No. 1: Is the Brexit referendum actually constitutional?

Posted by on

Letter to the London Review of Books, 24 January 2019

“David Runciman is right to conclude in his analysis of the Brexit impasse that the attempt to “combine parliamentary government with plebiscitary democracy has failed. The UK is faced not merely with s constitutional crisis, but with a constitutional breakdown. Together the referendum principle introduced by Harold Wilson and the Parliament Act invented by David Cameron and Nick Clegg – both made possible by an unwritten constitution – have torpedoed constitutional order.

“Runciman compares the present crisis to Suez, but that was political. Better comparisons might be with the abdication crisis of 1936 or the People’s Budget which led to the Parliament Act of 1911. But the Constitution was able to deal with both. The present situation is more intractable. Even if re it is somehow resolved the country will remain saddled with incompatible notions of legitimacy – the sovereignty of the Crown in Parliament and the sovereignty of the popular will. The last time something like this happened was in 1688, when the lawful claims of the Crown clashed catastrophically with the lawful claims of Parliament. A constitutional convention might resolve the difficulty, but how would it be set up, by Parliament or by referendum?”

Bill Myers, Leicester

Tomorrow: my take on the constitutional mess created.

Can a racist still be a great scientist?

Posted by on

James Watson was jointly responsible for one of the greatest triumphs of 20th century science: the unravelling of the DNA molecule. But today his reputation, he is now 90 years old, lies in tatters. He believes black people are less intelligent than white people, and he has repeated this a new TV documentary. The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, where he was once director, has revoked all his titles and honours, the implication being that his racial views have tainted his work on DNA.

But it “makes no sense. Watson may be an unpleasant man (as I found when I interviewed him) with some nasty views, but what bearing does that have on his scientific discoveries? A DNA molecule is still a double helix.”. If Copernicus had been a rapist, the Earth would still orbit the Sun. It’s trickier when it comes to judging the art of discredited artists – Roman Polanski, say, or Eric Gill – since “their work is all about value”. But science is, or should be, value-free and impersonal. Watson is “a fantastically irritating man who happened to be the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure. No more needs be said.” (Bryan Appleyard, The Sunday Times, reproduced in The Week, 26 January 2019)

If Epicureanism is about tolerance, kindness and acceptance and the pleasant life one might conclude that Watson should be excluded from any Epicurean garden. As the writer says, “not a nice man”. I don’t know whether Watson claims any scientific basis for his comments, or whether they just reflect his personal racist bias, but I rather agree with the journalist, Mr. Appleyard. Shun the man, let him know the vast majority of the world disagrees with his views, and why; don’t invite him home; write a critique of his words. But to revoke all the titles and honours is over the top. In a hundred years time he will only be remembered, along with other great scientists, for his research and scientific break-through, which will have benefitted medical science in ways we can only barely grasp at the moment. He has done more for the people of the world than the vast majority of us. Let it drop.

Why Liberal Republicanism is an oxymoron: A response to David Frum

Posted by on

The Atlantic’s David Frum is one of my favourite American columnists. A thoughtful conservative and provocative Trump critic, Frum doesn’t shy away from eviscerating both the Right and the Left. In contrast to ever-increasing partisanship, Frum’s independence of thought and lack of partisanship makes for refreshing reading.

Last November, Frum made the comprehensive case for a post-Trump GOP that embraces liberal values, which he broadly defined as a dedication to individual freedom, free trade and a commitment to preserving the integrity of America’s institutions.  He argued that the Republican Party is pursuing policies that can’t compete democratically: Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, the Republicans lost the House in 2018, and demographic changes will render the Republicans unelectable in their present form. As the world’s only superpower, America has a moral responsibility to uphold liberal values on the world stage. Just as interestingly, Frum sees the Democrats’ leftward drift as an opportunity for Republicans to seize the liberal centre ground; most Americans still care about border security and the budget deficit.

Unfortunately for Frum and liberal-leaning conservatives, the Republican Party will not become liberal for the foreseeable future. The party nominated presidential candidates that notionally agreed with American liberalism in 2008 and 2012, with McCain and Romney respectively, and they both lost to a more liberal Obama. Republican elites told their base they had to compromise to win. They compromised, and lost. Then in 2016, grassroots Republicans revolted against the party establishment and nominated Trump, who went on to become president. If liberal conservatism was synonymous with electability, that wouldn’t have happened. For Republicans to change, they are going to have to first lose heavily, with their illiberalism as an obvious electoral liability.

