North Sea oil (Norway, Britain). It must pay through basic productivity.

In the World Economic Forum (the Davos folks) Global Competitiveness Report, Sweden ranks above the US (because of the recession)

Sweden is not going bankrupt. Its overall national debt is 40% of GDP compared to 60% - 90% for the United States (depending on whose number you use). Sweden went through a real estate and financial crisis in the early 1990s and had to re-adjust its social spending to accomodate lower GDP. Sweden is now used as a model for how a nation should handle financial crises. Sweden can afford its social programs. Because it is somewhat poorer pre capita than United States, we could afford similar programs if our national philosophy allowed it. The difference is choice, not money.

Sweden ranks high in taxation about 48% of GDP (2007). In the developed world, Sweden is on the high end of taxation exceeded only by Denmark. In the U.S. taxes are about 27% of GDP (2006). The U.S. tax rate is one of the lowest in the developed world. Only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan have lower taxes as a percent of GDP.

So, which resident gets the better deal: someone living in Sweden with its not-outstanding per capita GDP and high taxes or a resident of Michigan/North Dakota.

Health care in Sweden requires patients to pay a fee per visit/prescription, but total costs to the patient is limited to about $360 per year. In comparison to the US Sweden has more doctors and nurses per capita. Life expectancy is higher, and infant mortality is lower. Over 80% of all medical costs are paid by the government (vs. 45% in the US) but the total cost spent on health care is so much lower that the US government pays more as a percentage of revenue than Sweden does. So, in Sweden everyone is guaranteed health care, the cost is lower both to the individual and the government than in the U.S.. The outcomes of health care are generally better, and citizens do not need to fear medical bankruptcy.

In education, Sweden works hard to make sure that opportunity is equalized for children. Grants from the national government take into account the economic conditions of the particular region. Poorer regions are subsidized and richer regions bear an extra cost. Rural regions are compensated for transportation costs and smaller class sizes. There are independent schools, roughly equivalent to charter schools in the U.S. Parents may have to pay a fee for preschool and childcare, but there is a ceiling to those costs which takes household income into account. Higher education is essentially free to the students. Students must pay for text books, and equipment needed for personal use. This means that students enter the workforce essentially debt free.

This contrasts with the United States which has limited pre-school support and where higher education is increasingly unaffordable. Two thirds of students leave higher education with an average debt of $23,000 dollars. We have created a generation of young adults who, instead of leaving college and becoming entrepreneurs, are forced by debt to ender the labor force as employees. In the United States, public dollars going to higher education have decreased and tuition costs have increased. The United States of America is the only OECD country where 25-34 year-olds are not better educated than 55-64 year-olds. This may be in part because other countries had more room to improve over the past 25 years.

In Sweden, taxpayers spend about 6.6% of GDP on education. In the U.S. about 5.5% of GDP is spent by the government on education.

We all know how skewed incomes are in the United States where the top 400 wealthiest people have more than the bottom 150 million.

About 80% of the Swedish workforce is unionized. As might be expected in a place where people tend to feel part of a single society and look after each other, the unions make the society more equal, but do not eliminate inequality or reward laziness. In hard times, looking after each other may mean unions accepting pay cuts to save jobs. The Swedish unemployment system looks much like the US unemployment system.

If we honestly compare industrialized societies, the US doesn't look so good. We have a national mythology that we are a nation of rugged individualists in a country that provides the opportunity for everyone with drive and determination to make whatever they want of their lives. While we do pretty well on the individualist side, shunning all non-business forms of collective action. We do less well on the opportunity side. American families are less socially mobile than families in other countries.

Much of the U.S. national catechism is simply incorrect.

People do not do best as rugged individuals working for their own benefit. We are social creatures who do best as collections of individuals working together and helping each other.

People are not naturally dishonest or working to game the system. There is a persistent, endemic problem of dishonesty, but this is the exception not the rule. Most people getting unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, WIC payments, social security, medicaid ... are ordinary hard-working folks just like you and me who have hit hard times. Most of them will be back on their feet in a little while, they just need some help to see them through.

Work and money are not the center of most people's lives. Most people work for money to earn enough to live, but are not particularly interested in accumulating large amounts of wealth. Everyone would love to be wealthy, but if you talk to people about what they would do once they got that big pile of cash, very few of them talk about accumulating more. Most people would simply do more of what they currently enjoy the most. We should not be educating our children to be effective workers, we should be educating them to understand themselves and the world around them.

Government can be effective. Government is comparable to other large organizations in efficiency and effectiveness. I have worked as a consultant to both government and private entities. The problems are somewhat different, but both government and private entities tend to have about the same level of bone headedness. If we look around the world, we can see examples of more effective governance. Sweden seems to be one of those places.

The United States has low taxation, both at the individual and the corporate level. The question in most of the developed world is not "how much am I taxed", but "what do I get for my tax dollars". As an example, the citizens of every country with universal health care are basically pleased with their system do not want a privatized system.

