Happy New Year 2019

Welcome friends!

Well, looks we made it through another year and not the best we’ve seen that’s for sure.  I suppose for the sake of tradition I should deliver an optimistic greeting of the new year but honestly with Lord Voldemort still entrenched in the White House, his fanatically loyal death eaters controlling the Senate, and dementors from the frozen wastes of Durmstrang helping the Dark Lord’s oleaginous minions in the Ministry of Misinformation exert their dark influence over the army of witless, greedy, bigoted, drug addled muggles of the worst sort imaginable who make up a rather alarming portion of the American population, I can’t really even muster the strength to give a hearty show of optimism right now.  (Yes, it was yet another Harry Potter Weekend at my house over the holidays.  I suppose the latest installment must be in theaters but really without the cute kids cavorting about what’s the point?)  So let’s keep it real and resolve to just do our best to get through 2019 some old way and do what we can to bring about a happier 2020.  This year I thought I’d use my end of the year post to tackle some interesting issues raised by Larry the Cable Guy in a holiday movie offering from some years ago now: Jingle All the Way 2.  Yes, I watch way too much TV.

If you’re never seen the movie in question, which I can readily understand, I can tell you it’s a bit of generally harmless albeit forgettable family fluff featuring a sanitized and unrealistically benign version of a conservative American redneck in the form of the aforementioned Larry.  Although it’s quite clear the sort of person Larry is meant to represent he certainly isn’t very similar to any real redneck I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet and let me tell you I’ve met a few in my lifetime.  Did I mention I lived for some time in the great American interior?  Well, I did, and Larry is much less unreasonable, rude, bigoted, violent, drunken, and just in general offensive than any real American redneck you’re likely to encounter on let’s say a road trip through the great American Midwest or South.  But on the other hand the character is clearly not cut from whole cloth either.  There is a kernel of authenticity there that allows potential insight into this most confounding and disturbing of American subcultures.

The plot such as it was involved the divorced Larry competing for his young daughter’s affection against her wily, scheming, and incidentally very rich new step father.  Shortly before the big day they both mistakenly come to believe the little girl requires a certain toy for Christmas and the rich jerk promptly tries to buy and hoard all locally available instances of the object in question so he and he alone can present the coveted prize.  Hilarity or at least mild amusement ensues as he and Larry do battle.  Turns out the preternaturally angelic daughter had no such crass materialistic wishes.  Silly adults.  No, it was all a big misunderstanding.  The kid didn’t want a toy: she just wanted everyone to be happy.  The end.  Kind of cute in a weird sort of way.  But the plot wasn’t really the interesting bit for me.  No, the interesting bit was a scene near the end in which Larry and the evil step dad engage in some verbal sparring that touched on the sort of distributional issues I find interesting but so few other people appear to do, although I guess in this case the writers thought enough people might be interested they wrote it into the script, which is weird.  I wonder?  Am I just not bringing it up the right way?  Too serious?  Oh well.  In the words of the old song I’ve got to be me.

To get back to the movie, Larry’s contribution to the discussion in question involved two noteworthy lines of argument.  First, he suggested the reason he was struggling economically compared to his wealthy opponent was that he simply chose to not work very hard and indeed only part time to have more time for fishing and his daughter.  He rejected the insinuation or really I suppose preempted the insinuation this lifestyle choice rendered him in any way inferior to the rich guy, for example in terms of discharging his responsibilities to society, by noting he “pays his taxes” like anyone else and has never taken a “handout” from anyone.  He chooses to be poor and is happy he has the freedom to do so.  Second, he clarified he doesn’t “begrudge” the rich guy his relative wealth and power; indeed, he’s happy for the guy.  They’re just two different people living different sorts of lives.  No class conflict here!  It’s the sort of philosophy or perspective one supposes might appeal not only to rich Americans who likely wish all the poor people of the USA could be as sensible as Larry but also and this is the interesting bit for me the many poor people in the USA and elsewhere who seem never to mind when rich people arguably take advantage of them every way possible.  So let’s break it down a bit and let’s see where the disconnect is coming from.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the very specific basis of Larry’s relative poverty.  He simply chooses to not work very hard.  Tomorrow he could presumably choose to work hard and be rich, or so he appears to believe.  It’s an interesting coincidence this most unlikely and implausible scenario is the one that provides what most people would surely consider the most ethically plausible case for economic inequality.  Larry’s situation has nothing to do with the myriad of factors outside his immediate control that may nonetheless apply in other people’s economic situations that make the issue of wealth inequality so ethically vexing for some people, so for example nothing involving his innate talents or abilities, his intelligence, his physical, mental, or emotional health, his early childhood experiences and environment, the quality of his early education or lack thereof, his family’s emotional and intellectual support and wealth and connections, government policies such as tax policies, macroeconomic trends particularly at various significant moments of his life, unpredictable changes in technology, etc.  The troubling thing of course is that one rather suspects although Larry may believe his relative poverty is entirely a matter of his own choosing he might one day decide to give wealth a try and find out otherwise.  One can’t help but suspect Larry’s psyche may be on rather thin ice.  One hopes for his sake he sticks with fishing.

