Don't be fooled by the wealthy's economic research deception

Posted: Tue Aug 08, 2017 9:19 pm, #1
by Jessica
MarketWatch needs to be watched closely.

From:MarketWatch
Most of what you think about inequality is wrong
Published: Aug 8, 2017
By Steve Goldstein D.C. bureau chief

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-th ... 2017-08-07

Here is the premise of the article,
Consumption inequality hasn’t grown as much as income inequality.
We are led to believe by the author that this is the reason most of what we think about inequality is wrong regardless of the vast trove of research pointing in the opposite direction.

Let me put a dead mouse into this punch bowl by making two points so no one drinks from it again.

First, consider the source.

MarketWatch is part of Dow Jones Media Group which is part of Dow Jones and Company which is owned by Rupert Murdoch who is extremely conservative. See the article below. He and his man-servants will do anything to take the focus off the real issues of income and economic inequality. Obviously rot starts at the top with the deception and spin of this article already raising quite a stink.

The Newsroom At Rupert Murdoch's WSJ Is Fed Up With Its "Galling" Pro-Trump Coverage
October 14, 2016 10:34 AM EDT ››› TYLER CHERRY
A cloud of “gloom” and “dismay” hangs over The Wall Street Journal’s newsroom, where journalists are reportedly disappointed with the paper’s superficial election coverage and “‘flattering’” treatment of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Reporters at the Journal, whose parent company News Corp. is chaired by Rupert Murdoch, told Politico’s Joe Pompeo that the paper’s Trump coverage has been “‘galling’” and “‘absurd.’”
Pompeo wrote in Politico’s October 14 Morning Media newsletter that there is “seasonally appropriate gloom in the air” at the Journal’s newsroom over the paper’s “‘galling,’” “‘flattering’” pro-Trump “stories on the front [page]” and the “‘false balance in treating him just like another nominee.’” Pompeo’s Journal sources decried the paper’s superficial “‘process stories about the race, who’s up and down,’” and lamented the Journal’s Trump coverage as “‘neutral to the point of being absurd.’”

“Of course,” Pompeo wrote, the staff “probably saw it coming,” given both that the Journal’s editor-in-chief demanded that his reporters be “‘fair’” to Trump back in May and that the Journal is owned by Murdoch’s News Corp. Murdoch -- who also has played a hands-on role in leading his unabashedly pro-Trump Fox News Channel -- signaled months ago that “he plans to fully back Trump in the general election,” according to New York magazine.
Second, the author's argument is a false equivalency and should be rejected.

He states,
The short version is — there’s a much less stark gap between haves and have-nots measured this way. The researchers show that consumption inequality rose considerably less than income inequality over the past five decades. Between the early 1960s and 2014 income inequality grew by nearly 30% while inequality in consumption rose just 7%.
Here they are measuring the consumption of "goods" which is not the same as measuring the psychological and social impact this consumption has upon people. The effect of inequality is a bio-psycho-social phenomenon much of which takes place at a subconscious level. It needs to be interpreted in these terms and not by comparing apples to oranges.

For example, let's say you live in a beautiful house in AnyTown, USA, with a nice car in the driveway. Your neighbor, who lives next to you, has a very similar house with a similar car. In other words, you both posses a similar quantity and quality of goods. But one night you happen to attend a party at your neighbor's house and by mistake he or she happens to leave their check book lying out. By chance you can clearly see they have $10 million in their account. You also know you only have $30 thousand in your account. Now, how would this make you feel psychologically? And even if you could shake this fact from your conscious mind rationally, it would be gnawing away at your subconscious mind and emotions for a very long time. I will grant this is not the best example but I think it makes the point.

Better yet, the following reply to this article from its comment section puts the inaccurate deceptive spin clearly into perspective,

Adam Greene 7 hours ago
"Consumption inequality hasn't grown as much as income inequality."
No kidding. A guy who makes 1000 times more income than me doesn't eat 1000 times more food than me. Does he live in 1000 times more homes than me? Does he drive 1000 times more cars than me?
Surely Murdoch's yes-man of an employee is grabbing at straws and is well aware of this. Furthermore, his poor piece of reporting does not justify the use of such strong words in the article's title such as, "Most, think, and wrong." Perhaps he should apply these words to himself.

I rate this article a Trump "Sad."