FemiNazi!

We're back in business, after last week's discharge of Rebuttals, William Easterly's Tyranny of Experts (Review available shortly) and a few days contemplating the fate of Jan Palach, in Prague. 

Today's accusation is a severe one - one might even call it absurd. But, as Deidre McCloskey often repeats, do hear me out. Consider that I might have a point. FemiNazi.

In my country, there's been a major feminist revolution over the last decade, intensified in the last few years. This, in a nation where gender equality has reached further than perhaps anywhere else. One, particularly awful accusation laid against these proclaiming feminists are the combination of their ideologi with Hitler's, to form the FemiNazi - allegedly it's just a word to describe a radical feminist.

That's of course absurd. But hear me out (though I have to pay homeage to my sister for unconciously pointing this out).

Feminists, quite understandably, don't like views as the ones below.

It consolidates the idea that women's value lies in the beauty and sexiness of their bodies. It's repulsive. It confines the idea that females are for sale, alluding to arranged marriages, prostitution or trafficking. So Feminists want to ban such commercial activities. Ok, sure.

Now, let me elaborate the comparison to Hitler.

Feminists don't like images as the one above - they don't like women being exploited, as they see it. Thus, they'd want to ban it. Whatever is wrong or harms the project of Gender Equality is to be taken away, banned. Punished. Eradicated.

Nazis in the Third Reich didn't like Jews. They believed Jews to be the lowest of the low, filthy and strain on Humanity. Thus, they wanted to ban them. Punish them. Eradicate them.

Here's the similarity that justifies the label 'FemiNazi'; The will to ban, use State Violence to punish and eventually eradicate whatever you find repulsive. It's not the magnitude of the crime here, as obviously murder millions of Jewish people is a far worse action than banning sexist commercial. The point is the will to ban what you don't like. The will to hinder other people from expressing ideas, from trading or even from outright living.

The will to HINDER other people, essentially. This is always and everywhere a moral statement saying: "I know better than you, what's good for you", "My moral is preferable to yours".

Regardless the circumstances, that's a horrible stance, quite justifiably attaining the epithet 'Nazi'.
______
Disclaimer: The argument can be made for most things socialists, statists or State-embracing liberals do; they all rely on the state to forcefully remove what they dislike, meaning the epithet "Nazi" might be applicable even to them. 

I, Extremist!

Every once so often the 'Extremist' comes to town!

You've all met him. He's this horrible, somewhat politically awkward person who refuses to conform to a slim worldview given by the politically correct, the media and the Government. It's somewhat dubious as to what he actually believes, but everyone else agrees that generally, whatever he says can safely be disregarded because we all know he's an extremist!

Now, what's so bad with being extreme? And what does it even mean? To have ideas somewhat outside of a tiny-weenie political space of opinions currently in charge of most countries, doesn't seem too bad. I mean, diversity and all.

I'll have a look at some things I believe, and we'll establish whether or not that's extreme.

I believe...

- ...theft is wrong
- ...initiating violence is wrong
- ...using threats of violence against other people is wrong
- ...fraudulent behaviour is wrong
- ...that individuals can make decisions about their own lives
- ...that individuals can make decisions about what to eat or what substances to put into their bodies!

Apparently, if you agree to any of this, you're also an extremist! We, the club of extremists, salute you!

___________________________

Some examples of theft: income taxes, VATs, bank robbery, pickpocketing.

Some examples of initiating violence: U.S Interventions in foreign countries, assault, rape, police violence.

Some examples of threats: Tax Agencies ("if you don't pay, we throw you in jail"), Government Police force, a horse's head on your pillow, promises to hurt/kill someone.

Some examples of fraudulent behaviour: paper money*, artificial credit expansion, central banks, Bernard Madoff, Ponzi Schemes, mails-to-your-inbox-telling-you-you've-just-won-$1million

Some examples of individual decision-making: what to construct, what sexual services to sell, where to live, whom to marry (including sex of that person), what salary you offer your potential employees.