If We Aren't Careful, We May End Up Where We Are Heading.

It is easy to predict man made catastrophes. Sometimes they even happen. Here are some intractable problems/trends that are likely to make the next hundred years "difficult". If we do not find some way, pretty quickly (fifty to one hundred years), to change course I think we could be fairly described as a failed species. That is, things will look much more like "Blade Runner" or "The Mote in God's Eye" than "Ecotopia".

This post assumes an unstated desired future. If your view of a desirable world differs significantly from mine, you may not find any problems here.

The good news is that we can relatively easily make things much much better. The bad news is that, as a species, we seem incapable of making good long term choices. If change occurs it will likely occur on the back of poverty, war, famine, and plague. If change does not occur, we are condemning our descendants to an impoverished, less habitable planet.

Social Trends - Concentration of Wealth

It has always been true in settled societies that wealth is concentrated. As productivity increases in industrialized societies, it takes less and less labor to make the same amount of goods. Either we constantly increase the amount of goods we desire and require (endless growth) or more and more people become "redundant" as they say in England. That is, there is no need for their labor.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries there was a serious countervailing social movement to redistribute wealth to make societies more equitable. Tides seemed to have turned and, particularly in the United States, the scales have tilted toward unfettered wealth and, along with it, increasing manipulation of both media and elections to serve the plutocracy.

I am not suggesting a trilateral commission type conspiracy. Instead, individuals and groups with plenty of money are doing their best to publicize their point of view and make it the basis of discourse. There has been about a century of systematic work to improve marketing. In the political arena the admonition that government should be more like business has been taken to heart in the propaganda department. Political messages use the tools of marketing (focus groups, test markets ...) to find the most immediately effective messages.

There have been some genuine innovations in the exercise of power though. For example, it is no longer necessary to buy politicians. It is much easier to find someone who already holds your point of view and work for their election. An extreme example is Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co..

Sometimes there are social policies that reinforce the concentration of wealth as an unintended consequence. For example, higher education is increasing in cost and is commonly funded with loans. Forbes reports that two thirds of all students graduating from four year colleges and universities carry loans with an average debt of $23,000. This is a doubling from 1996. Instead of leaving the University with knowledge and a clean slate to start new enterprises, this generation is pretty much forced by debt to become simple employees of existing operations.

We know the end of this story. In the U.S. there is relentless propaganda campaign that insists that we have a pure meritocracy and the wealthy are the ones who feed us all. As the gap between haves and have nots continues to widen and the number of have nots increases, eventually they will simply rebel. If that happens, expect decades of chaos and class warfare with guns.

Social Trends - Fewer, Larger Entities

As technology improves it becomes possible to create larger and larger organizations. Advances in information processing have accelerated this capability.

The current tendency is writ large in the video distribution industry. When VHS tapes became the technology winner, the low entry costs for starting a video store allowed thousands or even tens of thousands of independently owned video stores to blossom. Almost as quickly there was a wave of consolidation as smaller operations were either bought or driven out of business by a regional video chains. These, in turn, were consolidated into a few national chains (Blockbuster, Showtime) which dominated the market. There are still mom and pop video stores, but after the first boom they never had appreciable impact on the market as a whole.

In many industries there are very few real players. This includes media companies where nine companies control virtually all television and Clear Channel controls 1200 radio stations. Four cell phone providers own the lion's share of the mobile phone market (280 million subscribers). There are five major oil companies. Oil companies are among the largest companies that have ever existed. Over half of all farm seed is produced by fewer than ten companies.

As a side effect, increasing institution size also works to further concentrate wealth.

We know from network theory and from study of biological systems that diverse systems which have large numbers of highly interconnected parts are more resilient and less prone to catastrophic failure than systems with fewer nodes and interconnections. When diverse systems of many nodes have some of them fail, the remainder of the system tends to work around the problem. When their are fewer, strongly connected nodes, they tend to drag each other down in the face of disaster. Note how this sounds just like the start of the 2008 financial crisis and the current Greek debt crisis.

In agriculture, the number of farms has decreased, the acreage of each farm has increased, and the vast majority of farms are a monoculture. We have centralized meat and food processing. While the system may be immediately efficient, it is also incredibly fragile and shortsighted. We impoverish the ecosystem, including the soil ecosystem. We also make our food supply dependent on a smaller variety of foods where a single virulent disease can spell disaster. Centralized processing means that millions of people can be infected or poisoned from a single point.

Despite their inherent fragility when faced with the unexpected, in the normal course of events, centralization tends to win. The only way to redress the problems is by creating an environment that rewards smallness or penalizes bigness.

