Libertarians’ False Assumptions About Economics

Eric Zuesse

We’ll start with a typical example of libertarians’ big misconception:

Here was the libertarian white Texan Alex Jones, in a riff for the racist white populist billionaire Republican U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump, the day after Trump had declined to condemn on CNN a KKK endorsement. Jones says in that clip (1:03-): “There’s a lot of good people supportin’ [the progressive U.S. Presidential candidate Bernie] Sanders and I’ve probably been too mean to him, and I know how bad socialism is, but some of them are just helpless and want somethin’ free; that’s not how the world works, but he [Sanders] is obviously better than Hillary [Clinton, the extremely aggressive and corrupt Democratic candidate].” 

The libertarian Jones was wrong about Sanders and his supporters (though he was correct about Clinton). What Jones calls “socialism” includes the dictatorial form, communism, and that misrepresents what Sanders specifically stands for. Sanders calls his ideology “democratic socialism,” though it’s actually also democratic capitalism, because the nordic nations that Sanders cites as being examples  of “democratic socialism” are “mixed economies,” neither only “socialist” nor only “capitalist.” Libertarians equate that democratic ideology (“democratic socialism”) with communism, and this is one of their crudest misrepresentations: for example: Sweden isn’t at all like the USSR was. They’re fundamentally different systems. Libertarians are deceived to equate them — to imply that a proponent of the Scandinavian system is at all a proponent of the Soviet system.

Also false is the idea that progressives “are just helpless and want somethin’ free.” They’re instead people who want the most-thriving economy, in which the most wealth is being produced, and in which the degree of economic inequality is reduced by governmental policies that reverse the existing  governmental policy-direction, of concentrating wealth in a very few people. Progressives want governmental policies that spread wealth more evenly. That’s an essential part of progressivism. Regardless of whether one calls it “democratic socialism” or “democratic capitalism,” it’s not only  about more-even  wealth; it’s also  about higher per-capita  wealth. And in economic reality, increased equality goes with, instead of against, increased wealth. Our existing governmental policies, which encourage ever-increasing inequality of wealth, actually reduce  economic output.

For example: in a society where health-care is a right that’s available to all, instead of a privilege that’s available only to people who can pay for it — such as to pay to keep one’s teeth, or to buy a prosthetic — all citizens are employable; they can all be productive because their health is maintained; but, in a society like ours, many people can’t work because they can’t even pay the costs to be healthy; those people are being economically wasted. Also in a society where education is a privilege based on ability-to-pay instead of a right based on ability-to-learn, lots of people get shortchanged on learning, because they’ve not got the money, and so their aptitudes become wasted. The higher the amount of privatization, the more of the nation’s human-capital-base will become wasted.

In democratic-socialist-capitalist countries, a larger percentage of the nation’s human-capital-base gets developed. In our country, lots of that human-capital-base gets simply wasted — lots of people end up in prisons rather than in universities and then productive employment.

What Jones and other libertarians get wrong is their believing in the economic falsehood that there exists an essential trade-off  between prosperity and equality — the idea that more economic equality will mean less economic productivity. Libertarians such as he believe the existing false microeconomic theory, which advises against any and all concerns about the distribution of wealth, and which says that only the per-capita mean wealth  matters in an economy. Per-capita mean wealth is the society’s total wealth divided by the number of people. Even if all of the wealth belongs to the king and everyone else owns nothing, the per-capita mean wealth can still be the same as in a society where the wealth is more equally distributed; and libertarians say that the distribution should simply be ignored. Libertarians start with the false assumption that the distribution of wealth is irrelevant. They start with the assumption that the distribution of wealth is either irrelevant to the society’s per-capita mean wealth, or else that increased equality produces decreased  wealth. That assumption, in either form, is empirically false, as will be documented here. Instead, in order to increase per-capita mean wealth, the distribution needs to be made more-equal not  less-equal (such as it is in our present system, the system which concentrates wealth).