More importantly, conservative commentators like Frum are far more liberal than Republican voters, and have been since at least the George H.W. Bush years. Grassroots Republicans don’t care about free trade, which is why Trump’s protectionism was so appealing. Nor are they interested in upholding liberal values on the world stage. Trump’s America First foreign policy, which is based on American economic and security interests, is much more popular than pre-Trump Republican neoconservatism. Immigration reform, a big priority for congressional Republicans, is bitterly opposed by Republican primary voters. Most Republicans care less about the size of government, and more about who it works for. Nationalism, not liberalism, is the defining trait of American conservatives. If liberal commentators like Frum can’t live with that, they need to leave the Republican Party permanently.

If Frum believes in liberalism, his best hope is to support the Democratic Party, which takes the liberal position on the vast majority of issues. Amongst Democrats, Frum can fight against the illiberal aspects of the party he opposes- the obsession with group identity over collective unity and individual liberty, and the big-state socialism of the party’s Sanders wing. He and other liberal conservatives have a far better chance of defeating identity politics and socialism in the Democratic Party than they do defeating nationalism in the Republican Party. While identity politics and socialism have only been prominent features of Democratic political culture recently, nationalism has long been a core aspect of American conservatism, even before Trump. Neoconservatism may have had liberal roots, but it was justified to the masses using nationalistic rhetoric. The GOP’s fiscal conservatism had nationalist appeal; white voters’ support for welfare declined when dog-whistle messages about free-loading minorities were used. Republicans have won elections primarily by defining the nation against a foreign threat- communists, Islamic extremists, and now immigrants. The GOP aversion to liberalism didn’t start with Trump, and it won’t end when Trump is gone. The sooner Frum realises this and renounces the American conservative movement, the better.

 

How can this be right?

Posted by on

President Trump has named a former Fox News journalist with no background in international relations as his pick for America’s new ambassador to the UN. The crucial role – which former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley will be leaving at the end of the year – has previously gone to scholars, diplomats or experienced politicians. Heather Nauert, by contrast, was an anchor on Fox – the fiercely right-wing network regularly watched by Trump – before becoming spokesperson for the State Department last year. In that capacity she made headlines in June for citing the D-Day landings in the Second World War as an example of America’s “strong relationship” with Germany (sic). (The Week, December 15, 2018)

There are some Americans whose level of general knowledge is pathetic, who know no history or geography, or anything much really, and despise those who worked and learned something. These people can go on Fox News (or Misinformation) channel and can say the first (usually derogatory) thing that comes into their heads, because there is no one around who knows enough to hold them to account. And even if they did, lying and misrepresentstation is just fine with most viewers, it seems, who regard the knowledgeable as snobs. The talking heads on the Misinformation Channel are now the the people who currently call the shots in the United States.

To appoint Heather Neuart to the United Nations is an insult to United Nations and an embarrassment to those who believe in international cooperation. Epicurus shut himself away in his garden and talked philosophy when politics got really bad. Unfortunately, it is more difficult to avoid the noise these days.

A second British referendum?

Posted by on

To The Times
The headline of your leading article, that May’s deal is the “Least Bad Option”, is questionable. Many are deeply wary of a People’s Vote, not least because the decision by the previous prime minister to hold the referendum was made in an attempt to paper over the divisions in the Conservative Party. Two years have elapsed since that vote and people are now much better informed about the likely consequences of leaving the EU. Today citizens can see, as your article stated, that there is no Brexit that could ever meet the wild promises of the Leave campaign.

A People’s Vote would be decided by an electorate with a much better understanding of what Brexit might mean, and thus the result would be better respected. (Angus McNeilage, Blackham, East Sussex)

My reaction: It would be nice if Mr. McNeilage were correct, but the counter argument is that the pro-EU result of the new referendum would have to result in a massive Remain win, otherwise the Leavers would demand a third vote to decide the matter, and that is simply not workable.

Secondly, it isn’t clear that a decisive vote exists to remain. Those who voted to leave had other agendas than dissatisfaction with the EU itself. Most notably, regions far away from prosperous London are deeply angry about the mismanagement of the economy, the lack of jobs in the North, the cutting of services, the shrivelling of local government and the London-centric preoccupations of the political class. The ire is directed at the EU; the trouble stems from Tory misrule, constant cuts, lack of accountability, and of care for the population as a whole. I am not sure that a second referendum would produce the result I would personally prefer.