Social Trends - Race to the Bottom

Globalization has allowed the entire world to become a source of labor and products. One side of this is that wealth has flowed to some desperately poor places. The other side is that it has depressed pay in many developed countries and made jobs much less secure. While money does flow toward poor areas of the world, the net effect is to lower labor costs in general. It is interesting to note that globalization involves capital and goods, not people. A factory worker in Sheboygan is competing with workers in Bangalore, but it is unlikely the factory worker can emigrate to Bangalore and take advantage of its lower cost of living.

Globalization allows producers to reduce costs. Labor is part of this, but not the whole picture. It is also possible to reduce costs by operating in locales that allow costs to be ignored or externalized. For example, it will be cheaper to produce in a country that allows wholesale pollution or deforestation because you don't have to install that expensive emission control equipment or worry about forty years down the road when the trees are all gone.

Because every locality wants the jobs, the tendency is to offer the most attractive deal possible to producers who promise jobs. Producers use this to pit localities against each other. Internationally, this rewards countries with the worst labor practices and the most lax regulations. Within the U.S., communities generally bid by offering tax breaks. The hope is that the increased wage base will make up for the breaks, but often the end result is simply to starve local government.

When the cost of production goes down, a number of things can happen. The cost of goods to the end consumer can go down. High tech items show this most clearly but it also shows up in the price of clothes at Old Navy. Second, profits for producers can increase. This has happened as well. In the current "recession" profits for U.S. manufacturers have completely recovered. Finally wages for workers can increase. In the past few decades this has not happened. Wages in the U.S. have been stagnant for almost two generations. When producers (owners) increase profits but workers do not share in the wealth, this increases the concentration of wealth.

Remarkably, public discourse on workers benefits has joined this race to the bottom. Look at the discussion over public pensions. There is a problem with pension funding. Governments have sometimes promised more than was prudent (as did GM and other major corporations). The discussion never seems to be "how can we get private retirement better", it is always "public employees are getting benefits that private employees do not, let's reduce them".

Social Trends - Rise of the Ideologues

Never underestimate the power of a simple idea or worldview even if it is completely wrong or destructive.

People will take a few general principles and assume everything can be explained by them without much regard to complicating factors. If the ideas lead to bad results, it is a failure of application, not the principle.

Among the current Ideologies that are threatening social destruction I would include (non-exhaustive list): radical violent Islam, any religion based on literal inerrancy of the bible, libertarianism, and all forms of racism.

Social Trends - Algorithms and Hubris

There is a notion in computer science called the singularity. This is the creation of smarter than human intelligence. A basic question is, will we notice it?

We already have specialized machines that perform much better than humans. Computers have bested humans in games like chess. Robots create and assemble parts much faster and more accurately than humans. In the computer gaming world, our "enemies" are dumbed down to correspond to our terribly slow human reaction time and limited ability to handle large numbers of inputs. Our planes and cars are already run by computers. Humans enter basic parameters for flight, but the plane itself makes virtually all decisions.

To increase efficiency we constantly streamline and automate business processes. The end result is an expansion in the power of algorithmic systems. In a modern corporation there are fewer and fewer levers pulled by fewer and fewer people. Take shipping as an example. A company like Fed-Ex has completely automated the routing of packages. Once your package information is entered into the system, humans do nothing but follow a machine generated instruction to pick up a box in one place and drop it at another. Airline reservations are another example. Humans do not play any role in the process. The price is determined by complex algorithms that are probably beyond the understanding of any single person. Planes are automatically booked and overbooked. Even upgrades and seat re-assignments are pretty much controlled by the algorithm. The person at the gate has almost no choices and no authority.

The system we have to create these systems is not reassuring. When a business decides to automate a process, a team of people, often outside specialists, is assembled to analyze the problem and implement a solution. When successful, the results are put into production and handed off to a separate team that is in charge of operating, maintaining, and improving the system. In theory this is a repeatable process with each group playing its specialized role. The players usually do not understand each other's roles very well. At the business level, the indicators are productivity (how many flights are booked in how much time and at how much cost) and overall profit and loss. The systems are designed to report some set of indicators so this can be tracked. The people who look at the indicators do not usually understand the underlying algorithms. The people who design and implement the system are specialists in new product creation and generally leave the scene after the process is in place. The people who maintain and improve the system generally have documentation, but they may not be aware of why particular design choices were made and the trade-offs involved.

Another way to state this is that every day we create large algorithmic systems that no single person, or even group of people, understands. As long as he systems work reasonably well or can be discarded, there is no real problem. When the systems fail or are critical but so complex they cannot be discarded, we run into trouble.

On Wall Street, most trading does not involve humans. In 2009 almost three quarters of all stock trades were automated trades based on computer algorithms. Since then this number has almost certainly increased. When you listen to commentators discuss the stock market and why it moves one way or another, it is complete nonsense. It sounds good and it always supports the commentator's overall view of the world, but it is not based in any kind of fact. On May 6, 2010 the stock market briefly crashed. It took five months to issue a report that could attempt to explain what actually happened. The basic answer is that the machines did it.