Another false libertarian assumption is that the lower the percentage of national economic output that goes to government, or the more of it that’s private, the higher the economic output will be — the belief that government is necessarily more wasteful than is privatization. Typically, libertarians say that any huge inequality of wealth ‘doesn’t exist but for government causing it.’ They ignore the fact that no economy exists without there being  a government: government is an essential part of an economy, it sets the rules and laws by which trading can occur. They think that less government means more and better economy — that there’s a trade-off between the economy and the government — as if the government is intrinsically  waste, instead of its being the prerequisite to the very existence of any  economy at all. They misunderstand the basic relationship between the government and the economy.

To the exact contrary of these libertarian beliefs, the highest mean per-capita wealth results from a government whose policies are specifically designed so as to reduce inequality of wealth. (Some people, such as Sanders, call that type of government ‘socialistic,’ indicating democratic socialism; others call is “progressive”; but, regardless of the name, it’s the best.) It produces higher  total wealth than does existing capitalism (a government that ignores the wealth-distribution), not lesser.

There are numerous empirical economic studies that clearly show these things to be the case: progressivism, or democratic-socialism-capitalism, produces not only a more-even spread of wealth, but also  a higher amount  of wealth.

Here are some of those studies (and they’re the core of what I’m saying here):

An important IMF study, from IMF economists Andrew G. Berg and Jonathan D. Ostry, was published on 8 April 2011, providing empirical evidence that even regarding economic growth, the most effective way forward is through increasing equality, not inequality. This study was titled “Inequality and Unsustainable Growth: Two Sides of the Same Coin?” It found that, “Longer growth spells are robustly associated with more equality in the income distribution,” and that, “Countries with more equal income distributions tend to have significantly longer growth spells.” Moreover, even the conservative economist Robert Barro buried in his study for the Asian Development Bank in January 2008, titled “Inequality and Growth Revisited” (in “Figure 2” and “Figure 3”), his finding (from 2007 U.N. figures) that in all but the wealthiest countries, the “Effect of Income Inequality on Economic Growth” was clearly “negative”; in fact, “the impact of inequality on growth” was so “negative” that even though there was no correlation at all for the wealthiest countries, the findings for all countries was that: “a one-standard-deviation increase in the Gini coefficient [a measure of economic inequality] reduces the growth rate on impact by about 0.4% per year.” (And Barro, being a conservative, did all he could to hide this finding there.) Consequently, the common assumption by economists, that there is a “trade-off” between equality and growth, not only is false, but it is the exact opposite of the truth – there is actually a net-long-term-pro-growth association with low Gini (high equality).

Then, in February 2014, Ostry and Berg were joined by C.G.Tsangarides, in the IMF Staff Discussion Note, “Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth,” which asked (and answered), “So what does the historical evidence say? This paper is the first to take advantage of a recently-compiled cross-country dataset that … allows us to calculate redistributive transfers for a large number of country-year observations. Our main findings are: First, more unequal societies tend to redistribute more. … Second, lower net inequality is robustly correlated with faster and more durable growth, for a given level of redistribution. … And Third, redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth.”

Additionally, on 30 October 2012, Ozlem Onaran and Giorgos Galanis authored for the International Labor Office in Geneva, “Is Aggregate Demand Wage-Led or Profit-Led? National and Global Effects,” and they noted: “To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the first in the theoretical, as well as the empirical literature to develop a model of the global effects of changes in income distribution as opposed to focusing on isolated single country effects.” Their study found that, whereas in some countries the GDP and income-inequality rose and fell together, this situation was the global exception instead of the global rule (they vary inversely); and, moreover, that even in the countries where they rose and fell together, this was driving down the global GDP by exacerbating the pressures in other countries to reduce their trade. “The world economy in aggregate is wage-led” – percolate-up, not trickle-down. For the first time ever, a study had been performed of the global impact of the “race to the bottom” in wages, and this study showed that the impact was decreased production. Whereas the aristocrats who skimmed the benefits from the race to the bottom in workers’ wages had made trillions from it, the world-at-large had suffered from it.

