A Reality-Based Punditry

I'm no economist. Neither is David Brooks. He tries to play one in the N.Y.T., and it's not pretty. Think Pat Sajak as King Lear.

Brooks is not an economist, but he is lazy:

• "between 1991 and 2005, 'the bottom fifth increased its earnings by 8-percent, compared with around 50 percent for the highest-income group.'"
• "recent rises in inequality have less to do with...globalization... than hard work."
• "Inequality is obviously increasing"

But the first point would indicate that there are decreases in inequality - not increases.

• "Seventh, it's not at all clear that the big winners in this economy are self-dealing corporate greedheads who are bilking shareholders." His proof is the assertion that the 25 highest paid hedge fund managers earned more than "all the 500 S&P 500 C.E.O.'s combined."

Because there are others (25 individuals) who earn even more than the C.E.O.'s, we are supposed to think the CEO's are not bilking shareholders?

• "Globalization boosts each American household's income by about $10,000.00 a year"
• "There's evidence that global trade is producing more losers."

Dear Mr, Brooks, which is it?

He reaches the apex of incoherence in his last paragraph.  He believes that the voting public will not be able to see the reality, the one that he sees, of our booming economy, despite how far away the elections are.

(memeorandum)

Comments

[rick]

Say what?

[bbbustard]

Oh.
I guess I was unclear. I was trying to point out how internally incoherent Brooks was. At one point he says that the bottom fifth's income increased by 80%, while the top fifth's income increased by only 50%. So why does he then say, twice, that inequality is increasing. If the income for the poorest is increasing faster than the income of the richest, than inequality is going down, not up. No?
I tried to ask how the fact that the combined income of 25 individuals was greater than the combined income of the CEOS of the S&P 500 had any relevance to arguments about those 500's performance and recompense.
I wanted to point out that an average benefit to a household of $10,000 seems out of synch with a statement 'that global trade is producing more losers.'
And the last point I was trying to address was Brook's assertion that the electorate cannot process something that is an undeniable, observable fact, such as our "booming economy," between now and the election. Traditionally, we have assumed that the voters can make an informed choice about a candidate, possibly one to whom they have just been introduced, in much less time than is being given them this cycle. Brooks thinks that this is still too little time for them to absorb what he considers an obvious, clear fact.

I hope that this helps?

[rick]

Thanks Bustard.
A little more clear I suppose. I always have difficulty following trains of thinking such as this. You are absolutely correct. Brooks is no economist and he is foolish to attempt to quantify such matters. The best we can ever hope for is to achieve equal protection under the law and equality of opportunity. Whatever happens in that environment happens.

Pakistan, I fear, is ready to explode. I was so looking forward to my visit to the NWFP. Oh well, another time.

[bbbustard]

Thanks - and I too see Pakistan about to blow. Although I have never been able to understand how it has held together this long -
Sorry your trip is getting messed up