The hubris part of this trend is that there are people who think we can model and control complex systems. As an example, one of the great failures of modern economics has been the attempt to quantify risk. Do a google search for "quantification of risk economics". You will get pages of google results that are complete nonsense written by people who actually believe they are close to the holy grail of putting a number on risk. Often they create models that work well in certain circumstances - but their predictions ALWAYS fail catastrophically in the long term.

What happens when you put a couple of people with Nobel Prizes in Economics in a room with the Vice Chairman and Head of Bond Trading at Solomon Brothers. You get a well funded scheme to make money based on the finest and most capable economic models of the day. You get "Long Term Capital Management" a firm which made profits until it completely failed in 2000. The failure of a single firm, even a big one, is not particularly important. Unfortunately the firm was so highly leveraged (highly leveraged means "playing with huge sums of other peoples money") it threatened to bring down large portions of the financial system. Fixing the problem required a massive bailout supervised by the Federal Reserve. It failed because of events that they simply could not predict. That is the point. There are always events that we simply cannot predict. We do pretty well with "normal distributions", hence the reliable existence of life insurance. Unfortunately, most real world economics are not "normal".

The run-up to the 2008 collapse was a tribute to the power of simple greed, but all good cons need a convincing story. In this case, investors were reassured that the risk involved in collections of mortgages was known and quantified, and besides, we can hedge (insure) to limit losses. There was outright lying at every level of the financial transactions, but a systemic problem was that the intertwined system intended to reduce risk by spreading it, simply increased risk for everyone. Of course there were some folks who knew about the lying and worked the system to their own advantage (notably, Goldman Sachs).

Social Trends - Missing the Big Picture

Evidence based action is important to understand what works and what doesn't. When we have the evidence it seems silly to ignore it. But, it is also silly to read more into our simple experiments than is actually there.

Experimentation is difficult and expensive. This is especially true with trying to understand humans. Too often we end up understanding and exploiting a tendency. The results may be immediately satisfying but ultimately destructive.

There are many situations where short term investigation gives us a "local optimum" where people are more satisfied at this instant, but the end result is ultimately destructive to our health and well being.

The prime example of this is industrial food production. To build a more popular food product you have to understand what people want so they will buy your product. An industry with a new product must be able to produce it consistently and on a large scale. If you create a focus group or simply ask people on the street to tell you which of several food products they prefer, the winner is likely to be the the cheapest product with the highest sugar/fat/salt. As organisms that evolved in circumstances of want, we crave these things. To produce the product consistently and in large quantities you have to industrialize the production of the raw ingredients. In the case of food this is living organisms. For crops, we standardize the breeds, the methods of production, and we process the results in chemical plants to homogenize, filter, and extract. For animals, we reduce them to eating machines on a cheap controlled diet and we engineer their genetics to change what was an animal into a muscle production machine.

We get consistent products that we biologically crave, we also get obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and an odd form of malnutrition. Don't worry about the malnutrition though, because we have processed supplements to fix that.

Since the introduction of the automobile we have done exactly the same sort of short term fixes. When faced with traffic problems, typically traffic congestion, the answer is always the same. Congestion will be alleviated if we add more lanes and reduce the number of entrances into the main streets (no houses on arterials). It also helps if people stay away from the congested areas. The end result is our typical suburban city form. That is, a built environment that is reasonable if you are a car, but not very suitable for supportive human culture.

On a business level the question is usually "How can we improve our profits this quarter or this year?" It is almost never "How can we stay in this business in a sustainable way?" or "How can we make the world a better place in ten or a hundred years?" If your time horizon for profit is one or even five years and an opportunity arises to make a profit based on destruction that will not become apparent for ten or twenty years, most businesses will take the profit and screw the future, which leads to the next section.

Environmental Trends - Destruction of the Natural World

It is clear that as a species we are quite willing to destroy everything around us for short term survival or short term gain. We are willing to completely destroy the natural environment. Take as examples mountaintop removal for coal, deforestation and overfishing.

On top of this, there are unintended results of our actions. The prime example is global warming. General habitat destruction as we exploit more and more of the world is a severe problem.

Environmental Trends - Unsustainable Human Population

We have already passed a tipping point in human population. We have more people than the planet can sustainably support. Like a profligate child with a large inheritance, we can live for some time by depleting our inheritance, but in the end we will be broke. In this case of humanity, our inheritance is the natural world and all its riches which we are rapidly despoiling.

It is not clear what the carrying capacity of our planet is, particularly since this is partially related to the technology at hand. It is clear that we have exceeded the current capacity. As the human population continues to increase we will see even more rapid environmental degradation as well as more frequent human disasters (crop collapse, famine, social unrest, war for resources...).