But that’s not all. In December 2009, was published The Spirit Level, by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson, documenting that both across nations and intranationally, the illnesses that are commonest amongst the poor increase to the extent that Gini — a measure of inequality — increases. Of course, this finding would naturally tend to occur simply because when nations or states that are at a given level of per-capita (or mean) income and/or wealth have high Gini (inequality), a greater proportion of its populace are poor, and a smaller proportion of them are wealthy, which implies that the median person is relatively poor, so the typical conditions of poverty are relatively common in such a place; whereas if a nation with that same per-capita income and/or wealth has low Gini (high equality), the median person is considerably wealthier and so the common conditions of poverty are relatively uncommon. It’s just basic mathematics. However, the aristocracy were outraged that such a book was published; and, thus, on 13 August 2010, Britain’s Guardian headlined “The Spirit Level: How ‘Ideas Wreckers’ Turned Book Into Political Punchbag,” and Richard Booth reported that, “This summer, … a posse of rightwing institutes has laid into the work.” The aristocracy’s chief attack was expressed by one think tank director saying, “On almost no measure does the central claim of The Spirit Level, that income inequality decreases life expectancy, stand up to scrutiny,” and by another saying, “Their causal argument is full of holes.” These critics were saying that the authors had assumed that correlation equated with causation. However, inasmuch as – for the mathematical reason just stated here – it’s merely natural that, at any given level of per-capita income and/or wealth, higher inequality (higher Gini) will lower the median income and/or wealth, and will therefore increase the diseases of poverty; and, so, what those conservative propagandists were saying wasn’t merely false; it was mathematically stupid.

Within the United States, James Gilligan in 2011 issued Why Some Politicians Are More Dangerous Than Others, which documented that during the period 1900-2007, all Republican presidencies experienced increasing rates of unemployment, poverty, suicides, and homicides, whereas all Democratic presidencies saw decreasing rates of each of those four. Democrats tend to employ Keynesian macroeconomic theory, whereas Republicans use macro-theory that’s based upon microeconomic theory (which is overwhelmingly prove false by the empirical economic data).

Furthermore, also concerning the U.S. economy, a team of economists – David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson – came forth in 2013 with an empirical analysis of data regarding the anti-mercantilist, pro-free-trade, theory that Adam Smith became so famous for having introduced, in his Wealth of Nations. They found that the empirical evidence they examined indicated it to be a false theory, even within its central focus, of free trade. Their article in the September 2013 American Economic Review was titled “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States.” It reported that:

“Rising imports cause higher unemployment, lower labor force participation, and reduced wages in local labor markets, … [and] contemporaneous aggregate decline in U.S. manufacturing employment. Transfer benefits payments for unemployment, disability, retirement, and healthcare also rise sharply in more trade-exposed labor markets. … Reductions in both employment and wage levels lead to a steep drop in the average earnings of households. These changes contribute to rising transfer payments through multiple federal and state programs, revealing an important margin of adjustment to trade that the literature has largely overlooked. … The largest transfer increases are for federal disability, retirement and in-kind medical payments. Unemployment insurance and income assistance play a significant but secondary role.”

Finally, in June 2015, Era Dabla-Norris and four other IMF economists issued “Causes and Consequences of Income Inequality: A Global Perspective.” This decisive empirical study found that existing microeconomic theory is trash. It summarized:

“We find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 percent) and economic growth. If the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similar increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentage point higher growth. This positive relationship between disposable income shares and higher growth continues to hold for the second and third quintiles (the middle class). This result survives a variety of robustness checks, and is in line with recent findings for a smaller sample of advanced economies (OECD 2014).”

When Alex Jones said, “I know how bad socialism is, but some of them are just helpless and want somethin’ free; that’s not how the world works,” he was expressing what’s in microeconomic theory, but within recent decades enough empirical economic data has now become scientifically analyzed in order to test that theory out, and all of the studies show, consistently, that Sanders’ basic ideology (what he calls “democratic socialism”) is true, and that libertarianism (the theory — microeconomic theory — to which Jones and other libertarians subscribe) is false.

