Is it Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders? Democrats in general? Or is it the supply side policies of the GOP?
Economists have been studying economic wellbeing and its determinants since the days of Adam Smith and we know quite a lot about it. So lets jump to the bottom line. Aside from the rule of law and free markets, the most important determinant of the average wage is economic growth. And the most important ingredient in economic growth is capital accumulation. More capital, more growth.
If you place the origin of modern human beings at about 100,000 years ago, for almost all of the period since then our ancestors lived at the subsistence level. For 98,800 years, the average person lived on the modern equivalent of about $1 a day. If they were lucky, at a few times and in a few places they might have enjoyed the equivalent of $2 a day. And if they were really, really lucky they might have even achieved $3 a day. But thats about it.
If you were a king or a queen, your life was a little bit better. But very few readers would want to trade places with even Caesar or Cleopatra. Compared to the average person today, the consumption opportunities of the royalty of old were dismal.
Think about going into a supermarket with one dollar and the awareness that whatever you can buy with that dollar is all you are going to get to eat for the whole day. On the average, thats how your ancestors lived for almost 100,000 years.
They did not have the rule of law. For the most part, they did not have private property or free markets. And they did not accumulate capital. Or if they did accumulate capital, they used it to build pyramids, or castles or churches.
Then, about 200 years agobeginning in the Westthings began to change. Economies started to grow and incomes began to rise. At first they grew slowly. Then faster. By the twentieth century, per capita real incomesthat is, incomes adjusted for inflationwere growing by 1.5 percent per year, on the average. Since 1960for roughly fifty years nowtheyve been growing by about 2.3 percent.
Steven Landsburg explains what that growth rate means for the average person. If youre a middle-class American earning $50,000 a year, and you expect your children, twenty-five years from now, to occupy that same modest rung on the economic ladder, then with a 2.3 percent growth rate, theyll be earning the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $89,000 per year. Their children, another twenty-five years down the line, will earn $158,000 a year. And if that 2.3 percent growth rate continues, then in fewer than four hundred years, your descendants will earn about $1 million per daya little less than Bill Gatess current income, but at least in the ballpark.
Note: These are not some future inflation-ravaged dollars were talking about. They are the equivalent of a million of todays dollars. Your descendants are destined to be very, very wealthy unless something happens to stop all this good fortune.
And that, basically, is what left wing politics is all about.
Think about the last Bernie Sanders speech you listened to. Whats he saying? He wants to take money away from the rich or from Wall Street or from big banks or big corporations and spend it on ... what? On health care, more Social Security, free tuition, maternity leave, sick leave, etc., etc.
In other words, Bernie Sanders wants to tax some peoples capital and use the money to increase other peoples consumption. But other peoples capital is what makes labor more productive. Without it, economic growth would come to a grinding halt.
Take, Warren Buffettwho I gather is the second richest person in the world, even though he apparently enjoys a very modest lifestyle. If we taxed 100 percent of his income away, we would not be harming Buffett. His lifestyle probably wouldnt change one whit. But we would be removing funds from the capital market. The country would have less saving, less investment and lower wages in future years.
A lot of economists, both left and right, think we should not tax capital at all. For someone like Buffett they would tax only his consumption. In other words, tax him on what he takes out of the system for personal benefit, but dont tax at all on what he leaves in the systemfunds that are benefiting everyone else. Economists who lean left would probably make the consumption tax very progressive. But they would still let people accumulate capital tax free.
So there you have it. That is probably the way most economists think. But you would never know that reading the economic commentary in most newspapersespecially the columns of New York Times writer Paul Krugman.
|John C. Goodman is a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute, President of the Goodman Institute for Public Policy Research, and author of the widely acclaimed Independent books, A Better Choice: Healthcare Solutions for America, and the award-winning, Priceless: Curing the Healthcare Crisis. The Wall Street Journal and the National Journal, among other media, have called him the Father of Health Savings Accounts.|
Obamacare remains highly controversial and faces ongoing legal and political challenges. Polls show that by a large margin Americans remain opposed to the healthcare law and seek to repeal and replace it. However, the question is: Replace it with what?