In industrial countries population has stabilized or even decreased. This gives some hope that we can control our own numbers. For the world as a whole I think it is likely that we will simply exhaust natural resources. This will cause a very painful decline in human population based on misery.

As a contrast, think what the world would be like with our current technology if we had a third of our current population. We could live in a world of human plenty with a massively improved environment. We have passed the point in human society where increasing human labor is the best way to improve the human condition.

Economics - What is it Good For

I think of economics as the study of money and how it travels. I had a written conversation with one of my brothers and he explained that economists do not think of economics this way. They think of economics as the study of human choice and allocation of resources. For example, my brother wrote:

What are these non-economic spheres of which you speak?  Give me a couple of examples and I'll understand better.  To me, the economy IS society.  It's people using their resources to exchange with other people.  Taking the time to respond to you is a choice in the use of my resources.  I could have been riding my bike.  Economics studies how we make these choices.  It's as abstract as Galois theory and, IMHO, way more fun.

This is a very grand ambition, a unified theory of human choice. If this could be accomplished it would stand among the greatest human achievements.

When I speak of non-economic spheres, like religious or scholarly pursuits, there is an obvious mismatch with the economists view. If economics is about choice and resource allocation, there are no non-economic spheres. Cloistered nuns make the choice to spend their resources in meditation and prayer and scholars choose to spend their resources on acquiring and disseminating knowledge.

I took a negotiation class. The first exercise was to act out a scenario about buying/selling a car. Everyone in the class had exactly the same information about buyer, seller, and car. We paired off into buyers and sellers and negotiated. Perhaps because it was an exercise, no one walked away from the deal. At the end of the exercise each pair was satisfied with their transaction. The range of prices was huge. Some people bought a classic car that was likely to appreciate in value. Some people bought a source of spare parts, most of which would turn out to be useless. Each person brought their own sense of value to the table and negotiated the transaction based on that value.

This is the strength of the free market. Both buyers and sellers get to say what an item is worth and either complete a transaction or walk away. Each person assigns value and chooses how to allocate resources.

This is a basic notion of economics. To make it a science we have to be able to generalize, theorize, and test those theories. That "sense of value" is called a utility function. The utility function represents the value that a buyer or seller assigns to a resource at any given point in time. We can also speak about utility functions for large numbers of people. What is, for example, a fair price for an iPad where there are hundreds of millions of potential buyers. Can we establish that the collective utility function is such that 10 million buyers will pay $500 dollars but only 8 million will pay $600.

Here are a some facts about utility functions, both individual and collective.

• They vary over time. A rotary telephone is worth much less today than it was 75 years ago.


• They are discontinuous. When lcd televisions reached a certain price/quality point, CRT televisions suddenly lost almost all of their monetary value.


• They are chaotic in the mathematical sense. That is, utility functions that are initially very close may, over time, diverge to be arbitrarily far apart. Two men may agree on the worth of a new Mercedes. One of them has a baby and suddenly the Mercedes is worth no more to that man than a Honda Civic.

These qualities are common in nature but are, so far, mathematically intractable. Economists generally work with simplified models assuming that utility functions are, at least locally, continuous and non-chaotic. That is, to make the mathematics simpler they ignore the basic complexity.

All scientists make simplifying assumptions in their models. The difference between economists and scientists becomes clear when the models fail. Scientists blame their models and re-examine their assumptions. Economists blame the world and try to persuade people that they should behave more like the model.

The brightest and most analytically rigorous economists have an impressive track record of failure in their predictions. Given this legacy, what does contemporary economics have to say that helps us with our lives? Is this a reasonable tool to use when looking at the world, or is it simply a case of "when you have a hammer everything looks like a nail".

Transactions are all about value, and value is mostly ontological. That is, what are we negotiating about? Is this a classic car or a bucket of bolts? To a philanthropist value might lie in the name of a building "The Jones Center for Advanced Learning". The question is not one of discovering the utility function, but of creating a story about the world. The utility function follows from the story. In creating the story, the tools of psychology are much more important than economics. This is marketing. I have almost never seen a marketer do an economic analysis. They create the story, the shape of the world, to make the object as desirable as possible to potential customers. It is the story that determines the utility function.

Unrealistic utility functions are not the only simplification made in economics. There are also the patently absurd notions that humans are rational actors (even in the limited economic sense) and that all parties have the same information about transactions.

While this discussion has mainly focused on microeconomics, macroeconomics has been equally unsuccessful in prediction and in guiding policy. Countries that defy conventional economic wisdom often end up better off than those that follow it. To see this, look at the history of the IMF and the results of following or disobeying its advice.

Given that the basic premises used in economics are faulty and that realistic mathematics are intractable, what is the use of current economic theory? Ben Bernanke explains:

Economic models are useful only in the context for which they are designed ... standard models were designed for these non-crisis periods, and they have proven quite useful in that context.

That is, economic theories and models are great except for the fact that they fail catastrophically from time to time.