The second noteworthy element to Larry’s worldview is he appears to accept the distributional system in place so completely and uncritically it never even occurs to him to challenge it.  When he explains his acceptance of the rich guy’s relative economic power he doesn’t say he accepts the ethical argument in favor of that result but that he doesn’t “begrudge” the man his situation.  Although the word “begrudge” can imply simply looking upon something with displeasure the usual connotation is that the displeasure is not rooted in one’s ethical beliefs but envy.  One doesn’t typically say something like one begrudges the wealth of a thief who just made off with one’s money; one might object to it or oppose it or whatever but generally something a little more forthright than begrudge.  So although open to interpretation Larry’s language certainly make it sound as though he thinks the only reason he might conceivably object to the rich guy’s relative economic is the unfortunate emotion of envy.  This is surely a common view of rich people absolutely convinced of the ethical basis of their wealth no matter how they may have come upon it but it is always somewhat noteworthy coming from a poor person.  One can’t help but wonder if Larry is simply aping the rich fellow’s worldview and trying to head off a likely retort or criticism or if he really cannot imagine harboring any more substantive objection to the man’s relative economic power.  The latter possibility seems particularly unlikely in this case because the movie makes clear the rich fellow in question was basically born into his position by inheriting the family business, gives no indication the man engaged in any particularly laudable behavior to keep it going, and makes it quite clear the man used his economic power in what many people would probably consider a rather unethical way, to manipulate the market to harm the father’s relationship with his daughter.  One might reasonably suspect all is not as it should be but not Larry.

It’s the same story with Larry’s other claim to dignity.  He proudly proclaims he dutifully “pays his taxes” but evinces no particular concern at all about what those taxes are, who devised the tax system, or how much he pays relative to other for example wealthier people.  It’s just a part of the distributional background.  Taxes appear.  He pays them.  That’s his claim to dignity.  Just the sort of person rich people devising a tax code would surely most appreciate.  One hopes he can continue to pay his taxes in the future.

It’s a similar story when it comes to claiming his share of the output of the government sector.  Larry takes great pride in never having accepted a “handout.”  But one does have some concerns.  Might he consider public services funded by his and other’s taxes handouts?  What if he pays less in real terms than another person, let’s say a rich person?  Would he then be accepting a handout from that person?  Is he therefore a supporter of those non-graduated flat income tax schemes in which rich and poor pay the same tax so that proportionately the opportunity cost of the tax is many multiples higher for the poor than the rich?  Or does he solve the issue some other way say by rejecting or avoiding all public services paid for by taxes?  Does he for example drive only on toll roads?  Does he turn up his nose at public parks and other amenities?  Does he distrust the police and instead pay for protection from local street thugs?  Even then may he have benefited from minimum wage laws or consumer protection or worker health and safety regulations that arguably raise the price of goods for other people?  Is he indirectly receiving what amounts to handouts from his fellow consumers?  Has his dignity been wounded without his ever realizing it?  Or is whatever we’re doing now just fine and not a handout but if we do anything more then the increment would represent a handout?  One can’t help but suspect Larry is again on shaky ground.  One hopes he never inquires too deeply about how real societies work or the pros and cons of real market systems and so on.  But again isn’t Larry’s worldview the sort any rich person concerned to combat incipient socialism might appreciate?  How annoying for them when poor people start going about asking for ethically unjustified handouts in the form of government services.