Millennials

Posted by on

Millennials are constantly in the news in America, but some people are unsure what the term comprises. I thought a brief briefing was in order:

The millennial generation is defined by the Pew Research Center as those born between 1981 and 1996. In 2018 this group became Americs’s largest voting-age group, supplanting the baby boomers. They differ from their elders by leaning heavily Democratic. Collectively they believe that gay people should be able marry; that black and brown people get an unacceptably bad break; that immigration strengthens the country, that everyone ought to have decent healthcare. They believe that Medicare, a very well run scheme for the elderly, should be extended, gradually if necessary, to the whole population. And of course they regard climate change as the greatest threat to the planet and to their own future.

To talk about the collective beliefs of such a huge group of people is always open to argument, but in general, the politics of the millennials have been influenced by diminishing job prospects, decades of tax cuts, privatization and deregulation, and the emergence of a tiny and powerful super-rich class. Republican policies are coming home to roost right now, leading to the gig economy, stagnant wages, poor social services, unaffordable child care, an infrastructure that is almost literally falling apart, groaning train and bus services, and a wealth gap that is extraordinarily dangerous for the country. In short, they perceive the country to be far from fine, indeed in decline, and they reject the platitudes of the establishment Democrats, the undermining of democracy and the justice system that is the current hallmark of right-wing Republicans, who brand anything that isn’t for the benefit of the rich as “socialist”.

One of the hallmarks of Epicurean thought is the idea of pleasure as the most important thing in life. This does not infer gluttony and drunkenness. On the contrary, it means a pleasant life where everyone has enough shelter, food, opportunity and say in the running of society, so that life is not so filled with hatred, bitching, grumbling and foul language directed at opponents, as it is today, thanks to our misguided, messed-up capitalism. “Getting on with everyone” is a shorthand way of saying it. I am old but I root for the millennials, who, thanks to some selfish and unempathetic elders, face huge challenges in their lives. Good luck to them!

Trump and the evangelicals

Posted by on

Both Vice-president Pence and Mike Pompeo are active evangelicals, believing in the whole evangelical package, including the so-called rapture, a final battle between good and evil, and the second coming of Jesus, when the faithful will ascend to heaven and the rest of us will go to hell. One of the preconditions for this event is the gathering of Jewry in a greater Israel. If you are wondering why the Trump administration is so preoccupied with Israel and its enemies it is owing to this so-called Christian Zionism.

The evangelicals are some of Trump’s staunchest supporters, the spine of his base. To them he is a latter-day King Cyrus, the 6th Century BC Persian king who liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity. To them Trump’s daily lying, his dubious business practices, his racism and his serial sexual affairs are irrelevant. He is a “great leader” who fights the perceived threats to their way of life, their feeling of persecution (largely imaginary) and the attacks by liberals on “christian values”, such as abortion, homosexual marriage and the societal acceptance of equality for trans-sexual men and women.

As the better informed people who voted for him in 2016 drift away, disillusioned and disgusted, Trump will rely more and more on these Christian Zionists and employ more of them in the chaotic administration. (based on an article in The Guardian. 18 Jan 2019)

In parenthesis……I received the following email (I am not necessarily a supporter of MoveOn):

“Dear fellow MoveOn member,
Karen Pence, second lady of the United States, has agreed to teach at a school that does not provide admission to LGBTQ students or parents. The school also requires teachers to sign employment contracts affirming that “the term ‘marriage’ has only one meaning; the uniting of one man and one woman,” and that being a member of the LGBTQ community is a fireable offense”.
Doesn’t it make you want to espouse beliefs that involve rationality, kindness, inclusivity, lack of fear (evangelicals are very fearful, mainly of hell-fire), give and take? In other words Epicureanism?

Republicans and Big Government

Posted by on

President Trump has cast the shuttering of federal agencies as a standoff over his promise to build a wall on the southern border, paid for (supposedly) by Mexico. But for many White House aides and allies, the partial shutdown is advancing another long-standing priority: shrinking the government.

Prominent advisers to the president have forged their political careers in relentless pursuit of a lean federal budget and a reined-in bureaucracy. As a result, they are quite happy to see large swaths of the government dark, services offline and 800,000 federal workers work without pay or with not work at all. They reckon that Federal workers will drift away, get other jobs, and never need to be replaced.

Reps. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — leaders of the Freedom Caucus and the president’s top allies in the House — have urged Trump to stay the course. They have built national profiles with calls to slash federal spending — not so much on strengthening border security. “These are small-government guys, not wall guys,” one former White House official has said of Meadows and Jordan. Shrinking government means handing over the savings to supporting donors and the super-rich. This is euphemistically called “democracy”.