Perhaps formal economics has failed us because the economists have not developed the analytical tools necessary for realistic models. Despite this, economic notions could provide us a particularly useful way of looking at the world or determining how we should behave.

I am not an economist and have not deeply studied the field. As a result my views are probably distorted. I see the field as an educated lay person.

I find viewing human relations in terms of self interested agents, resource allocation, and transactions to be largely bankrupt. It is true that we often work for our own gain, have limited resources and engage in many transactions. For most of us, these issues are not central to how we live our lives. Moreover, the notion that we are individualistic self interested agents has infected US society leading to a "greed is good" mentality. This flies in the face of what we know about our success as a species, which is dependent on cooperation and sacrificing self interest for family, friends, neighbors and nations.

Here is the bottom line. Economics as it is currently formulated has failed us in prediction, guidance and in world view. Economic models are only useful in the simplest situations. In world view, contemporary economics leads to greater inequality, poorer health and welfare for society as a whole, divisiveness between individuals and groups, and the mistaken belief that government cannot solve problems. All in all, an impressive record of complete failure.

Fairness and US Federal Tax

I keep seeing articles about "fairness" of the federal tax system. In particular, that the wealthiest americans fund most of the government. For example, the Wall Street Journal "As it happens, the top fifth of earners currently pay 67% of all federal taxes". On the face of it, it doesn't seem fair that twenty percent of the population should pay two thirds of federal taxes. To make this even worse, depending on how you work the accounting, somewhere between ten and forty seven percent of households pay no Federal taxes at all.

This blog entry was triggered by an opinion piece written by Glenn Hubbard, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "Left, Right and Wrong on Taxes". In that piece Mr. Hubbard says

When I left my job as the deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in 1993, I left a message on my office blackboard for my successor. I wrote, “Broaden the base, lower the rates” repeatedly until I filled the entire space. I then had it covered with wax so it could not be erased. (Yes, the government charged me for my bit of vandalism. But it was worth it.)

I think all of this is nonsense. It seems to be based on the simplest possible notion of "fair" and a deep misunderstanding of wealth, taxes, and spending.

Anything to do with taxes and finance is complicated, but this note is not. I am using a very broad brush, but in data I use the numbers that argue against my point of view. For example, I use federal spending numbers from 2000 when the government spent much less than it does now. The income figures come from 2005, which gives households a higher income than in 2000. I did this because it is hard to get a consistent data set but I wanted to make sure I could not be accused of cherry picking data.

The gist of my argument is that the wealthiest must pay most of the burden because, frankly, they are the only ones that have any money. The federal government goes after them because they cannot get the money anywhere else without having people starving in the streets.

In 2000 the federal government spent about 1,789 billion (about 1.8 trillion) dollars. See: Government Spending Details, Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010, Table 1.1 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2009 . In 2005 there were about 110 million households . Dividing federal spending by households gives an "average" federal tax burden matching taxes to spending. In billions, this is: 1,789/.11 or $17,890/household

In 2005, twenty percent of all households had an income less than $18,500. That means for one out of five people to pay their "fair share" we would have to confiscate all their money leaving them nothing for food, shelter, heat, water... Looking at income breakdowns, the poor are disproportionately young and have less education. This group has more households headed by single women. My own experience and the fact that they tend to by younger indicates there are often children in the households. Children have no say in when or to whom they are born.

My earlier post discusses how, in virtually all societies, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. If you compare the wealth curve to the tax curve. you will find general agreement. Compare "But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent." with the fact that the top ten percent has about 71% of the wealth.

The federal government taxes the rich for the same reasons Willie Sutton robbed banks. That is where the money is. If you look at capability to pay taxes (percent of wealth vs. percent of tax burden), the top ten percent are getting off easy. In terms of power politics, that makes sense. The wealthiest have the greatest ability to influence government policy and public opinion. As Warren Buffet famously said, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

We have income redistribution in the United States, as does every industrialized country in the world. We do this because the alternative is having malnourished children and a huge homeless population.

It would be impossible to argue in favor of the current federal tax system with its arcane rules and special deductions. Eliminating many of the current deductions would allow stated tax rates to go down and would make the stated rates closer to the actual rates. But calls to “Broaden the base, lower the rates” are another salvo in the class warfare already going on. If we look at Mr. Hubbard's specific proposals we can see where he stands.

Broaden the base lower the rates.

Reduce taxes for the wealthiest americans (softened by removing deductions).

Cut corporate taxes.

Increase income mostly for the wealthiest americans. The evidence that this spurs economic growth is sketchy at best.

Shift from income tax to a consumption tax.

This disproportionately affects those who must spend all their income.

The United States is the wealthiest nation that has ever existed. Even with our debt crisis we can afford to support those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable, but it will require taking some wealth from those who have the most.

Election Related Blog Posts

Election season is on us again, so I thought I would collect some blog posts from the last election because I think they are still valid.

