Walker

Walker joined Difficult Run as an editor in August 2013. He graduated from the University of North Texas with an MBA in Strategic Management and a BBA in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. He's currently a grad student in Government at Johns Hopkins University. He has been published in SquareTwo, BYU Studies Quarterly, Dialogue, Graziadio Business Review, and Economic Affairs. He also contributed to Julie Smith's (ed.) 'As Iron Sharpens Iron: Listening to the Various Voices of Scripture'. His other online writing can be found at Worlds Without End and Times & Seasons. He lives in Denton, Texas, with his wife.

Other People’s Money: Millennials and Socialism

by
Friedman

There’s been one underlying basic fallacy in this whole set of social security and welfare measures, and that is the fallacy – this is at the bottom of it – the fallacy that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people’s money. That view has two flaws. If I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people’s money, at it’s very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own. – Milton Friedman

 

A recent article in The Washington Post looks at the love affair between Millennials, Bernie Sanders, and the polarizing term “socialism.” The Cato Institute’s Emily Ekins explains,

Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably. A national Reason-Rupe survey found that 53 percent of Americans under 30 have a favorable view of socialism compared with less than a third of those over 30. Moreover, Gallup has found that an astounding 69 percent of millennials say they’d be willing to vote for a “socialist” candidate for president — among their parents’ generation, only a third would do so. Indeed, national polls and exit polls reveal about 70 to 80 percent of young Democrats are casting their ballots for presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a “democratic socialist.”

Ekins makes a couple of important observations:

  • “[M]illennials tend to reject the actual definition of socialism…”[ref]Italics mine.[/ref]
  • Countries like “Denmark aren’t socialist states (as the Danish prime minster has taken great pains to emphasize)…” In fact, Denmark “outranks the United States on a number of economic freedom measures such as less business regulation and lower corporate tax rates…”[ref]Will Wilkinson relies on the high amount of economic freedom in some of the Nordic countries to make a libertarian case for Bernie Sanders.[/ref]

But the real question is whether or not this youthful infatuation with socialistic policies will last. Ekins provides reasons to think not:

There is some evidence that this generation’s views on activist government will stick. However, there is more reason to expect that support for their Scandinavian version of socialism may wither as they age, make more money and pay more in taxes. The expanded social welfare state Sanders thinks the United States should adopt requires everyday people to pay considerably more in taxes. Yet millennials become averse to social welfare spending if they foot the bill. As they reach the threshold of earning $40,000 to $60,000 a year, the majority of millennials come to oppose income redistribution, including raising taxes to increase financial assistance to the poor. Similarly, a Reason-Rupe poll found that while millennials still on their parents’ health-insurance policies supported the idea of paying higher premiums to help cover the uninsured (57 percent), support flipped among millennials paying for their own health insurance with 59 percent opposed to higher premiums. When tax rates are not explicit, millennials say they’d prefer larger government offering more services (54 percent) to smaller government offering fewer services (43 percent). However when larger government offering more services is described as requiring high taxes, support flips and 57 percent of millennials opt for smaller government with fewer services and low taxes, while 41 percent prefer large government.

If previous generations are any indication (“both baby boomers and Gen Xers grew more skeptical of government over time”), the Millennial approval of big government may dwindle when they start having to pay for the programs they advocate. But an even greater takeaway–in connection with the notion that the world is getting better–is that “college students today are not debating whether we should adopt the Soviet or Maoist command-and-control regimes that devastated economies and killed millions. Instead, the debate today is about whether the social welfare model in Scandinavia (which is essentially a “beta-test,” because it hasn’t been around long) is sustainable and transferable.” In other words, “in the 20th-century battle between free enterprise and socialism, free enterprise already won.”

What Has The Church Ever Done For Us?

by

This is part of the General Conference Odyssey.