That’s just an empirical fact by now. It is a scientifically established reality, notwithstanding the common misconceptions that have been taught in the microeconomics textbooks. Microeconomic theory is false; libertarianism is false. It is scientifically false. Democratic-socialism-capitalism is the optimum political system, even from the standpoint of wealth-creation. Even if there weren’t added value from the wealth-redistribution, it’s the best system in terms of wealth-creation — the criterion that microeconomic theory (libertarianism) claims  to maximize (but consistently fails  to maximize).

There also exists overwhelming empirical evidence that the increase in equality of wealth produces, in itself, a happier and more peaceful society. But the point of the present article is that libertarianism, microeconomic theory, is false, even on its own narrow area of focus, which is wealth-generation, economic growth. In other words: libertarianism, or belief in microeconomic theory, is even worse than has been documented here. What has been described here is only part of the hoax, not all of it.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • cstahnke

    Libertarians are half right particularly in the area of civil liberties and Constitutional rule where the left has largely fallen asleep. But let’s get to the point here–the fact that democratic socialism has proven to work fairly well and we can prove this using analysis and the scientific approach makes it unappealing to many Americans who are post-modern in the full sense of the word. Americans believe in fantasies. Those that vote Republican are usually voting against their self-interest in favor of a mythological framework they regard as more important than anything else. Those black people who vote for Hilary in such large numbers are clearly voting against their own self-interest but the myth that the Clintons have their interest at heart may be demonstrably wrong but they want to believe it.

    Libertarians cling to a myth as skewed as those who cling to the Bible as literally true not because they are stupid but because they need, in this highly uncertain age, something solid to believe in and libertarianism is something that encompasses traditional American Exceptionlist ideology; on the other hand, socialism rejects that ideology so the cognitive break to accept socialism (of any kind) or anything resembling that (the idea that we are connected) is deeply troubling for many if not most Americans.
    My experience of American discourse whether it is with people on the cultural right or left (leftists are the most vociferous group in defending the governments official view of 911) is that there is a deep attachment to one’s opinion and little interest in changing it–at least for people over thirty. I can demonstrate to these people that the earth is round till I’m blue in the face and they won’t believe it.

    • exomike

      I’ve been around this old town for over seven decades and I’m wondering where all these “leftists” are. I assess with high confidence that there is no significant left in the U.S.A. unless you’re talking about kind hearted people who care about the well being of others even in the abstract. Although they are many, they have no serious structure on which to hang their hats. McCarthyism took care of that.

      The New Deal was as close as we have ever come and the Socialist of the time helped Roosevelt greatly by being able to put 2 Million people in the streets to beat back the banker’s counter attacks when it was needed. As designed the red scare wiped out that reservoir.

      The Obama team almost rebuilt that reservoir to get elected but immediately drained its power and blew the dams as soon as they were in power…, as planned. Imagine not negotiating for universal health care but rather demanding it and when on cue the Republicans and the Blue dogs puffed up and dug in; they ended up with 3,000,000 people who really wanted change in DC surrounding the Capitol. There would have been no lackluster first two years for Obama. Furthermore Obama would not have single handedly saved the Republican Party and not tossed the house to the Republicans insuring 6 more years of gridlock.

      If Obama or his handlers had wanted Obama could have been a transformative President instead of the being the Great Capitulator who saved the Bush Doctrine and codified the surveillance state.

      Roosevelt may have saved Capitalism but Obama saved Predatory Crony Capitalism and the Rule of the Sociopaths.

      • cstahnke

        The “left” is a relative term. By American standards anyone who believes that we live in a society (remember Thatcher said there is no such thing as society) and that we are intertwined in some way is a leftist by American standards. What makes Sanders so interesting is his infusion of Marxism-lite into public discourse which is a decisive victory. Now the idea of class- struggle has entered the building. Without that idea there can be no further politics in this country apart from the struggle between various feudal Lords and Ladies.

        • exomike

          Good Reply! Thanks. I’ll have to think about the “leftist” and 911.” I’m 72 but I never doubted for a second that 911 was a false flag nor did my senior engineer Geno who awakened me that morning. He was a campus Radical in the 60s in Oregon and I was friends with the few radicals we had at my North Alabama College. However, I upset the Administration with my photography and Student Newspaper articles. So, we were both damned cynical when 911 came.