We’ve been having some fun with Larry thus far but let’s not just do the easy bit shall we?  Let’s flip it around and look at the one plausible aspect of Larry’s worldview: the notion that one very legitimate reason for economic inequality including even extreme economic inequality is that some people may be willing to do certain things society values while other people may not.  That does sound like a legitimate and plausible distributional view.  If someone simply isn’t interested in working on anything society values doesn’t it make sense he or she would receive nothing from society in compensation or if he or she did then only in the form of handouts based on charity rather than any plausible ethical claim?  We’ve already discussed the fallacy involved in assuming there’s something ethically special about the pattern of demand for labor falling out of any random distribution of economic power at least from the perspective of economic theory, but let’s say we address that problem and set up a distributional system we think allocates economic power in a way we think is fair, which may or may not correspond to what we have right now.  What if even under those conditions someone simply doesn’t wish to participate?  Surely he or she should have that choice even if it leads to relative poverty.  In that sense an ethical distributional system that reflects the value we place on freedom would arguably need to leave room for possibly even extreme economic inequality, which suggests that when liberals discuss what they see as the problem of economic inequality they really should be a lot more specific and in particular talk about economic inequality resulting from certain unacceptable sources.  That’s actually a pretty useful insight I think.  One may not suppose Larry’s situation is very common and that few poor people simply choose poverty but one should be aware that for some other people this is the one and only scenario that springs naturally to their minds.  

We could just end it there but maybe we should quickly consider what the argument against economic inequality even from this particular source might look like just for shits and giggles.  We’re talking about the market power of other people under what we consider an equitable and ethically correct distribution setting up a certain pattern of demand for labor and someone rejecting those incentives so to make it most plausible let’s imagine someone whose innate talents and abilities and education and so on suggests he or she can best contribute to society’s collective demand by digging ditches but who decides instead to go write poetry on a windswept hilltop.  Well, I suppose that’s the genteel version of the issue.  At this juncture we could equally imagine someone who insists upon smoking crack and playing video games or writing snarky blog posts all day long.  Doesn’t matter.  The funny thing of course is that some people with such inclinations would in fact be perfectly capable of engaging in their chosen lifestyle without any particular hardship, for example, people who inherited a big old pot of money, while others might experience a bit more difficulty pulling it off.  One’s feelings on this state of affairs must depend in part I suppose on one’s opinion about the fairness of the distributional policies that make such results possible, in this case inheritance, and in that sense perhaps the notion one may have concerns contradicts my assumption of an ethical distributional system.  I suppose if one wanted a system based more on individual merit and less on fate or accident of birth and one wanted everyone to start life with the same range of choices then perhaps one might consider eliminating inheritance or maybe instituting one of those minimum income arrangements as I understand some countries have tried relatively recently.  However, I suspect there may be an argument even beyond distributing freedom fairly.  Let’s say for example one attributes some value to whatever the person is doing that is not currently recognized by the market as particularly valuable, video game playing seems unlikely but maybe writing snarky blog posts or poetry or more generally writing or philosophizing or making art.  In that case one may have some reservations about a system in which only spoiled rich kids engage in such activities.  One may wonder if society may gain some sort of benefit if other people were given similar opportunities to follow their talents and inclinations even when they prove inconsistent with current market incentives.  Again, I suppose we’d be talking about eliminating inheritance or instituting minimum incomes or at least programs for aspiring writers and artists and so on but maybe not based on conventional notions of talent or merit so we don’t lose the sense of going against the grain.

Not trying to resolve anything here of course.  I never am really.  Just talking.  Remarking.  Commenting.  Why?  It’s interesting.  We don’t want to end up sounding like a comical simple-minded cartoon character like Larry do we?  Well, if you agree you’re in luck because I have every intention of returning in the new year with plenty of random thoughts and observations to get the old neurons fired up and working again.  Happy new year my brothers and sisters!

Sticking It To The Little Guy

Welcome friends!

Have you been following the news at all about those protests in France relating to some previously scheduled albeit apparently now abandoned plans to increase taxes on fuel?  Quite a commotion.  Apparently a few people even died from the odd accidents and mishaps that can attend such chaotic goings on.  Of course, if you live here in the USA you’re probably thinking what the heck do I care?  Who knows what the French people or their government get up to?  What’s it got to do with the all-important moi?  I care as much about popular unrest in France as I do about all the political chaos surrounding Brexit in the UK.  Well, yes, there is always that perspective.  Other people.  I’m telling you.  What can you do?  However, I couldn’t help but notice certain parallels between the current political situations in France and the USA.  I wonder if, like Brexit in the UK, the news out of France may be the sort of thing a few more people here in the USA might want to think about for a few moments.  Let me explain.