When I read Gordon B. Hinckley’s talk “What Will the Church Do For You, a Man?” in the April 1972 Saturday afternoon session, I thought of the following:

About a year ago, Nathaniel wrote a piece at Times & Seasons on what we could call “family privilege” and how those that benefit from a stable, intact family often don’t even realize it. This is true in the case of race, gender, socioeconomic background, etc. When it comes to the Church, I find it very easy to point out flaws or shortcomings. But as economist Thomas Sowell put it, “Nothing is easier than to prove that something human has imperfections. I’m amazed how many people devote themselves to that task.”[ref]And before anyone says that the Church isn’t human because of its divine origin, I’m not going to even go there. It is very human: it is made up of humans with human leaders and revelations mediated through human experience.[/ref] What I often forget are the privileges that come from growing up in the Church. Hinckley lays out a few:

  1. First, it will bring you into the greatest fraternity in the world.

“Every man hungers for brotherhood,” says Hinckley. I’ve talked about the need to belong elsewhere and won’t repeat myself here. But the Church provides a social network, a people, an identity.[ref]It has even been argued that Mormons should be considered an ethnic group.[/ref]

2. Second, active membership in the Church will motivate a man to clean up his life, if that is necessary.

Hinckley proclaims, “There are in the aggregate experiences of this church thousands upon thousands of cases of men who, under the uplifting impulses of the gospel of Jesus Christ and under the inspiration of association with good men, have received the strength to lay aside habits that held them in bondage for many years.” Social pressures and expectations as well as positive role models and influences help to curb bad habits or snuff them out before they even begin.

3. Third, activity in the Church will afford you growth through responsibility.

“It is an axiom as true as life itself that we grow as we serve,” says Hinckley. Responsibilities are placed on Mormon children at a young age, beginning with public talks and prayers. Children as young as 12 are put into leadership positions over their peers. Sacred rituals are prepared and performed by young men ages 12-18. Boys and girls barely able to vote go on mission trips lasting 1.5-2 years. The callings and duties only increase with age.

4. Fourth, membership in the Church and active participation therein will give a new dimension to your life, a spiritual dimension that will become as a rock of faith, with an endowment of authority to speak in the name of God.

The Church, according to Hinckley, “will verily add a spiritual dimension to your life with which to bless your family, your associates, and yourself.” Church leaders consistently implore us to read our scriptures, attend church, say family and personal prayers, seek inspiration and revelation, and (in the case of priesthood holders) exercise authority to bless the lives of others through blessings, ordinances, etc. All of these things attempt to connect us to the divine and thus open up an entire world to us.

5. Fifth, it will assist you in the governance of your home.

Hinckley declares, “How much stronger the nation would be—any nation—if there were presiding in each home a man who looked upon his wife as an eternal companion, engaged with him in a partnership with God in bringing to pass divine, eternal purposes, and who looked upon his children as children of our Heavenly Father, who has given to earthly parents a stewardship for those children.” This returns to the theme of Nathaniel’s post mentioned above. I strongly recommend giving it a read. In essence, family is central to the doctrines of Mormonism. When the highest form of existence in Mormonism (“exaltation“) is defined in terms of family, the desire and need to better govern one’s family here on earth is likely to increase. See below.

6. Finally, the Church makes it possible for you, a man, to bind to you for eternity those you love most.

“No other relationship in life,” says Hinckley, “is so sacred, so satisfying, so important in its consequences as the family relationship.” This was the driving force behind one convert I taught on my mission up in Carson City, NV. He still struggled with the Joseph Smith story, but the doctrine of eternal families resonated with him. He chose to go through with his baptism despite his questions, explaining that he had faith that God would quiet his concerns. Ultimately, it felt right and he wanted to do whatever was necessary to be with his family forever.

So, whenever I get in the mode of asking “What has the Church ever done for us?”, I should respond with: a social network and identity, clean living, a sense of responsibility and solid work ethic, high spirituality, and a family-centered life. Of course, this is generally speaking,[ref]There are those whose experiences have not been beneficial. However, I think it is pretty clear that if one follows the basic teachings and lifestyle advocated by the Church, he/she will be better for it.[/ref] but these benefits cannot be overstated. As I continue through my adult Mormon life, I would do well to remember the privileges bestowed upon me by my Mormon childhood.

