News bits: About wealth inequality; Trump legal sleaze; Amazon’s AIexa spreads disinformation

An interview with an expert discusses wealth inequality, criticizing libertarianism for having a negative impact on economic analyses and average people generally: 

Angus Deaton on inequality: 

‘The war on poverty has become a war on the poor’

The Nobel prize winner and author of new book Economics in America argues economists must get back to serving society

The Scottish-born winner of the 2015 Nobel prize for economics struggled at first to understand why there was so little interest in a subject most European economists regarded as a central concern of post-war policies to reduce poverty and build more equitable societies.

But, as Deaton describes in his unsparing new book, Economics in America: An Immigrant Economist Explores the Land of Inequality, he soon realized he had run headlong into the libertarian monetarists of the Chicago School of Economics, and they were driving US policy.

“There is this very strong libertarian belief that inequality is not a proper area of study for economists,” Deaton said. “Even if you were to worry about inequality, it would be best if you just kept quiet and lived with it.”

Deaton persevered, building a reputation as a contrarian for scrutinising the prevailing orthodoxy that an unfettered free market would deliver greater economic equality and individual liberty, and that government intervention and regulation would undermine both.

The result, said Deaton, is a predatory brand of capitalism in the US that enriches corporations and the wealthy at the expense of working people, deepens inequality of wealth and opportunity, and – although many Americans will deny it – is fuelling the rise of a class system. As he picks the system apart, Deaton zeros in on the evident absurdities of claims about the purity of the market.

“If you need an ambulance, you are not in the best position to find the best service or to bargain over prices; instead, you are helpless and the perfect victim for a predator,” he writes.

The results are clear. Real wages have stagnated since 1980 while productivity has more than doubled and the rich cream off the profits. The top 10% of US families now own 76% of wealth. The bottom 50% own just 1%.

The time has come, Deaton argues, for economists to get back to serving society.

“The discipline has become unmoored from its proper basis, which is the study of human welfare,” he writes.  

Deaton ticks off the list of Nobel prizes for economics won by the Chicago school’s highly regarded minds, including Milton Friedman and George Stigler. He does not doubt what he calls their intellectual contributions.

“Yet it is hard to imagine a body of work more antithetical to worrying about inequality,” he writes.

“A friend of mine, a conservative economist and deeply religious man, is fond of saying that ‘fair’ is a four-letter word that should be expunged from economics.”    

Deaton describes his own hopes as an immigrant 40 years ago as tempered by the corruption of the American economy and its politics to an extent that threaten democracy. But he is not without hope.

Deaton also sees change because of immigrants like him. He points to the Turkish-born American, Daron Acemoglu, as an economist whose thinking is changing the discipline.

“Seventy per cent of economics PhDs in the US are non-American. I compare it to the Jews who came to America between the wars who completely changed physics. Economics is being completely changed by this influx. I’m not the only immigrant who comes in to America and finds it a strange place,” he said.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

Slate writes:

The Most “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” Trump Argument Ever

Trump’s attorneys argue that the Constitution itself gives him immunity because it specifies that impeachment may be followed by a criminal indictment. Trump’s attorneys reason, therefore, that an acquitted president, such as Trump, can no longer face indictment. See for yourself:

Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts is also rooted in the text of the Constitution. The Impeachment Clauses provide that the President may be charged by indictment only in cases where the President has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate. Here, President Trump was acquitted by the Senate for the same course of conduct.

The Impeachment Clause of Article I provides that “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office … but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” … Because the Constitution specifies that only “the Party convicted” by trial in the Senate may be “liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,” … it presupposes that a President who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution.

What is much more galling, though, than this logical error is that during the impeachment trial over the events of Jan. 6, Trump’s lawyers argued the exact opposite in order to win acquittal. Specifically, Trump attorney David Schoen said during that impeachment trial that the Senate could not convict Trump because, since he was no longer president, the only appropriate venue for accountability was the criminal justice system. Schoen went so far as to explicitly cite the very same section of the Constitution to say the exact opposite thing now being argued in court. Here’s what Schoen argued (emphasis mine):

[The impeachment managers] contend, citing various law professors, that ‘‘[any official] who betrayed the public trust and was impeached could avoid accountability simply by resigning one minute before the Senate’s final conviction vote.’’

This argument is a complete canard. The Constitution expressly provides in article I, section 3, clause 7 that a convicted party, following impeachment, ‘‘shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law’’ [after removal]. Clearly, a former civil officer who is not impeached is subject to the same. 

Now Trump’s attorneys, having successfully argued that he couldn’t be convicted during his impeachment because the criminal courts were the only appropriate venue, are arguing that he can’t be held accountable in criminal court because he wasn’t convicted during his impeachment. 

There is, it’s worth noting, a legal principle called estoppel, which prevents someone from claiming in court something contrary to a case that they made to win a previous argument in court. Judge Tanya Chutkan should consider deploying it.

Why Trump's lawyers are not heavily sanctioned and Trump jailed for contempt of court is beyond me. Trump's new arguments are estopped because his earlier argument directly contradicted this argument. 

Our rule of law is rigged to favor rich and powerful elites. That is why I doubt that Trump will ever be held accountable for his crimes. So far the only liability he has faces is in civil lawsuits, not criminal ones. Paying a fine is nothing to a criminal sociopathic narcissist like DJT.

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

The WaPo reports about Amazon’s naughty AI-powered Alexa:

Asked about fraud in the race — in which President Biden defeated former president Donald Trump with 306 electoral college votes — the popular voice assistant said it was “stolen by a massive amount of election fraud,” citing Rumble, a video streaming service favored by conservatives.

The 2020 races were “notorious for many incidents of irregularities and indications pointing to electoral fraud taking place in major metro centers,” according to Alexa, referencing Substack, a subscription newsletter service.

Alexa disseminates misinformation about the race, even as parent company Amazon promotes the tool as a reliable election news source to more than 70 million estimated users.

Amazon declined to explain why its voice assistant draws 2020 election answers from unvetted sources. “These responses were errors that were delivered a small number of times, and quickly fixed when brought to our attention,” Amazon spokeswoman Lauren Raemhild said in a statement.