The NYTimes other resident idiot (Douthat) focused today's nonsense column on the Pope. The column itself was devoid of substance, but it did have one controversial assertion:
Finally, it’s true that there is no Catholic position on, say, the correct marginal tax rate, and that Catholics are not obliged to heed the pope when he suggests that global inequality is increasing when the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.
He links to
an AEI blog that references
this paper that discusses the decline in "between country" inequality.
But there is, as usual, a significant flaw in how the AEI and Douthat use the evidence presented in the paper. Skip past the flaky, orange pastry for my reasoning...
The AEI blog that Douthat references focuses on this sentiment:
While inequality has increased within countries since 1970s — it’s not just America, gang — it’s dropped between countries.
They use this to argue that the world is becoming
more egalitarian and wealth distribution is becoming more even. Further, they say, this trend proves that the Pope is wrong to focus on wealth inequality
at all. And, even further, they imply that the rise of unfettered capitalism is responsible for this healthful trend.
But, according to the same paper (and the blog), the decrease in inequality exists almost entirely in Asia, specifically China. China is simultaneously experiencing an explosion of wealth and an explosion of wealth inequality.
It's interesting to see free-market conservatives claiming that China's rise is a vindication for their ideas. Ignoring inconvenient realities seems to be the hallmark of a conservative think-tank.
Speaking of which, from the paper's Abstract (emphasis mine):
Furthermore, if one makes exception for some Asian countries, the rest of the world does not move significantly. As a result, world inequality remains high by any standard.
Douthat reads "World inequality remains high." and says, "Aha! So it hasn't changed which means that it can't be
our fault!" Which is what we in the West have been saying about global poverty for, hmm, about 40 years. And so we conservatives are totally justified in ignoring the Pope!
It's also worth pointing out how complex this statistic of "between" inequality is. What effect did the global economic crisis have on this inequality? How about the boom of the late 90s and the following bust? Or the continuing economic malaise in the United States and (especially) Europe?
But even more significantly, "between" inequality says nothing about the distribution of that wealth globally. There are now mega-rich people in China, just as there are in Europe and the United States.
Does the decline of the working & middle class in America, the destruction of their wealth, result in a more equitably distribution of wealth around the word?
Douthat hears the Pope speak out against wealth inequality and replies, "But there are rich people in China."
The problem of wealth inequality both between and within countries is significant and troubling. The rise of the ultra-wealthy (an idea the paper doesn't address) who are stateless and seemingly amoral, is a challenge for every country.
The conservative mind does not seem capable of addressing these multiple growing crises. When pushed to defend its ideals, the voice of conservatism boldly sticks its head in the sand.