The Last Week: A Lecture by Marcus Borg

by

This is part of the DR Book Collection.

In honor of the Easter season, I read through The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus’s Final Days in Jerusalem by biblical scholars Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan. As I mentioned at Borg’s recent passing, I don’t always share his and Crossan’s interpretations. However, their strong emphasis on the political nature of Jesus’ ministry is a much-needed breath of fresh air in the midst of today’s hyper-individualized, over-spiritualized Christianity. One cannot and should not separate the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus from his life and ministry. Christ’s actions that resulted in his death are what discipleship is all about. And one has to understand the historical and political context of Jesus’ last week to fully understand what discipleship looks like.

However, my friend and co-editor here at Difficult Run Allen Hansen recently captured my thoughts beautifully on Facebook on the need to combine the political nature of Christ’s ministry with the reality of his resurrection:

The late Marcus Borg was a purveyor of a liberal Christian popular theology. By all accounts a generally thoughtful and considerate individual, Borg was oddly and dogmatically insistent upon a dichotomy between things literal and things spiritual/symbolic/meaningful. There was, according to him, no material, bodily resurrection. The tomb was not empty, but remained full. Instead, we should see it as a parable on meaning, Christ living again is as a dynamic experience, ascribing anything beyond that, say, an actual, divine being with a material body who is as alive now as he ever was before his death, is to trivialise the story. Nevermind that any 1st century apocalyptic and pharisaic Jews would have been bewildered by such an incomprehensible sentiment regarding resurrection. We’ll cut Borg some slack for theological rather than historical musings on earliest Christian theology. To my mind, reducing the atonement, death, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ to a parable on meaning is to trivialise it. I don’t yet have a fully articulated or consistent model for how the atonement worked and I may never have one, but a God willing to let his son suffer and die for us is no trivial god. Likewise a god freely choosing such suffering and humiliation for himself for our sakes. A god who can intervene on our behalf in history and nature, who can shatter the bonds of death and sin keeping us captive. A god who is able to lift us to his level, unlocking our eternal potential, thus making us everything that we should be rather than just another crappy metaphor reminding us of what we are not now, and never will be. The reality and power of the atonement is something that I have personally experienced. Because I have had that spiritual witness is why I am Christian rather than Jewish despite often feeling closer to the latter. To deny the possibility of bodily resurrection is to trivialise the new possibility which is Christ. It is almost a sneer at the hope of millions for a time in which everything that is wrong, unfair, imperfect, and evil is made right. It is affirming that life is nasty, brutish and short, but we can make it a little less depressing by telling stories that are true even though they are not nor ever will be actually, literally true. If you believe in that you are welcome to it, but I cannot agree that holding to a belief in a material, bodily resurrection is a trivial interpretation. Still, Borg got quite a bit right. It is just that what he got right is more powerful when considered as aspects of a bodily resurrection of the son of God.

Despite these criticisms, I highly recommend the book.[ref]My disagreements were largely found in their assessment of the resurrection itself, not the analyses of the days leading up to it.[/ref] You can see Borg lecture on Holy Week below.

Are All the Income Gains Going to the Top One Percent?

by

A new report by the Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship looks at the claims regarding “the rich getting richer” and the top 1% making most of the gains since the Great Recession. Winship’s main findings include:

  • An accurate accounting of who is gaining and losing in the U.S. economy requires a broad view across an entire business cycle: while the richest households tend to gain the most during economic expansions, this is partly because they also lose the most during recessions.
  • In the current, ongoing, business cycle, real incomes declined between 2007 and 2014; the top 1 percent experienced nearly half of that total decline.
  • From 1979 to 2007, 38 percent of income growth went to the bottom 90 percent of households, amounting to a 35 percent increase ($17,000) in its average income.