          He awakened me running down the hall to my bedroom saying “Mike, wake up, terrorists have flown air planes into the World Trade Center and we’re at war!” Humor was one of the great strengths of the staff at my recording studio. It was almost constant when appropriate and sometime when not. I shot back with, “You woke me up for that?” And, he immediately said, “and George Bush is President!”, while running back up the hall toward the TV room.

          I jumped right out of bed and followed him ignoring the urge to pee. The first thing I saw was a Fox News reporter standing next to some rubble even though neither of the buildings had fallen yet. He was saying, “Americans are going to have to get used to giving up some of their rights to fight this terrorism!”

          “Bingo!” I said, doing my best impression of Bear Bryant on his Sunday post game film show after one of his lean and hungry young warriors had laid a crushing tackle on one of their opponent’s “big ol’ fat boys”. The propaganda matrix was already in place.

          “Bingo indeed!” Geno said, “I told you he was picking a war cabinet!” For the rest of the day the high priest of the MSM offered up our rights to the gods of security.

          The next thing I saw was someone interviewing an Air Force Colonel about why Norad or someone hadn’t been able to immediately track the high jacked aircraft. The crisply uniformed Col. informed us, “You have to understand that our main mission now is counter drug.” I mumbled something about, “economy of force” and headed for the bathroom while realizing the principle of war named, “economy of force” didn’t matter in a false flag attack. Later we learned it was even worse than that.

          When we arrived at the studio 45 minutes later we were speculating about the intellectual author of the false flag, the too early and too often evidence that was popping up and what was obvious to me, the crude but actually controlled demolition that caused the buildings to fall mostly in their own footprints.

          Eventually we noticed the young engineers looking at us with barely concealed condescending smiles. They were TV kids and knew everything including the fact that we were crazy old hippies who would believe all kinds of crazy “conspiracy theories”, who should be humored in their dotage.

          “Say”, I said, “do either of you guys know where the Gulf of Tonkin is?’

          “The Gulf of what?” one said.

          “Ton quin?”, the other said.

          “The Gulf of Tonkin”, I repeated.

          Blank stares…

          C’mon guys, said Geno with his stage radar engaged, “The Gulf of Tonkin is where the carrier planes left from when the Germans Bombed Pearl Harbor”.” Jeez. Now get to work and stop watching that crazy show on TV.”

          “Oh, Uh, Ok.”

          • Birgit

            “…and what was obvious to me, the crude but actually controlled demolition
            that caused the buildings to fall mostly in their own footprints.”

            Yeah, well, and where was all the rubble?


  • Feb 13, 2016 Murray Rothbard: The Godfather of Libertarianism

    The late Murray Rothbard is in many ways the godfather of the modern libertarian movement, starting with the publication of his great treatise ‘Man, Economy, and State’, back in 1962. And of course, Rothbard played an instrumental role in helping Lew Rockwell get the Mises Institute off the ground.

  • Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

    What is Classical Liberalism? According to a Classical Liberal, what is the proper role of government in a free society?

  • Sorry, Alex Jones does not speak for all freedom lovers! Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous

    A former libertarian abandons his dream of a voluntary world and explains the potential worse case scenario after the overnight disappearance of government. The ending will SHOCK you! DISCLAIMER: Most libertarians do support such a drastic change, and many might say something like: “liberty is a philosophical evolution, and not an overnight thing.”

  • “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.” George Washington

    July 7, 2011 The Founding Fathers Tried to Warn Us About the Threat From a Two-Party System

    Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed.

  • kimyo

    neither libertarians nor progressives, nor conservatives or communists understand economics because it’s not a science.

    it’s voodoo, based on flawed assumptions (should gdp include ‘profits’ from financialization? is gdp even real?)

    a true understanding would also have to include the role of cheap energy over the last 100 years. tverberg’s work is key: 2016: Oil Limits and the End of the Debt Supercycle

    What is ahead for 2016? Most people don’t realize how tightly the following are linked:

    Growth in debt
    Growth in the economy
    Growth in cheap-to-extract energy supplies
    Inflation in the cost of producing commodities
    Growth in asset prices, such as the price of shares of stock and of farmland
    Growth in wages of non-elite workers
    Population growth

    It looks to me as though this linkage is about to cause a very substantial disruption to the economy, as oil limits, as well as other energy limits, cause a rapid shift from the benevolent version of the economic supercycle to the portion of the economic supercycle reflecting contraction.

