Economics is not about the world, professor, but about economizing while being involved in making business decisions.
It is therefore about spending extra dollars on more expensive shoes than other shoes, with these shoes then lasting much longer and saving money in the long run.
I get the point you are making, and you are upset for all the right reasons. But the arrows need to be aimed at the right people, at the right institutions.
It does not help inflating Economics as being the same realm as political decision makers. That is not a good approach. As Gödel already showed us, we should not mix and match different systems because we end up with an overall truth that is not truthful at all.
--
The most important map (ever) of the world is the Gini Index map.
You can find it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
The BLARING outcome of this map is that the USA, of all rich nations in the world, produces the greatest poverty among itself. Only 'third-world' nations do worse. The USA is on the wrong side per this most important map of the world.
Canada does much better, for instance.
In Europe, particularly Britain and Italy stand out as rich nations that create poverty among their own ranks. They still do better than the USA, but given their political reality it is interesting to see how an underperforming political system leads to greater poverty levels in those nations.
--
Political decisions can be economic decisions, but applying economics to one's own people, spending less on the poor so the rich can have more (and attract foreign investors that way who also get more than at home), that is the true nature of your complaint, is that not right?
The value of money is exaggerated for the poor who are in constant great need of money, while the value of money is lowered for the rich who do not care about spending $60 million for a famous painting as investment.
See Sweden, the Netherlands, some former communist countries in the east of Europe. Their economy is doing whatever it can, but the spread of income is more equal. Their political systems give greater value to their voters. People can fully express themselves, unlike the USA, the UK (or in the watered down democracy of Italy).
Notice, too, how wealth (in)equality is not necessarily in line with income (in)equality.
These maps are worth studying.
--
The United States is pulling the entire rich world down in light of economic equality. They are the competitors who are willing to sell their mothers for profit. The value of a human life is less in the USA than in any of the other rich nations.
The USA does not invest (much) in transit, bicycle infrastructure, healthcare for all, education for all at a decent level. The USA let its downtowns go to hell in a basket by focusing its political power and economic power on suburbia. It invests in RED and it invests in BLUE, but it does not give a whoopee about any of the other colors. Only when there are disasters that show how dysfunctional the USA is, only then do we come out full force to ameliorate the situation. And even then it does not ameliorate everything well enough. Downtowns were neglected so much they became attractive once more. Meanwhile, the other rich nations do not show the same patterns.
Last note to mention is that, in the USA, the idea exists that the way the USA is organized is also the way the world is organized. That is a cultural fallacy due to the lack of education and international experience. Being the leader in one field, does not make one the leader in all fields. Yet hyperboles are used by us because it makes us feel good. Who cares about pronouncing all colors of the rainbow when Red and Blue shine brightly, right?
Or, as I have heard my European friends mention a few times: The USA is the leader of the first world, and the USA is the leader of the third world.
Okay, enough with the bashing. Yes, the USA is great in many ways, and its people are wonderful. No complaints for me and the life I live. But things are not organized properly here, and that has nothing to do with economics, but everything with the decision makers.
Good article. Great to read it. But it has to be improved by not pointing the finger at the wrong group of people.
P.S. Yes, I have an economics degree, BA, and I work in the public sector. I know firsthand how the decisions tend to not be full-rainbow-colored, but most often RED or BLUE in essence. The deeper economic truths that rise to the top in Sweden and the Netherlands, for instance, do not rise to the top here. We do not get the smartest of the smartest in the decision-making positions, but rather the people that understand the power games best. They know how to jockey themselves in the best positions because they learned that ‘picking Red or Blue’ is the best way forward.