This election cycle is even worse than usual because of the amount of untraceable money. As I note in Following Politics Too Closely Makes You Stupid, nothing can be learned from a thirty second ad. Unfortunately, there are so many of them they are impossible to ignore.

If you have a small amount of energy to devote to politics, I recommend keeping a pencil and paper and jotting down the name of organizations sponsoring ads (Citizens for All Things Good). Look for the organization on the internet. If it does not list where the money comes from, that should be a black mark against the candidate. Whoever is sponsoring the ad is spending a lot of money to get the candidate elected (or to defeat the opponent). The sponsors will want something in return, but they don't want you to know who they are.

• Following Politics Too Closely Makes You Stupid


• It is Your Civic Duty - Lie to Political Pollsters


• Machine Politics

A little off topic, but related to many of the current election discussions is
Why Does Government Interfere With Markets?

Wealth Distribution and The Work Week

In this post I have quite a few links. They vary in political slant and probably somewhat in numerical values, but the overall picture is largely consistent. Often I reference an article rather than the base data because I found the article itself interesting. Sometimes the general articles contain other useful links.

I read a quote a while ago - but cannot find it now. It went something like "Every successful person says they got that way by dint of hard work, intelligence and perseverance. I never met an unsuccessful person who did not blame circumstance and bad luck."

I can interpret this statement in at least three ways, all of which have some truth. One is that successful people work hard and meet adversity with intelligence and persistence while unsuccessful people blame the world around them. A second interpretation is that successful people are likely to pat themselves on the back and attribute to themselves results that may have come from simple luck. A third interpretation is that both sides are correct. Hard work, intelligence and perseverance may be necessary precursors of self earned success. While these traits may be necessary, they are not sufficient. Many people are defeated by events beyond their control.

In my last blog post I requested a 1950 lifestyle in exchange for a work week that corresponds to current productivity compared to 1950 (11 hours per week). With steady increases in productivity it is a reasonable to question why life is as hard as it is and why the work week has not gotten any shorter, and may have gotten longer. I saw an analysis (unfortunately not very good) of hunter-gatherers that estimated they spent about 40 hours a week on survival. That means that in the past 4000 years we have we made no progress on shortening the labor needed to survive. Admittedly "survival" now is much different than 4000 years ago. Life is much more comfortable, longer and, for most of us, less brutish. Still... something seems wrong.

About a century ago an economist named Wilfried Pareto noticed than many phenomena including income and wealth follow what is now called a Pareto Distribution. This is often known as the 80/20 rule and says that 20% of the population have 80% of the wealth/income... The distribution is self similar in that if you take the top 20% it will follow the same distribution. That is, 20% of the most wealthy people will have 80% of the wealth in the wealthy group.


The distribution of wealth is not exactly a Pareto Distribution but it is close, particularly at the high end of the income/wealth scales. This is true in many societies around the globe including medieval Hungary.

When something is this widespread it argues for a common mechanism. This mechanism could be the distribution of brains/work ethic/persistence or it could be something having to do with the nature of economic systems. In 2002 the Harvard Business Review published an article "Wealth Happens" . Simulations based on a few assumptions about money flow show a Pareto Distribution occurring strictly by chance. That is, a few chance events may cause one person to become wealthy while another becomes poor. In their simulations, the basic feedback mechanism was investment. If you gained enough wealth to start investing in things that provided more wealth, you headed up the wealth chain. Wealth is compounding, so the more you have the more you get.

The numbers 80%/20% are really just an example. Different societies have different percentages. Most people underestimate how skewed wealth is and overestimate social mobility (moving from poor to rich or vice versa).

Net worth is the value of everything you own minus all debt. In 2007 the median net worth of a family was $120,000. If this were a stack of $100 bills, it would be a little less than six inches tall. The 400th richest American in 2007 was Kenny Troutt of Excel Communications with a net worth of 1.3 billion. That would be a stack of $100 bills just over a mile tall. Bill Gates topped the world list that year at 59 billion, a stack of $100 bills about 45.5 miles tall.

It is worth a moment to talk about "mean" and "median". In the last paragraph I said the median net worth in 2007 was $120,000. The median is the middle number. That is, if you have 11 different numbers then 5 numbers will be less than the median and 5 numbers will be greater than the median. The "mean" is the average you get by adding up all the numbers and dividing by the total. For the numbers (1,2,3,4, 10000) the median is 3. There are two numbers (1, 2) that are less than the median and two numbers (4, 100000) that are greater than the median. The mean of these numbers is 2002 = (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 10000)/5. The difference between the median and the mean is an indication of how skewed a distribution is.

In the case of US family net worth in 2007, the median was $120,000. The mean was $556,380. The Pareto Distribution is quite skewed. If we confiscated all wealth and redistributed it evenly among all families, every family in the US would be around the current 80th percentile of net worth. That is, every single family would be better off than about 80% of the families today.