It seems many French voters fell and fell hard for President Emmanuel Macron in the last election.  Why?  No idea really, but perhaps it involved his promise to implement the usual “sweeping economic reforms” center right politicians routinely tout to improve a nation’s economic well-being likely involving tax cuts, reduced regulations, and just in general promotion of market solutions.  Pretty standard stuff.  As residents of the USA understand very well this sort of thing generally turns out to be great news for the well-to-do who don’t really need or want anything anyway and are more than happy to have government sit around and do a whole lot of nothing beyond enforcing their own property rights (let’s not go crazy in the minimizing government department; there must be limits!), but it usually represents a bit of a mixed bag for everyone else.  Typically what happens is some national level economic metrics might rise a bit in the short run if you’re lucky, maybe GNP goes up a notch and unemployment falls a notch, but most of the longer term economic gains go where anyone who understands real economics and how real markets work would expect them to go: the already very rich or in the case of the USA the already very, very rich.  Precious little of any gains from these sorts of policies tends to trickle down to the little people, by which I mean people like you and me and even more financially unfortunate cogs in the great machine of modern post-industrial life.  In a few years the little people generally end up back where they were but relatively poorer and a little more desperate.  Whenever one sees a faux populist politician rallying the people for sweeping economic reforms of the center-right variety one should prepare to deal with some rather cranky people sooner or later.  We have a roughly similar dynamic going on here in the USA where a certain portion of the vast multitude of economically struggling people in this most wealthy of nations voted for corrupt conservative fat cat and old time faux populist politician par excellence Donald Trump presumably at least in part in response to his call for sweeping economic reforms designed to “make America great again.”  Well, I suppose in Mr. Trump’s case it wasn’t all about a pretend interest in shifting some money toward economic struggling people in certain regions such as the Midwest and South and certain industries such as fossil fuels and manufacturing; he also had some racist, nativist, and religious claptrap in there as well to accommodate a range of right wing opinions on what made America great in the past in their eyes, but anyway I think a good deal of his campaign blather involved the usual sweeping economic reforms.  As one might expect America post-election is basically the same as before albeit a bit more polluted, a bit less functional, a bit angrier, and with some very, very rich people who are even more satisfied with themselves and some struggling people who are apparently happy enough at the moment but likely soon to see their quality of life decline yet again and probably rather precipitously this time I’m afraid given the number Mr. Trump and the Republicans have done on the national debt.

As conservative free market ideology contains a rather high percentage of what is known in the vernacular as bullshit they must of course find some rhetorical approach to deal with the curious fact that even after sweeping economic reforms the government sector seems to have an awful lot of work to do in terms of fixing up market outcomes.  They could of course always just tell the little people to go to hell as the powerful economic / political elites did in the pre-democratic good old days of traditional pre-modern conservatism, but I guess that’s typically not now considered “center right.”  I think that’s now considered more “hard right.”  Medieval king / rich guy worship revisited.  Fascist self-styled ubermenschen.  Pouting mafia dons with silk suits striking stirring poses.  That sort of thing.  If we’re talking about “center right” and we’re saddled with a still somewhat functional government sector trying no matter how half-heartedly to make life bearable for the little people we’re left with an intriguing question.  Who’s paying for all that socialistic largesse?  Funny you should ask.  Well, in the case of President Trump and the conservative Republican Party here in the USA no one is paying for it.  They’re running massive deficits and appear entirely content to leave a bloated national debt to young people to handle some old way some old time in the future presumably after our glorious orange leader has taken his final jet to that great gated community in the sky.  (I meant the one with the Pearly Gates, not his palatial condo in Manhattan.)  So that’s one way to do it.  Apparently, his soul mate President Macron hit upon a different response to the old, old question of who’s paying the bill for improving market outcomes in this case not only in terms of expenditures but also in terms of reducing the consumption of fossil fuels: squeeze some cash out of that portion of the population the French conservative elite apparently consider least able to defend themselves in any meaningful way and who are anyway considered unimportant and disposable if not positively undesirable under global conservative economic ideology: the little people, the  non-rich, the ninety-nine percenters.  So, instead of leaving a big old mess on the carpet for future generations to clean up a la the American Republican Party he paired what one must suppose were the customary huge tax cuts for businesses, banks, CEOs, stock owners, themselves, and basically just rich people in general with an offsetting tax hike on the sort of things the little people have little choice but to consume such as fuel for example; one example of the sort of tax known in the trade as regressive, in this case a consumption tax that affects little people disproportionately because the item being taxed and the resulting tax itself represents a greater proportion of the available budget of the little people, as opposed to a progressive tax such as for example a graduated income tax or an inheritance tax, both understandably despised by one percenters and their conservative lackeys and cheerleaders.

