Dealing with inequality: are wealth and income caps the answer?

Inequality today, perhaps, draws more comment than poverty if only because extreme poverty has been successfully tackled in most parts of the world. There are many studies that document increases in inequality (notably the book by Thomas Picketty). Many of these findings are contested- some dispute the contention that inequality is rising. But the fact that there is substantial inequality is not disputed.

Now, we have two books that propose radical solutions. One wants a cap on wealth or savings of $ 10 million. Another argues that nobody should earn more than the current threshold for entering the top 1% of taxpayers ($330,000 in the US). The Economist argues that, whatever the theoretical arguments for limiting inequality, we do not have effective ways to place limits on income or wealth.

First, if we want to cap wealth  or income, it implies a 100% marginal income tax rate above a certain income. That is very difficult to enforce: there would be massive evasion or people would flee to friendlier tax regimes. And if all nations enforced such a marginal tax rate?  The effect on incentives would be devastating:

Imagine a world where any gain above £180,000 a year, or $10m over a lifetime, was forfeit. Highly productive people—such as surgeons and engineers, never mind word wizards like J.K. Rowling—would have no financial incentive to keep working after that point was passed. Perhaps some would carry on toiling out of altruism or for the love of the job. But many would be tempted to kick back, relax and deprive the world of their exceptional skills, drive and imagination.

Consider, too, the incentives such a system would create for entrepreneurs. You have an idea for a better mousetrap. Under the old system, you might mortgage your house to raise cash to build a mousetrap factory, in the hope of making a fortune. Under the new system, you must shoulder the same risks (such as losing your home), for a small fraction of the rewards.

Potentially big ideas would stay small. Even if your mousetrap is so good that the world might reasonably be expected to beat a path to your door, it would be irrational to borrow money to expand production. The financial risks of trying to build a global business fall on you. The rewards go to someone else. Only a mug would take such a bet.

Well, it's important that we steer clear of extreme solutions to inequality. Wherever inequality is rising, we need to fix a few things that Joseph Stiglitz has emphasised several times: the bargaining power of workers, the power of corporations and the way the elite frames rules to suit itself. People will accept even a high level of inequality in society provided they see a certain fairness to it. At the moment, it all seems like a game that is rigged by the rich and the powerful. 

Nuclear war: a close look at its horrors

All of understand that a nuclear war will wipe out much of the planet, that there are enough nuclear weapons with the US and Russia to kill the world's population several times over. But how exactly would a nuclear war unfold? 

The Economist reviews a couple of books that sketch out the nightmare. Let us say North Korea launches a nuclear attack on the USor a Russian submarine fires nuclear missiles off the West Coast of the US.Then, here is a possible sequence:

The American satellites which pick up the North Korean launch have sensors “so powerful they can see a single lighted match from 200 miles away”, she writes. Within 15 seconds radars can work out that the missile is headed for America. It will take just over half an hour to arrive. Once the president has been briefed he has six minutes to make a choice.

A Russian submarine off America’s west coast could launch its full complement of missiles at all 50 states at once in 80 seconds. Even if an American submarine was close behind it could not fire a torpedo in that time, notes one expert. That fact is said to have shocked America’s navy chief when it was revealed to him in 1981. Missiles launched from close to the American coastline would take little over seven minutes to hit their target.

American missiles bound for North Korea must overfly Russia by dint of geography. American leaders cannot get Russia’s president on the phone. Russia’s sub-par early-warning satellites, which have indeed been known to confuse clouds for plumes, mistakenly see hundreds of missiles incoming. The Kremlin attacks America. America responds. There are 100 “aimpoints”—jargon for targets—in the greater Moscow area alone.

Another book shows how deeply the scientific community is divided over the issue:

Some are gung-ho about the importance of nuclear deterrence, brandishing charts which show how deaths from major wars plummeted after the invention of the bomb. Others are equivocal, expressing opposition to nuclear weapons while insisting that someone has to ensure that the ones which exist remain safe and reliable. Still others seem deeply conflicted, preferring to emphasise the civilian applications of their research. “I wonder if the activists on the outside understand that there are those of us on the inside that share many of their goals,” says one scientist at Los Alamos, professing support for (eventual) disarmament. “That’s not an extreme position here at all.”

You could say mankind has carried on like this for over six decades and that deterrrence has worked. But the men who manage nuclear arsenals, it appears, continue to have sleepless nights.