Before you start the revolution remember the Harvard Business Review article. It indicates that inequality would quickly reassert itself and we would be in the same position as today in relatively short order. Many people would lose almost all their money and a few people would become fabulously wealthy.

Over the past 20 years the US has become less equal in terms of wealth distribution, but the absolute wealth of each class may have increased. That is, the economic pie has gotten bigger so that even though the very wealthy have increased their percentage of the pie, the rest of us still got a little more pie than we used to.

In social mobility there is a general trend for poor families to improve their lot over several generations. In the US it takes about four generations to move from 20% of the average income to about 90% of the average income. There is more social mobility in much of the developed world than in the United States. That is, families pull themselves out of poverty significantly faster in France, Canada, and Denmark than they do in the US.

On a macroeconomic level, measurements indicate productivity and wages are somewhat linked. At and industry level, this correlation does not hold. This can be seen in agriculture. Agricultural production has increased many fold over the past century and a half, but farm wages remain among the lowest of any industry.

I have said that Pareto Distributions of wealth and income probably have some basic underlying cause. That means we will always have a lot of relatively poor people and a very very few fabulously wealthy. However the percentages can and do vary from society to society. I believe that much of the difference is a result of government policy. In a Kleptocracy, 95% of the wealth may be owned by 5% of the population. Social welfare states (most of Western Europe) tend to have less wealth inequality than we have in the US.

The difference between median and mean income in the United States indicates there is plenty of room for increasing the general welfare of people and, at the same time, shortening the work week. The average American worker works 500 hours per year more than the average German worker, yet German quality of life and social security is at least as high. The difference is social policy.

The Pareto Distribution ensures that there will always be a pool of less well off people who may be willing to work more hours or for less pay. Decisions on the length of the work week are political and are based in part on how the populace feels about wealth redistribution. In US politics this topic cannot be discussed rationally. Because structural changes to the economy are likely to further concentrate wealth (possible topic of another blog post) and lack of rational discussion, you can expect to be working even longer hours in the near future.

Productivity and Lifestyle - Are We Being Shafted?

If we are to believe productivity statistics it should take 11 hours of work per week to have an output that is equivalent to a 40 hour work week in 1950. It should take 23 hours per week to equal 40 hours in 1975. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/

I am writing this in my house, built in 1956. In front of the house is our single car, a ten year old Honda. Something seems wrong either with the statistics or with my life. Currently I am starting a new business, so I expect to be working a lot without much (any) monetary gain. That said, I have worked at least 40 hours per week for decades and I have never been four times as well off as the equivalent worker in 1950.

There are explanations (aside from the obvious one that I have been shafted for my entire adult life). Mostly these revolve around the difficulty of comparing time periods. On the measurement side, we have shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy. How do you compare my productivity as a software engineer (a white collar position that did not exist in 1950) with that of a mid level manager at a blender manufacturer in 1950. Within an industry we can more easily measure productivity gains, but as one industry becomes more productive, workers are laid off and shift to new industries.

On the consumption side, the goods and services we use have changed drastically. Instead of an expensive, crummy, black and white TV, I have a a big screen high definition TV that I can use to stream movies off the internet. Instead of a single phone line with expensive long distance, we have multiple cell phones and the internet. My 10 year old car is undoubtedly more efficient, comfortable and reliable than a brand new car in 1950. We have several computers in the house all of which are wirelessly connected to the internet.

Despite these difficulties, I personally believe the "we are all being shafted" theory. Honestly, my life is not that much different from life in the 1950's or the 1970s. My house was built in 1956 and has no air conditioning. The heater has changed several times, but is still a natural gas burning central system. My car, while of higher quality, is still just a car. I do not own that many appliances. Those that I do own are of higher quality and probably more reliable than anything available a couple decades ago, but their basic design and operation is essentially the same.

On the working side, I have always worked at a full time job, but these days most households have every adult member working outside the home for wages. In 1950 a primary white collar wage earner would have supported a household on 40 hours a week. Now we need two wage earners working close to 80 hours for my household. On top of that, many of the tasks that used to be someone else's job are now mine. For example, in the grocery store I used to wheel my cart up to a check out lane and someone would ring up my purchases. Now I have to ring it up myself. A business traveler in the 1950s or even the 1970s would have a travel agency - either external or internal - book travel. Now even highly paid executives book their own travel. White collar workers in 1950 or 1970 had secretaries for clerical work, now we do it all ourselves.

I would trade my current lifestyle for a 1950 lifestyle working 11 hours per week. It is true that I enjoy modern conveniences, so I am willing to double my work week to get some of that (computers and the internet). That brings me up to 22 hours per week. Heck, I'll throw in a couple hours for free and make it an even 24 hours of work a week - but that is my final offer.

Don't even get me started on the flying car that all visions of the future thought we would have by now.