Check it out. An excerpt can be found here.

The Inequality of Spending

by

Over at The New Republic, a pair of economists report,

In a just-released study, we provide the first picture of actual U.S. inequality. We account for inequality in labor earnings and wealth, as Thomas Piketty and many others do. And we get to the bottom line: what does inequality in spending look like after accounting for government taxes and benefits? Our findings dramatically alter the standard view of inequality and inform the debate on whether and how best to reduce it. Our study focuses on lifetime spending inequality because economic well being depends not just on what we spend this minute, hour, week or even year. It depends on what we can expect to spend through the rest of our lives.[ref]Similar studies have been done in their measurement of poverty.[/ref]

The results?

First, spending inequality—what we should really care about—is far smaller than wealth inequality. This is true no matter the age cohort you consider. Take 40-49 year-olds. Those in the top 1 percent of our resource distribution have 18.9 of net wealth but account for only 9.2 percent of the spending. In contrast, the 20 percent at the bottom (the lowest quintile) have only 2.1 percent of all wealth but 6.9 percent of total spending. This means that the poorest are able to spend far more than their wealth would imply—though still miles away from the 20 percent they would spend were spending fully equalized.

The authors conclude,

The facts revealed in our study should change views. Inequality, properly measured, is extremely high, but is far lower than generally believed. The reason is that our fiscal system, properly measured, is highly progressive. And, via our high marginal taxes, we are providing significant incentives to Americans to work less and earn less than they might otherwise. Finally, traditional static measures of inequality, fiscal progressivity and work disincentives that a) focus on immediate incomes and net taxes rather than lifetime spending and lifetime net taxes and b) lump the old together with the young create highly distorted pictures of all three issues.

Check it out.

Our Kids: An AEI Discussion with Robert Putnam

by

This is part of the DR Book Collection.

Regular readers of Difficult Run know that research on marriage and family structure is a hobby horse of mine. It’s something I try to keep up with, which is why I was excited when political scientist Robert Putnam’s book Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis was released. Putnam explores the growing inequalities within America by focusing on children and their family and social backgrounds. The book provides a useful narrative by fleshing out empirical evidence with interviews and anecdotes.[ref]He relies a little too heavily on anecdotes for my taste. More attention to the details within the data would have been preferable.[/ref] It joins an increasing number of impressive books that demonstrate the powerful influence of family structure on the outcomes of children’s lives.

See Putnam discuss his book on an AEI panel with Charles Murray and William Wilson below.

Munk Debate: Humankind’s Best Days Lie Ahead

by

Harvard’s Steven Pinker and science writer Matt Ridley went head-to-head with essayist Alain de Botton and author Malcolm Gladwell in the Canada-based Munk Debates on the subject of human progress: “Be it resolved that humankind’s best days lie ahead.” Given Pinker and Ridley’s past books, they were obviously on the PRO side. A portion of the debate can be found below:

I came into this debate heavily biased, but I still think Pinker and Ridley wiped the floor with their opponents. Here are some highlights:

Pinker argues that the world is getting better based on 10 major factors of human well-being:

  1. Life itself: lifespan is increasing.
  2. Health: diseases are declining.
  3. Prosperity: the world is wealthier and extreme poverty is continually declining.
  4. Peace: wars are becoming less frequent.
  5. Safety: global rates of violent crime are falling.
  6. Knowledge: the percentage of people with a basic education is increasing.
  7. Freedom: democracy overall is expanding worldwide.
  8. Human rights: the amount of rights and campaigns in favor of them have increased.
  9. Gender equity: women are better educated and hold more positions of power and influence.
  10. Intelligence: IQ scores continue to increase in every country.

He concludes,

Pinker

A better world, to be sure, is not a perfect world. As a conspicuous defender of the idea of human nature, I believe that out of the crooked timber of humanity, no truly straight thing can be made. And, to misquote a great Canadian, “We are not stardust, we are not golden, and there’s no way we’re getting back to the garden.” In the glorious future I am envisioning, there will be disease and poverty, there will be terrorism and oppression, and war and violent crime. But there will be much, much less of these scourges, which means that billions of people will be better off than they are today. And that, I remind you, is the resolution of this evening’s debate.