  • iseeitfx

    “Libertarian economics”?
    Come on Eric, you can do better than that.
    Austrian economics would be the boogie man of reference if one should choose to take that school on?

    Good luck…..

    I do generally respect your thoughts however and encourage you to keep sharing.

    • cettel

      Austrian economics is based upon micro-economic theory. In that regard, it’s like all other except Keynesian microeconomic theory, because only the Keynesian tradition avoids microeconomics entirely. Neo-Keynesian economics tries to accommodate Keynes’s macro-theory to existing micro-theory; but, otherwise, all of economics is based upon the existing micro-theory.

      When you talk about “Austrian economics,” it’s like talking about the difference, for example, between Protestants and Catholics. They both believe in the Bible.

      • iseeitfx

        With all due respect, I suggest that you are misinformed regarding Austrian economics.

        If you would like to remedy this situation, the two links below would be great places to begin.

        • cettel

          Those links aren’t even relevant to what I said. And in no way do they provide evidence to the contrary of my allegation that Austrian economic theory, going all the way back to its founder, Bohm-Bawerk, accepts microeconomic theory, as it had been introduced by Adam Smith and others.

  • MCB

    ”The art of politics, under democracy, is simply the art of ringing it. Two branches reveal themselves. There is the art of the demagogue, and there is the art of what may be called, by a shot-gun marriage of Latin and Greek, the demaslave. They are complementary, and both of them are degrading to their practitioners. The demagogue is one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots. The demaslave is one who listens to what these idiots have to say and then pretends that he believes it himself. Every man who seeks elective office under democracy has to be either the one thing or the other, and most men have to be both. The whole process is one of false pretenses and ignoble concealments.” – H. L. Mencken – Notes on Democracy – 1926

    It’s “richly ” typical for Dr. Zuesse to label people and talk about “Democratic Socialism” when there is ZERO Constitutional basis for almost all of our government’s illegal and immoral spending. Here’s a man who’s wasted his entire life as a useful idiot in the false dichotomy of the two party duopoly.

  • Mar 2, 2014 Jeremy Scahill: The One Party State, *The War Party*

    Is the United States of America an Oligarchy? During the 2014 ISFLC, Jeremy Scahill speaks on the fact that in today’s world behemoth corporations are able to buy off politicians and pull the strings to impact legislature. Washington, D.C. is a town that operates by campaign contributions and legal bribery in the form of campaign finance. What can the American people do to get their political representatives to represent them as opposed to the mega corporations. When will the people’s voice be heard?

  • Don Robertson

    I did not get too far into this article before I started to wretch. I am not a Libertarian. Neither am I a progressive.

    Libertarians are hand-crank ideologists that somehow believe they should be free to do anything that doesn’t physically harm someone else. It’s the screw-loose idea of those unwilling to accept that human intellect most often serves up delusions. And Austrian economics is a silly group of ninnies that have never bothered to read Von Mises’ “Human Action, A Treatise in Economics”. I have read the work, and its ideas are stupid when applied to the real world. Von Mises clearly never ran a business, that’s for sure.

    Progressives are pragmatic socialists (according to Eric Suesse) who want a license to try everything they can think up in order to make a better world. in other words, they’re all for letting the typical “genius” ninnies who have fucked the world up so bad throughout history, continue to roll the dice in the hope that they’ll reach their “progress”-nirvana (whatever that may be), before they fuck things up so bad, everyone ends up either dead or horribly mutilated by the latest progressive experiment (another roll of the dice).