On the one hand, I suppose one must respect Mr. Macron’s attempt at relative honesty and forthrightness on the issue of taxes.  It’s almost as though he thinks center right political ideology and the flawed or really conventionally misinterpreted economic theory on which it is based are real and might actually work as advertised, as though he sincerely fails to understand one cannot really take up important economic matters of this sort without dealing in some way with the inevitable distributional issues economists and conservative pundits work so strenuously to sweep under the carpet.  It’s all rather endearing in a naïve sort of way compared to the snarky, winking, self-serving “I know I’m lying and you know I’m lying and my followers know I’m lying but I have to say it anyway so let’s just get on with it” sort of thing we’ve been getting recently from conservatives here in the USA.  Rather an odd reversal of the usual roles isn’t it?  How unfortunate and embarrassing for Americans to be ahead of any European at all in the snarkiness rankings let alone the French.  Ouch!  But yes many conservatives here no longer even bother espousing the old “we’re being neutral on distributional issues” wink-wink nudge-nudge line of claptrap they learned from academic economists any longer.  They just let it all hang out.  The people who have economic power, the wealthy elite, the one percent, should have it because they’re very special people indeed.  The poor on the other hand can do everyone a favor and drop dead the sooner the better.  If we need to deal with some social issue like global warming or anything else really then obviously it should rightfully come on the backs of the disposable, worthless poor rather than the deserving, meritorious rich.  Given the choice between the two I probably prefer the genteel albeit faux neutral approach to the aggressive, in your face, anti-social, Ayn Randian conservative approach so common today.

On the other hand, one struggles to understand how Mr. Macron and his center right buddies came to think of the little people of France as politically weak and defenseless chumps.  Ask people anywhere in the world to name a country where average citizens are likely to stand up for themselves and take to the streets and barricades if necessary and one of the most common answers would probably be France.  Honestly.  The image of the busty lady and the little lad with a pistol charging down some cobblestoned street all hell breaking loose around them must surely pop into most people’s heads immediately.  I guess with French conservatives not so much.  In the case of President Macron I imagine a sharply dressed fellow relaxing on some ornate divan in a drawing room in the Elysee Palace, adjusting his cufflinks perhaps, sipping his roasted to hell and back coffee (just the way I like), then noticing all the mayhem on TV and proclaiming, “Wha…?  Street protests?  Here?  In Paris?”  I mean, it’s a funny sort of image.  One wonders if he wouldn’t have been better advised to follow the lead of President Trump and just put off the inevitable day of reckoning as long as possible.  Pass the buck as we say here in America.  Pull a fast one.  Slip one over on people.  Grab as much cash as you can carry and hope enough water passes under the bridge before the bill arrives that the hapless little people will be unable to put two and two together and figure out why despite all their enthusiasm for coddling and advancing the interests of the poor billionaires of the nation their own quite often rather precarious economic situation continues to decline.

Brexit of course is a rather different beast based more on scapegoating than on instituting sweeping economic reforms per se, which ironically makes it rather similar to the other big project President Trump and the Republican Party have been pursuing here in the USA: demonizing foreign nations and their nefarious agents immigrants of both the legal and illegal variety.  I suppose if you’ve already done your sweeping economic reforms, rich people are metaphorically swimming in money, the government is barely functioning, and the little people are still tanking, even the slowest witted village idiots may want to hear some bedtime story beyond the call for yet more sweeping economic reforms.  They want a story explaining why despite what they’ve been told the market isn’t really doing all that much for them.  It seems the story conservatives go to in this case is that market systems are fabulous, mystical works of Mother Nature that must not be tampered with for any reason (unlike, let’s say, the climate), and would of course quickly solve everyone’s economic issues were it not for devious scoundrels acting behind the scenes rigging the system and making it not work out right.  Like who?  Well, I guess the modern version of the story they tell in the UK these days is all about Europe and European immigrants.  Actually I suppose here in the USA it’s also about Europe, but also Asia, and Africa, and other parts of the Americas and …. well, let’s just say the whole world.  Honestly, how can one expect the market to work its magic when we have so many scoundrels interfering with it?  President Trump recently fashioned himself “a tariff man” and has famously done as much as he can to whip up right-wing hysteria over the veritable army of desperate and impoverished immigrant children invading the country and so on.  It’s like we got in a time machine and went back to 1920.  Exactly how old is the man anyway?  It’s all rather odd, but I guess to look at it from their perspective conservatives have to say something.  They can’t just sit there like dummies with silly grins on their faces throwing diamonds in the air and laughing hysterically.  (Yes, some dummies do that.  Not all of them, but the fancy ones.)  One supposes after the economic golden age Mr. Trump’s followers confidently predict will result from his trade wars and tariff schemes and tear gassing of immigrants fails to materialize on schedule we might just see a few street protests ourselves.  Could happen in the UK as well once the Shangri-La of post-Brexit Britain turns out to be rather less impressive than anticipated.  Well, no, not really.  Cancel that.  I suppose I have a little trouble imaging British people taking to the streets or manning a barricade for any reason except perhaps to throw bouquets of flowers to the Queen or Prince or what have you.  I think they probably just keep a stiff upper lip, drink themselves into a stupor, put on a funny costume and serve tea to the lord of the olde manor, then knife their neighbor on the way home and steal his or her wallet to make ends meet.  Actually, I guess I don’t really see many citizens of the USA doing much agitating either.  Probably just take some sort of illicit drug then shoot their neighbor and steal his or her wallet to make ends meet.  It’s one of the things I think many Americans and British people have in common: a complete and ingrained inability to directly confront self-serving elitist claptrap in any unified or politically significant way.