Ridley

Ridley argues for the why behind these dramatic improvements:

But, my optimism about the future isn’t based on extrapolating the past. It’s based on why these things are happening. Innovation, driven by the meeting and mating of ideas to produce baby ideas, is the fuel that drives them. And, far from running out of fuel, we’re only just getting started. There’s an infinity of ways of recombining ideas to make new ideas and we no longer have to rely on North Americans and Europeans to come up with them. The internet has speeded up at the rate at which people can communicate and cross-fertilize their ideas.

In response to de Botton’s focus on what he himself labels as the “first-world problems” of Switzerland, Pinker says,

Are you saying that you willing to go to a peasant in Cambodia, or Sudan, or Bangladesh, or Afghanistan and say, “Listen, I’ve been there. You worry about your child dying, your wife dying in childbirth, you’re full of parasites, you don’t have enough to eat but, you know, trust me, it’s no great shakes to live in a country like Switzerland. True, your child might not die in the first year of life but, you know, when they’re a teenager they’re going to roll their eyes at you. And you may not have to live under the shadow of war and genocide but people will still make bitchy comments. And you may not be hungry but, you know, sometimes the wine will have a nose that’s a bit too fruity.”

Ridley adds to this:

This world isn’t perfect, definitely not. That’s the whole point of optimism…It means you don’t think the world is perfect, you want to improve it. And if, along the way, that means that when we get to Switzerland, we stop being able to appreciate flowers and we lose our sense of humour [a jab at de Botton], well, maybe it’s a price worth paying.

In response to the problem of “unhappiness,” Ridley correctly points out that “happiness correlates with wealth, between countries, within countries and within lifetimes. It’s perfectly true that you can be very wealthy and very unhappy. But, that’s all right, because it cheers up other people, so…” Pinker backs him up by explaining that “the Easterlin Paradox has been resolved. I think you’re [de Botton] a decade out of date. The idea that wealth does not correlate with happiness, which is what the Easterlin Paradox was, has been resolved.”

On the topic of climate change and Gladwell’s somewhat disparaging remarks about economists, Pinker states,

I certainly agree that economists are an inviting target and one can always get a laugh by making fun of economists. But the problem of climate change is an economic problem. All the projections of the worst case scenarios all depend on calculations of economists, namely how many people will burn how many units of fossil fuels…Both the analysis of climate change and the possible solutions are economic problems. We know that we can have solar panels, the question is will there be enough solar panels to reduce fossil fuel use? We know that nuclear power can cut into carbon emissions, by how much. We know that people could reduce their consumption enough to mitigate the problem. Will they? Under what kind of incentives…So, it’s very much a problem of economics.

As de Botton continued to obsessively bring the mental states of literary characters, Pinker reminded him that “Anna Karenina didn’t actually exist…neither did Hamlet…I think if your child dies in the first year of life, that deeply concerns the human psyche. I think it’s very relevant to happiness. I think if billions of people do not see their children die, that’s a much more relevant consideration for the human psyche, for the depths of human existence than Anna Karenina…”

Given all this, I applaud Pinker’s conclusion: “It’s irresponsible enough to be a fatalist when the objective indicators say the world is getting worse, all the more so where they say the world is getting better.”

The whole thing is worth the watch.

Reading Fiction Enhances Social Skills

by

The Wall Street Journal reports on a brand new study in Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience:

People who read a lot of fiction are known to have stronger social skills than nonfiction readers or nonreaders. A new study suggests that reading fictional works, especially stories that take readers inside people’s lives and minds, may enhance social skills by exercising a part of the brain involved in empathy and imagination.

…[R]eading fictional excerpts about individuals and groups of people heightened activity in a brain system known as the default network. This system is active when people are imagining hypothetical situations, such as the past or the future, or thinking about another person’s perspective, the researchers said.