    The greater the differential between the rich and the poor, the greater the size of the cup that holds the economy. Eric Zuesse’s postulate that,

    “[…] Progressives want governmental policies that spread
    wealth more evenly. That’s an essential part of progressivism.
    Regardless of whether one calls it “democratic socialism” or “democratic
    capitalism,” it’s not only about more-even wealth; it’s also about higher per-capita wealth. And in economic reality, increased equality goes with, instead of against, increased wealth. Our existing governmental policies, which encourage ever-increasing inequality of wealth, actually reduce economic output.”

    -is pure socialist fantasy hokum. It didn’t work in Russia, China, Sweden or Norway. Look at what unionization did for American industry, Mr. Progressive. Detroit is what unionization reaps.

    This country was wealthiest, per capita, the day the men set foot on the continent. And humanity has done nothing but destroy that wealth at two-tenths-of-a-cent on the dollar ever since.

    Socialism is simply a recognition that the destruction is running its course, and the natural wealth of the earth is being exhausted. It’s a lame and insideous cry for more equality in divvying up the remaining natural wealth before it’s all gone. 330 million Americans now want a piece of the pie.

    What we need is to bring back the death penalty in a very big way, to get rid of the progressives and the Libertarians, each of whom are calling for greater celerity to the destruction of the planet than already exists.

    When General Electric designed the nuclear reactors that were installed at Fukushima, they laid claim to the obscene ideals of both progressivism, and Libertarianism. They said nuclear power will free mankind! They said nuclear power will propel the human race into a new frontier of greater productivity.

    And what did Fukushima provide? Just another huge, stinking scientific-genius fuck-up.

    These people, whether progressives or Libertarians that proclaim they have invented a better humanity should be made to live in the basement of an outhouse for all eternity.

  • October 14th, 2015 1% now wealthier than 99% combined

    40% of US children in poverty; 30,000 children poverty-murdered daily. Arrests of .01% are when now? Credit Suisse documents in Global Wealth Report 2015 that the world’s wealthiest 1% now own more assets than Earth’s 99% combined.

  • Alex Jones is right-wing conspiracy theorist. Maybe some of his opinions are libertarian.
    USA spend on social issues more money than Europe. They just spend it in worst way.
    Both Europe and USA are so much in debt that they have to reduce spending not extend it.
    Socialism is not better government it is just more goverment.
    More public spending cause slower growth. But of course in some countries it leads to disasters in some to slow growth.
    To hide it many governments increase money supply. But it create inequality and other problems.
    Sweden after many decades of full socialism, reduce taxes and public expenses,
    Public monopol in health services leads to low quality and long waiting time for operations.
    Distribution of wealth is worsening due to policies like: regulations, lobbies, money supply, etc.
    The higher the amount of government, the more of the nation’s human-capital-base will become wasted.
    Misery index is equally distributed between dem. and rep. presidents.
    Rising import is based on debt.
    Biggest factor in inequality and other problems is money supply.

  • Mencken’s Ghost

    Eric Zuesse’s false assumptions about libertarianism.

    The freedom message is a true threat to the established order of millennia, which includes progs, libs, cons, pinks, reds, fascists, fems, ups, downs; in fact, the whole rainbow of statists. “We will bury you” – no, leave you, peaceably, of course – under the rubble of your unsupportable ideology of force. You are all united in your presumption of the right to initiate aggression. We are the only rebels.

  • Don’t you love how people on the right DON’T call the half of the budget pie that’s the Pentagon “FREE STUFF? The half of the pie that’s split into tiny slivers of food stamps, health, education, etc…THAT’s the only “FREE STUFF” to them. Whoever started this “FREE STUFF” shit about Bernie Sanders, and I suspect it was the Military Industrial Complex, has to be called out on it every chance. Whenever I see of FB people posting “FREE STUFF”, I always say, WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON’S “FREE STUFF”? And you know what their reply is? THE GOVERNMENT KEEPING US SAFE IS NOT “FREE STUFF”.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It’s TRUE. That’s IF they even reply. Those that reply say the government “KEEPS US SAFE”, so that doesn’t count as “FREE STUFF”. Only food, health, education is “FREE STUFF”.

  • Shimon Lazarov

    The data disagrees with your premise in paragraph 3 – higher inequality is linked to higher per capita growth rates: