Dean Baker for the Center for Economic and Policy Research: There is a commonly held view that the winners in the economy got there through a combination of luck, skill and hard work. The losers scored less well in these categories. The central question from the standpoint of public policy then ends up being whether we should feel sorry for the losers, or at least sorry enough to take something away from the winners. Conservatives are mostly comfortable leaving distribution where it is, while liberals have guilty consciences so they feel we should help out the people at the bottom.
Rejecting loser liberalism means not accepting this framing. The winners did not win just by luck, skill and hard work, but also by rigging the deck. For example, they construct trade deals to make U.S. manufacturing workers compete with low-paid workers in the developing world. … Meanwhile, they maintain or increase the protections that make it difficult for people from developing (or developed) countries to train to U.S. standards and work as doctors, lawyers and other highly paid professions in the United States.
The winners also made patent and copyright protection stronger and longer, with the predicted and actual effect of shifting more money to the small segment of the population that benefits from these forms of protection. …
The point is that we did not just end up with a situation where some people are extremely wealthy and many people have little or nothing, we have policies that were designed to bring about this result. We don’t have to ask the wealthy to feel compassion for the poor or have guilty consciences over their good fortune. We need to stop the wealthy from rigging the game so they continue to end up with all the money.
When ISIS loses its constituents
Mara Revkin for the Brookings Institution: When the Islamic State takes over new territory, its first priority is restoring security and basic services, primarily water and electricity, as quickly as possible.
In some areas, the terrorist group has even taken over bread factories to provide free or subsidized food. Syrians I have interviewed in Turkey say that Islamic State police and courts initially try to build goodwill with the population by cracking down on ordinary crime — thieves, murderers, drug dealers and rapists are the primary targets. Gradually, the group begins to regulate public morality and religious practices by deploying its propagandists and preachers to educate civilians about the requirements of Islam.
While this proselytism is mere outreach and advice at first — civilians are politely encouraged to stop smoking and drinking — it later becomes coercive and violent with the introduction of corporal punishments for anyone caught selling or consuming cigarettes or alcohol.
So while Mosul’s new rulers were taking steps to restore stability, they initially asked relatively little of civilians. Only later did the Islamic State begin to impose harsh Islamic punishments and demand tax payments in exchange for protection and services. …
Interestingly, while public opinion may be turning against the Islamic State, it is not clear that the objective quality of services has declined substantially. So the story of changing attitudes toward the group is more complicated than it first appears. While civilians criticize the Islamic State’s heavy-handed rule, many admit that it is governing more effectively than the Iraqi government did.
As one resident of Mosul said recently: “Everything is better under the Islamic State.” Another said: “I have not in 30 years seen Mosul this clean, its streets and markets this orderly. According to others, “There is no corruption in the society” and, “Services are satisfactory. We almost always have water and … we have [electricity] round the clock.”
If public opinion is in fact turning against the Islamic State, it is not necessarily because the quality of services has deteriorated. Rather, residents of Mosul are unhappy because the cost of those services — in terms of the taxes and fees that the group collects — has steadily increased over time. After initially providing some essential services for free, the Islamic State later began to impose heavy taxes and fees for water and electricity. Meanwhile, police were cracking down on violations of rules with corporal punishments and monetary fines.
Life is better for flight attendants
Marian Tupy for the Cato Institute: In the mid-1960s, being an air hostess was considered to be a glamorous job.
Back then, however, air stewardesses were paid less than half of what they make today. They also had to endure much longer flights, since 1960s airplanes carried relatively little fuel and had to stop for refueling. That also meant that flight attendants had to serve more meals and, consequently, worked harder during the flight.
Most importantly, the likelihood of dying on the job has declined substantially. In 1965, there were 1,142 airplane fatalities per 250 million passengers carried worldwide. Only 761 people died out of more than 3 billion people who flew in 2014.
Compiled by Joseph Lawler from reports published by the various think tanks.