I’ve written on this topic before. The evidence continues to pile up.

 

“This We Can Do!”

by

This is part of the General Conference Odyssey.

The interview above with Dr. Samantha Callan of the UK’s Centre for Social Justice, which are based on the think tank’s reports Breakdown Britain and Breakthrough Britain,[ref]There have been reports since the interview such as Fractured Families: Why Stability Matters and Fully Committed?: How Government Could Reverse Family Breakdown.[/ref] demonstrates the power and importance of family structure and stability. In my view, Elder ElRay Christiansen’s April 1972 address is very complementary to the research mentioned above. For this week’s post, I want to attach the social science associated with some of Elder Christiansen’s claims. Let the interview above act as the evidence for his introduction: “If you and I are to help restore this sick world to its spiritual health, we must begin at the proper place—that is, with ourselves and with our families. This we can do!” Here are some other selections:

One of the most rewarding of all human undertakings is that of making a success of marriage and of rearing children in a manner acceptable to the Lord. It calls for the best in all of us…Parenthood is a sacred trust. It is an approach to the divine—a God-given privilege that, with its never-ending responsibilities, brings rich and lasting rewards.

There have been a string of studies over the years arguing that parents are less happy than non-parents. But it’s far more complicated than that. A wide range of variables can influence the happiness of parents, including age, parenting style, emotional bonds, child characteristics, and family situation. Furthermore, there is the debate over the (non) difference between happiness and meaning. Researchers like psychologist Roy Baumeister find that happiness is more present-oriented, while meaningfulness integrates past, present, and future in the construction of purpose and identity. This may play a significant role in teasing out the differences between parents and non-parents. There is at least some research that indicates parents report higher levels of happiness and meaning in life.[ref]For all the non-parents that might be on the brink of offense, chill: I’m a non-parent too.[/ref] As for the “rearing children in a manner acceptable to the Lord,” it turns out that religion is good for families and kids. Regular attendance to religious services leads to less cheating on spouses, less abuse, happier marriages, less divorce, and more time with children. Religious teens are more likely to eschew lying, cheating and stealing and to identify with the Golden Rule. Religious children also have better self-control, social skills, and character traits such as grit. They also are happier and less likely to abuse drugs, alcohol, and suffer from depression. Unfortunately, religious attendance has been declining along with marriage, mainly in less-affluent communities.

Some worthy institutions have been developed to help improve the home and family life. But helpful as these agencies may be, I am convinced, and I believe you will agree, that there is not and never will be a better institution for improving the home than the home itself. Parents cannot, without regrettable consequences, shirk the responsibility of teaching and showing their children through their example the attributes of character that lead them unhesitatingly to appreciate and accept the good, the decent, the beautiful, and help them to develop the desire and the courage to turn from that which is coarse or crude or wrong…Success in family life calls for parents who take time to enjoy their children; who read with them; who play with them; who let them participate in planning special occasions, seeking to make wholesome family traditions a proud part of family life.

Elder Christiansen should be convinced because that is what the research shows: policy interventions and public programs are no substitute for parents when it comes to child well-being. Growing up with both parents (in an intact family) is strongly associated with more education, work, and income among today’s young men and women. The kind of parenting, not merely marriage alone, has a large impact on children. Teaching children to build character, including “soft skills” like drive and prudence, is important for their flourishing. Parental involvement is a must as is being an actual parent.

Another essential in successful parenthood is for fathers and mothers to avoid disputations…I plead with parents to rise above pettiness and to spare their children the inglorious and painful insecurity of having to endure petty disputations and offensive situations.