Some examples of substances and food: raw milk, non-FDA-approved drugs, marihuana, smoothies or fruits.

*with no claims/not 100% claim to real money or underlying asset. 

GINI - or the increasing inequality between the rich and the poor

This is the 2nd part of the "Leftie Serie" which I created after attending the People & Planet Conference on the 8th of March 2014. 
Here's a link to the other posts: Feminist Economics

As in any gathering of political lefties, inequality is a often-discussed topic. There are very decent debates around and differences to what this actually means, what equality would be and how equality is to be gained - but generally, most lefties agree on the notion that inequality is bad. 

At the conference these ideas were frequent. "The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer" has echoed throughout the world since Seattle, "UK inequality is raising", probably been said since Thatcher or before that even, "rich getting rich at the expense of the poor" are repeated until they stick. Question is, how accurate are they?

We were presented with the following charts of  Wilkinson & Pickett showing the how more equal countries are better countries, also notions heavily worshipped within the left. The chart plots countries according to Income Inequality (measured as GINI) and an index consisting of various problems, obesity, teen pregnancy, mental health, violence etc), showing how more equal countries tend to have less of those social problems.

Discussion

This discussion is twofolded. The left argument is something like this:

P1: "Inequalities are increasing"
P2: "Inequalities are bad and must be prevented"
C = we must prevent the inequalities from increasing, preferably reduce them

I'll address these in turn.

Let's have a look at income inequalities as measured by GINI, then. Here's a chart which compares the UK (Red square) with Scandinavian countries, Germany, France and the US.

Source: Ekonomistas, based on OECD numbers. UK GINI inside the red square.

The trend for continental Europe and Scandinavia is indeed upward over the last 30 years, but from very low levels. In the case of UK, on the other hand, the income inequality has been stable since 1990, actually falling slightly over the last few years. The notion that income inequalities in the UK are increasing is simply not true. Also consider the article published in the Guardian last summer about how income gap in the UK is at its lowest point for 25 years.

The other discussion often involved here is that the rich are getting rich at the expense of the poor, as news regularly imply when posting these kinds of arguments. That discussion is wider and regards the economic foundations and structure of a company. Suffice to say that level of bonus vs layoffs have very little to do with one another.

If we turn our heads to a more global scale, Johan Norberg's In Defense of Global Capitalism, comes to mind. He shows systematically how capitalism increased the living standards around the world and made people better off. He also describes the following, taken from a Forbes article when the book was first published:

"As for the argument that the rich are getting richer, well, they are, according to Norberg: The top fifth of the population made an average $14,623 in 1998, a 75% increase over 1965 wages. But the poor are getting richer faster. The bottom fifth, making $1,137 in 1998, doubled their 1965 wages." - Forbes

That is - yes, the richer are indeed getting richer, but not as fast as the poor. Yet again the Leftie's notion is inaccurate.

Is inequality bad?

Following the first section, the second becomes more philosophical; if inequalities aren't increasing, it matters less whether or not they are bad. Even if they are, it's still less of a problem than the global left claims. And surely, if the levels of inequalities experienced in the UK in 1990 were sustainable, given the increased living standrads since then, surely UK 2014 would be a better place than 24 years back. 

Anyway, the discussion finds most of its academical value in Wilkingson & Pickets work, which relies entirely on correlation. They plot their charts and break law #1 in Academia: don't mix Correlation with Causation. But the Left, hardly creditted with academical excellence or consistency, takes their research and use it for certain proof that inequality is bad. 

How would that even be possible? Inequality is a strictly relative term, not too different from Relative Poverty (which I wrote about some time back); that is, indicators of inequality could be up, even though everyone in a society was better off. Besides, all the effects discussed occur on individual levels (obesity, violence, mental health etc) - why would I suddenly become more violent because a banker across town gets a bonus or because cleaners in a different part of the country suddenly make more money than me? Inconceivable.