The shutdown has in some ways underscored the. onservative view that government can function with fewer employees. They are quite happy to see the Federal deficit balloon out of control, owing to the recent tax legislation that benefitted the rich, but want to save money on federal services to the general population.

While conservatives want to rein in the size of government, a shutdown is not an optimal path They prefer to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer, and close agencies thought to be superfluous. Already the shutdown follows two years of contraction of the federal workforce under Trump. During his first 18 months in office, the government shrank by 17,000 employees, according to an analysis of federal personnel data by The Washington Post — the first downward shift in two decades. As one of his first acts, Trump froze hiring across the government, except at the Department of Veterans Affairs and a few other agencies. The freeze morphed into a slowdown that has left hundreds of jobs unfilled as employees retire and quit.

Trump has also signed executive orders — later largely struck down by a federal judge — to weaken the powerful unions that represent federal employees and make it easier to fire them. Just before Christmas, he announced that civil servants would not receive a cost-of-living raise for 2019. The agencies that have seen the largest drops since Trump took office are the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Commerce and Energy. Many civil servants who have left say they objected to a new culture that seemed to undermine the mission of their agency and undermine their contribution.

There is a growing sense within the White House that a protracted shutdown will produce a cascade of unanticipated effects that could eventually damage the president. Critics worry that the exodus is depleting government of valuable expertise. Almost 20 percent of the workforce overall was eligible to retire in October, including more than a quarter of HUD, the Treasury Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA, according to data compiled by the nonpartisan Partnership for Public Service.

Just 6 percent of civil servants are 30 or younger, a trend that started in the Obama administration and has accelerated under Trump. “It’s very hard to look a young professional in the eyes and tell them not only that their talents aren’t sorely needed but that they won’t find a rewarding career where their work and dedication will be valued,” said Phillip Cooper, a professor of public administration at Portland State University who is telling his students to steer clear of federal work. (Edited version of an article by Lisa Rein, Robert Costa and, Danielle Paquette, Washington Post, Jan 14)

A real leader would not, under these circumstances, take a salary himself. To do so would be tactless, to say the least. We haven’t heard whether Trump and the Senate Republicans are still being paid, but I would be surprised if they were not.

Save us from these superficial, amateur politicians!

Posted by on

Some of Britain’s biggest corporate names have dealt a blow to Theresa May by pressing the panic button and reorganising their business operations in case of a no-deal Brexit. Sir James Dyson, a Brexit-backing billionaire whose large company makes household goods like vacuum cleaners, inflicted the biggest embarrassment for the prime minister when his company announced plans to “future-proof” itself by moving its headquarters to Singapore. Sir James has chosen the moment of maximum Brexit pain for the PM by making the decision, (which could be termed hypocrisy on his part). Dyson was followed by the cross-Channel ferry company P&O, which said its fleet would be re-registered under the Cypriot flag. Sony has said it is moving its European base from London to Amsterdam. One of my sons works for one of the biggest banks in the world. It is moving a third of its staff to Paris. Meanwhile, the Confederation of British Industry is demanding that a no-deal Brexit “must be ruled out immediately”. (based on an article in The Guardian of today’s date).

If this dribble of economic leavers develops into a torrent, the unemployment figures will be horrendous. Rees Mogg was interviewed yesterday on BBC and had the gall to comment that of course we don’t know what problems will arise with Brexit in the future. Really? Isn’t he paid, as an MP and a leader of the Brexiteers to think through every eventuality before wrecking the economy? I suspect this sudden exit of some important British companies is one of the many unexpected eventualities he hasn’t thought of. There is a very British expression,”What a wally!” that sums these amateur politicians and non-statesmen.

Congress in crisis

Posted by on

An article by Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. in the Washington Post of January 13th pointed out a crucial failing in the organisation of Congress that I was unaware of, and which I’m sure the general public know nothing about. This is the fact that the number of policy staff available to Congressmen has been allowed to decline so that in hearings and meetings with businessmen the elected men and women have no access to knowledgeable staff who are familiar with individual industries, their issues and technologies. Independently garnered knowledge is at a premium and the elected representatives don’t have it available.

The dismissal of the policy and technical staff began with Newt Gingrich, who, like the rest of the Republicans, wanted to reduce the size of government. He cut the numbers by one third, particularly staff at the Government Accountability Office, the Congressional Research Service and the Congressional Budget Office, defunding completely the Office of Technology Assessment. Bills are now drawn up without analysis or alteration.