High-conflict marriages can have negative effects on children, particularly their relationships with their parents. According to some research, “children can become distraught, worried, anxious, and hopeless. Others may react outwardly with anger, becoming aggressive and developing behavior problems at home and at school. Children can develop sleep disturbances and health problems like headaches and stomachaches, or they may get sick frequently. Their stress can interfere with their ability to pay attention, which creates learning and academic problems at school. Most children raised in environments of destructive conflict have problems forming healthy, balanced relationships with their peers. Even sibling relationships are adversely affected—they tend to go to extremes, becoming overinvolved and overprotective of each other, or distant and disengaged.” This does not mean avoid conflict altogether or pretend that everything is alright (kids can pick up on this). But learn to “rise above pettiness” goes a long way in sparing both spouses and children a lot of hurt.

In conclusion, Elder Christiansen says, “Historians almost without exception point out that one of the greatest contributing factors in the downfall of nations is the disintegration of the home and family life. A complete rebirth of satisfactory family life is needed. It is needed even in the so-called better homes. It must begin with proper love and respect between the husband and the wife and then, by their example, transferred to their children. No nation can long endure unless the great majority of its families and its homes are made secure through faith in God—an active, living faith.”

Let’s start with securing ours. As Elder Christiansen put it, “This we can do!”

—

Check out the other posts from the General Conference Odyssey this week and join our Facebook group to follow along!

The Populist Trade Problem

by

A recent article in Vox outlines the problem of anti-trade populism:

Bernie Sanders sells himself as a champion of the little guy. But talk to economists and development experts, and you hear something different: Sanders’s policies on trade would hurt the very poorest people on Earth. A lot.

Here is the basic issue. Sanders has, correctly, recognized that freer trade with countries like China has hurt a subset of American workers (while benefiting others). As a result, he opposes most efforts to open American markets to more international competition, and promises to roll back a number of previous trade agreements the US had made.

There’s one big problem, according to development economists I spoke to: Free trade is one of the best tools we have for fighting extreme poverty.[ref]See my SquareTwo article written with Nathaniel for some of the evidence of this claim.[/ref] If Sanders wins, and is serious about implementing his agenda, he will impoverish millions of already-poor people in China and Central America.

What’s worse is that the actual ways Sanders might roll back these agreements could lead to serious reprisals from the affected countries. The nightmare scenario, experts say, is a global slide toward protectionism, wherein China and other countries take cues from the US and impose their own retaliatory tariffs. That would devastate economies in the developing world, dooming many more millions to a lifetime of crushing poverty.

The piece demonstrates how trade has benefited the global poor, while recognizing it may negatively impact some American jobs (though the benefits of increased purchasing power through cheaper goods may outweigh the costs). However, Sanders is not the only candidate with backward policies when it comes to trade. Donald Trump, according to The New York Times, “is bringing mercantilism back. The New York billionaire is challenging the last 200 years of economic orthodoxy that trade among nations is good, and that more is better. He is well on his way to becoming the first Republican nominee in nearly a century who has called for higher tariffs, or import taxes, as a broad defense against low-cost imports.” These positions show why Trump and Sanders are far more conservative[ref]In fact, some recent research in political psychology “suggests that the personality characteristics that make someone culturally conservative will often tend to promote left-wing economic views, favoring redistributive economic intervention by the government.” This is likely due to the protectionist nature of left-wing economics.[/ref] and far more alike[ref]This includes some of their views on immigration.[/ref] than some would care to admit. This is perhaps why some political scientists are recognizing Trump supporters as populists: a label usually reserved for Sanders supporters. “Trump supporters share anti-elitism with only one other group: Sanders’s voters,” write one pair of political scientists in The Washington Post. “But where Trump is a populist, we would argue that Sanders is not. Despite the fact that Sanders often gets called a populist, his voters do not conform to the populist stereotype. They generally trust experts and do not identify strongly as Americans.” This may be true of Sanders supporters in some cases, but when it comes to economics, they reject the expertise and consensus of economists and embrace U.S.-centric protectionist policies.

From Gregory Mankiw’s Principles of Economics, 7th ed. (pg. 32).

A socialist Democrat and a Republican businessman drawing from the same economic playbook. I’m sure most didn’t see that one coming.