Thinking about the various ways the wealthy and politically powerful elites of the USA, the UK, and France attempt to play their respective populations just now has made me think how in olden days the rich folk of the world seemed rather better coordinated.  I’m thinking of rich and powerful autocrats and their kin and hangers on strutting about fairy tale castles chopping peasants’ heads off and so on.  That was pretty much all of Europe wasn’t it?  Or really the entire world I suppose.  In those days they really knew how to come together and royally screw the little people.  Watching the different national tribes of rich folk trying to find creative ways to screw their respective populations these days is like watching some sort of cat parade.   I suppose they’re trying to a certain degree.  President Trump and the Republican Party are clearly doing the best they can to seek commonalities with the wealthy elite in at least some nations, such as Russia, going so far as to coordinate with them on propaganda techniques, fake news, alternative facts, and so on.  And President Trump at least plays well with that Prince of Arabia who had his goons murder and dismember that journalist a while back.  The man has also reported falling in love with the murderous dictator of North Korea.  I suppose the conservative elite of the USA has even tried to make common cause to a certain extent with the Conservative Party of the UK in terms of excoriating immigrants and playing around with trade barriers and tariffs as weapons in what they apparently now perceive or wish to portray anyway as a zero-sum war between national economies.  And in terms of political rhetoric relating more to domestic markets they agree in a broad way with their French counterparts as far as waxing eloquent on the beauty of the free market and the need for sweeping economic reforms.  But then we get the funny just run up the deficit versus tax the hell out of the poor schmucks debacle.  Don’t these people ever talk to one another?  Get your act together folks!  Or could it be coordinated in the sense of we’ll try this and you try that and we’ll compare notes later?  Or are these sorts of policy inconsistencies part of their grand strategy to confuse the little people?  You know, we French conservatives are nothing like our American cousins.  We take our national debt very seriously and are very concerned about global warming.  Also, we don’t eat so many cheeseburgers.  If that’s what’s going on I’m afraid it’s not really working.  Well, OK, maybe it’s working in general right now but it’s not working in at least one case.  I’m a little guy, and I just can’t see that all that much difference between the two.  And you know what?  I think the fog may be starting to clear just a bit for others as well.  One happy day the little people of all democratic nations will use their voting power to construct societies that work well for everyone and not just for those at the top.  It could never be otherwise in the long run because the liberal ethos is eternal.  The desire for a just, functional, and well-ordered society is an enduring element of human nature itself.  The rich elite have long liked to fashion themselves akin to sharks and lions and hawks and other solitary predators but the human race is really more akin to the ant and the bee.  Our power comes ultimately from communication, cooperation, taking what those in the past have given us and adding a little something of our own for the yet unborn.  A human being living the life of a solitary and all devouring predator is a waste, a farce, a tragedy, an affront to nature.  Love live the liberal ethos!  Long live the human race!

Addendum

Recently President Macron has been in the news discussing how the concerns of the protestors are in many cases justified and floating the notion of raising the minimum wage, which should have his center right buddies all in a tizzy.  American conservatives would rather throw themselves from the parapets of Trump Tower than address an issue like ethically unacceptable wages at the low end of a market determined pay scale.  Seems Mr. Macron may not be as studiously dismissive of distributional concerns as one might have reasonably supposed.  Nice recovery.  Vive la France!