Who helps out? Why, lobbying companies with vested interests. Sometimes legislation has been forced through without the appropriate committee even having time to read it (the 2017 Republican tax bill is a good example). The other beneficiaries are lawyers, who earn fat fees correcting or interpreting second rate bills. All helps to “make America great again” – yes?

Why is modern culture so awful?

Posted by on

In the contemporary era, with our record levels of wealth, technological advancement and scientific understanding, it follows that our culture should be as groundbreaking as everything else. We should be composing the best ever music, building the best ever buildings, and painting the best ever art. Yet in most ways, the culture of the past was more sophisticated and refined. Why?

Modern culture often values function over form. Take mosques for example. If you go to countries like Iran or Turkey, the oldest mosques are utterly sublime: the attention to detail is breathtaking. Go to any mosques built within the last half a century, and although the engineering skills have increased, the mosques no longer demonstrate the same intricacy or craftsmanship. The same could be said of churches, or most buildings with a medieval and a modern equivalent. We just want thinks to work well, and care less for the effort put into it. Minimalism is elevated, and ‘fussiness’ deplored. But perhaps we have lost something.

Mass production has deprived manufactured products of their personality. Which is more beautiful, the handmade dress or one made in a third-world sweatshop? Which employs more skill, the plate made by hand in a pottery, or one churned out in a ceramic factory? By making things in bulk and on the cheap, we lose the diverse identities and talents of the individual. Marx noticed this in what he called the alienation of labour from its products. Unlike Marx, I’m not calling for capitalism to be replaced. But perhaps the efficiency of capitalism is also its ugliness. Just as significantly, perhaps the globalisation of capitalism has caused the different cultures of the world to become more similar, just as the nature of our economies has converged.

Conservatives are generally the ones who deplore modern culture the most. They argue the decline of culture is a result of the decline of traditional morality. Look at how much sex and mindless violence there is in culture nowadays. Would a moral and truly religious society permit that? Equally, culture has become derivative in its endless pursuit of being anti-establishment, anti-tradition and often overtly left wing. Trying to be edgy or countercultural is no longer profound when counterculture is the culture.

Culture has fallen victim to the desire for everything to be quick and easy. Fast food may not taste very nice, and may be bad for you, but its easily made and everyone knows what they’re getting. Modern pop music uses a familiar song structure, simple melodies, predictable chord sequences and is virtually always in 4/4 time. But it’s catchy, short enough to be played on the radio and easy to make, so it catches on. In the age of convenience, culture which values time, effort, and acquired tastes, is sidelined.

But for most younger people, modern culture isn’t so bad. There is plenty of good art, music, films, literature, food and architecture out there- you just have to know where to look. Globalisation has given rise to new forms of culture, such as Tex-Mex food, Korean pop or Nigerian cinema. Moreover, they decry critics of modern culture as being socially conservative reactionaries, overly nostalgic for a golden age which never existed, and who view good taste from a parochial, Western viewpoint. Ultimately, the desire to assess culture in a hierarchical fashion is a nonsense when you consider that it is social construct, good taste is entirely subjective, and everything is constantly evolving. Those who wish to wear three-piece suits and tailcoats, listen to Renaissance or Baroque music and read Chaucer are perfectly free to do so. The rest of us will move on happily.

 

Divorce by text message

Posted by on

Women in Saudi Arabia who are divorced by their husbands will now be sent a text message by the court to inform them of their new status; they will also be able to log into the justice ministry’s website to access legal documents relating to the divorce. The new system is seen as an advance for women’s rights in the kingdom: until now, Saudi men have been able to end their marriages without telling their wives, which made it easier for them to get away with not paying them alimony. (The Week, 14 Jan 2019)

Well, thank you, I’m sure! A great move forward. She’s cooked for the creep, had his children, kept house and put up with being treated like a house-chattel, and he hasn’t the human decency to discuss his unhappiness and the divorce and its details face to face. Instead he gets the Court to send a message in the same way he expects his stockbroker to inform him of the sale of company shares. This may seem a non sequitur, but roll on the exclusive use of electric vehicles worldwide, and ditch Saudi oil once and for all. Don’t sell the camels, Abdul!

Epicurus treated mem, women, slaves and foreigners equally and with courtesy. So should we.

Tired of petitions

Posted by on

I received an email asking me to sign a petition to demand that Senator McConnell allow a vote on reopening the government. This is part of what the writer wrote:

“Stop blocking the will of the people! The U.S. House has passed a bill to reopen the government, so the Senate should be allowed to vote on it. McConnell’s excuses and tactics run against our democracy!”