Defending the 1%

In addition to all of this, the recent discussion in US media about the top 1% should be taking into consideration. The Harvard economist Greg Mankiw published an article in the NY Times a few weeks back vividly defending the 1% and their contribution to society/world. He also provides compelling reasons to why the Lefties' notions about the richest of the rich are incorrect. More extensive reading can be found in his article 'Defending the 1%'.

Conclusions 

The notion of increasing income inequalities in the UK is incorrect; GINI has remained stable for the last 20 years, marginally falling/raising over the last decade. The rich around the world are indeed getting richer - but so are the poor, and at a rate faster than the rich.

The starting point of the Left ("Inequality is bad") doesn't have more support than the correlations provided by The Spirit Level. Since correlation ≠ causation, this gives us nothing more than a hint towards further research. Also Mankiw's arguments about the top-1% should be taking into account; why are transactions that make both parts better off and at the same time creating income inequalities undesirable?

The question I have for you lefties is simple: why exactly is inequality bad?

You're entitled to your own opinion - Not to your own facts

So, tomorrow there's this lefties conference at one of the Student Unions. Exciting! I've talked myself into going with the intention of keeping quiet and listening carefully to all the arguments and positions I will encounter. How thoughtful of me, not to ruin their conference with unconventional views!

Anyway, as a pre-runner, I'm doing some reasoning regarding freedom of opinion - your right to think whatever you want. Fundamental pillar upon which our western democracies rest. Let's go.

One of the most interesting clashes of politics is facts vs. opinion. We all, predominantly, recognize that other people are entitled to their views, just as I am entitled to mine. However, what happens when such opinions are countered with plain facts, insofar that such facts can be obtained?

First, fundamental difference:
Opinion: I like Ice-Cream
Fact: Ice-Cream contains cream (unless it's vegan, made differently, lala).

Regardless of my opinion about what Ice-Cream contains, or my right to excercise that opinion, it doesn't change the fact that cream is a component of Ice-Cream - thus, it renders my opinion ridiculous, superfluous and straight out silly.

So, what happens when opinions are based on or fully rely on facts? That is, what happens when the relation between the two are established?

Let me give you an example. Consider a fairly easy statement, "Cats are the best animals!"
An opinion, easy enough, and a very subjective statement. How is "best" to be defined, or even measured? We can't do anything about it, and the freedom of opinion applies fully.

If we add the next layer: "Cats are the best animals, because they have most legs!"
Now we've established a relation to measurable fact, and the person has also implied the indicator for how "best" is to be measured: the amount of legs.

But here facts come in: There are a number of other animals with more legs than cats, say spiders or ants. Applying the person's own measure for why cats are the best animals (namely amount of legs), his/her opinion is invalidated. Cats simply are not the best animals, regardless of this person's view or opinion. He or she is wrong. Not from my point of view, but from any point of view.

How is all of this relevant for a Leftie Conference?

I tend to encounter socialists or people on the left that carry certain ideas and believes that I find preposterous. Fair enough, we're all entitled to opinions, which is a major criticism I get when I say they're wrong or should change their views: "We're all entitled to our own opinions, why don't you let me have mine?"

Well, insofar as
1) an indicator for measuring that opinion is provided,
2) facts for that indicator can be obtained, and
3) there's a straight relationship between the indicator and the opinion, i.e you use that indicator to say why exactly your opinion is prefered,
then your opinion can be made as useless and incorrect as the one about cats above.

That is, if I can prove to you, within these three conditions, that your ideology is incorrect, your statements invalid and your facts wrong - then no, you're no longer entitled to have that opinion.

This is, I think, essentially why I wanna go tomorrow. If I can prove to lefties that their perception or ideas are factually incorrect, they are obliged to change their position, those perceptions and ultimately their entire ideology.

Seems easy enough, why do we still have socialists around?