“The Senate voted nearly unanimously for a bill to keep the government open last month, but now Mitch McConnell is blocking his own colleagues from doing their jobs with a vote to reopen the government, even though he knows it will pass. This is now the longest shutdown ever!”

“I am tired of Senator McConnell failing to allow the Senate to vote on major issues throughout his tenure, a trait that is expected in countries that do not enjoy democratic freedoms. Congress should not cower in fear of Trump’s anger and hate. 800,000 workers’ pay depends on them; they must act now.”

My wife and I are constantly asked to sign petitions. One could do so all day, every day, and it would be a waste of time. What McConnell listens to is the erratic President and the army of Republican lobbyists. The best interests of the country are equated with the best interests of the election donors. o Were you to tell me that my reluctance to sign is just what McConnell and his rich contributors want, then I would have to agree with you. Yes, people like me are not helping to restore ddmocracy. But last time I looked there were twenty-four hours in the day – only.

American inequality – this house may not stand for long

Posted by on

The widening of the racial wealth divide has coincided with the extreme concentration of U.S. wealth. The wealthiest 0.1 percent of households have grown richer while millions of families face poverty and deep-seated economic insecurity.

The median American family saw their wealth drop 3 percent between 1983 and 2016, while the richest 0.1 percent have seen their wealth jump 133 percent. During this same period, the annual increase for White median family wealth was about $1,000. Latino median family wealth went up by $66 annually and Black median family wealth dropped $83 annually. Meanwhile, the average household in the top 1 percent saw their wealth jump by half a million dollars annually.

The richest dynastic families in the United States have seen their wealth expand at a dizzying pace. The three wealthiest families — the Waltons, the Kochs, and the Mars — have seen their wealth increase nearly 6,000 percent since 1983. The Forbes 400 richest Americans own more wealth than all Black households plus a quarter of Latino households.

Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon, owns $160 billion in total wealth. That is 44 million times more wealth than the median Black family and 24 million times more wealth than the median Latino family. (Inequality.org, January 2028)

History tells us that when you have persistently huge gaps in wealth and manifest unfairness the result is revolution, not necessarily violent, but an upheaval nonetheless. Russia only a hundred years ago is an example, France at the end of the 18th Century another. Look around the world at present at regimes where small, corrupt and self-perpetuating elites are stashing away looted wealth and the local politics is toxic. (Latin America, most of Africa, South East Asia (Malaysia is an example), and Syria in particular, where the corrupt regime has been saved for geo-political reasons by Russia). We haven‘t reached that point in America yet, but the groundwork has been laid by short-sighted people out for a quick buck.

Tax the rich!

Posted by on

You can tax the wealthiest more without ruining the economy. This assessment comes from the
International Monetary Fund and shatters the neoliberal shibboleth that increasing taxes on the top 1% would hurt growth. The IMF’s experts found that between 1985 and 1995, redistribution through the tax system offset 60% of the increase in inequality caused by market forces. But this broke down between 1995 and 2010 as inequality soared.

In Britain the findings will increase pressure on Theresa May ahead of next month’s budget, as the chancellor, Philip Hammond, proposes the usual tax cuts to higher earners and raises the top tax threshold (The Guardian, October 12,2017)

In America Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has propoosed raising the highest tax rate to 70 percent on incomes of $10 million or more. A majority of registered voters, 59 percent, supports the idea. Women support the idea by a 62-38 percent margin. A majority of men back it as well, 55 percent to 45 percent. The proposal is popular in all regions of the country with a majority of Southerners backing it by a 57 to 43 percent margin. Rural voters back it 56 percent to 44 percent. Increasing the highest tax bracket to 70 percent garners a surprising amount of support among Republican voters. In the Hill-HarrisX poll, 45 percent of GOP voters say they favor it while 55 percent are opposed to it. Independent voters backed the tax idea by a 60 to 40 percent margin, while Democrats favored it, 71 percent to 29 percent. Meanwhile, Republicans are responding to these encoraging results by misrepresenting the proposal, implying that the congresswoman wants to tax all income of the richest Americans at 70 percent. A normal day’s work!

During the 1950s and 60s, the wealthiest Americans were taxed at a rate in excess of 90 percent, and growth was uninterrupted. As for supporters of Epicurus, i suggest that they would not hesitate to level the playing field and reduce the outsized influence of the super-rich, whose control over lawmakers is obscene.