Category: Economics

Over the years I have criticized for-profit schools. As I have emphasized before, I have nothing against the idea of a for-profit school. As such, my criticisms have not been that such schools make money. After all, I buy the food I need to survive with the money I make from being a professor. Rather, my criticisms have focused on the performance of these schools as schools, with their often-predatory practices, and the fact that they rely so heavily on federal funding for their profits. This article is, shockingly enough, also critical of these schools.

Assessment in and of higher education is standard practice now. Some assessment standards are set by the federal government, some by states and others by schools. At the federal level, one standard is in the Higher Education Act and states that career education programs “must prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” If a school fails to meet this standard, it can lose out on federal funds such as Pell Grants and federal loans. Since schools are fond of federal dollars, they endeavor to meet this standard.

One way to qualify is to ensure students are suitably prepared. Another approach, one taken primarily by the for-profit schools (which rely heavily on federal money for their profits) has been to lobby to get the standard set to their liking.  As it now stands, schools are ranked in three categories: passing, probationary, and failing. A passing program is such that its graduates’ annual loan payments are below 8% of their total earnings or below 20% of their discretionary incomes. A program is put on probation when the loan payments are in the 8-12% range of their total earnings or 20-30% of discretionary incomes. A program is failing when the loan payments are more than 12% of their total income or over 30% of their discretionary incomes. Students who do not graduate, which happens more often at for-profit schools than at private and public schools, are not counted in this calculation.

 A program is disqualified from receiving federal funds if it fails two out of any three consecutive years or gets a ranking less than passing for four years in a row. This went into effect back in the 2015-2016 academic year.

As a matter of ideology and not fact, it is often claimed that the for-profit, private sector is inherently superior to the public sector. As with many ideologies, this does not match reality. Public higher education, which is under constant attack from the right, has been amazingly successful: 99.72% of the programs were rated as passing, 0.18% were rated as being on probation and 0.09% were ranked as failing. Private nonprofit schools also performed admirably with 95.65% of their programs passing, 3.16% being ranked as being on probation and 1.19% rated as failing. So, “A” level work for these schools. In stark contrast, for-profit schools had 65.87% of their programs ranked as passing, 21.89 ranked as being on probation and 12.23% evaluated as failing. So, these schools would have a grade of “D” if they were students. It is certainly worth keeping in mind that the standards used are the ones that the private, for-profit schools pushed for and it seems likely they would do even worse if the more comprehensive standards favored by the AFT were used.

This data indicates the for-profit schools are not as good a choice for students and for federal funding as the public and non-profit private schools. After all, using the pragmatic measure of student income relative to debt incurred for education, the public and private non-profits are the clear winners. One easy and obvious explanation for this is, of course, that the for-profit schools make a profit. As such, they typically charge much more than comparable public and non-profit private schools. Another explanation is that for-profit schools generally do a worse job preparing students for careers and with placing students in jobs. So, a higher cost combined with inferior ability to get students into jobs translates into that “D” grade. So much for the alleged inherent superiority of the for-profit private sector.

It might be objected that there are other factors that explain the poor performance of the for-profit schools that make them look better. For example, perhaps students who enroll in them differ significantly from students in public and non-profit private schools and this helps explain the difference in a way that partially absolves them. As another example, perhaps the for-profit schools just suffered from ongoing bad luck in terms of the programs they offered. Maybe salaries were unusually bad in these jobs or hiring was very weak. These and other factors are worth considering. After all, failing to consider alternative explanations would be poor reasoning indeed. I am, after all, a philosopher and not a politician or pundit. If the for-profits can explain away their poor performance in legitimate ways, then perhaps the standards would need to be adjusted to take into account these factors.

It is also worth considering that schools, public and private, do not have control over the economy. Given that short-term (1-4 year) vagaries of the market could result in programs falling into probation or failure by these standards when such programs are “good” in the longer term, it would seem that some additional considerations should be brought into play. Naturally, it can be countered that 3-4 years of probation or failure would not really be short term (especially for folks who think in terms of immediate profit) and that such programs would fully merit their rating.

That said, the last economic meltdown was somewhat long term and the next one (our bubble based economy makes it almost inevitable) could be even worse. As such, it would seem sensible to consider the broader economy when holding programs accountable. After all, even a great program cannot make companies hire nor compel them to pay better wages.

While people who voted once again for Donald Trump gave various reasons for their choice, some say they chose him because he is a businessman, and they see government as a business. While some might be tempted to dismiss this as mere parroting of political rhetoric, the question of whether the state is a business is worth considering.

The state (that is, the people who occupy various roles) does engage in some business like behavior. For example, the state engages in contracts for products and services. As another example, the state does charge for some goods and services. As a third example, the state does engage in economic deals with other states. As such, it is indisputable that the state does business. However, this is distinct from being a business. To use an analogy, most of us routinely engage in business like behavior, yet this does not make us businesses. So, for the state to be a business, there must be something more to it than merely engaging in some business-like behavior.

One approach is the legal one. Businesses tend to be defined by the relevant laws, especially corporations. As it now stands, the United States government is not legally defined as a business. This could, of course, be changed by law. But such a legal status would not, by itself, be terribly interesting philosophically. After all, the question is not “is there a law that says the state is a business?” but “is the state a business?”

To take the usual Socratic approach, the proper starting point is working out a useful definition of business. Since this is a short essay, the definition also needs to be succinct. The easy and obvious way to define a business in capitalism is as an entity that provides goods or services (which can be abstract) in return for economic compensation with the goal of making a profit.

While there are government owned corporations that operate as businesses, the government itself does not seem to fit this definition. One reason is that while the state does provide goods and services, many are provided without explicit economic compensation. Some also receive goods and services without providing any compensation to the state. For example, some corporations can exploit tax laws so they can avoid paying any taxes even while receiving government subsidies and contracts.

While this seems to indicate that the state is not a business (or is perhaps a badly run business), there is also the question of whether the state should operate this way. In his essay on civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau suggested that people should have an essentially transactional relationship with the state. That is, they should pay for the goods and services they use, as they would do with any business. For example, a person who used the state roads would pay for this use via the highway tax. This approach does have some appeal.

One part of the appeal is ethical. Thoreau’s motivation was not to be a cheapskate, but to avoid contributing to government activities he saw as morally wrong. Two evils he wished to avoid funding were the Mexican-American war and slavery. Since the state routinely engages in activities some citizens find morally problematic (such as subsidizing corporations), this would allow people to act in accord with their values and influence the state directly by “voting” with their dollars. The idea is that just as a conventional business will give the customers what they are willing to pay for, the state as business would do the same thing.

Another part of the appeal is economic as people would only pay for what they use and many probably believe that this approach would cost them less than paying taxes. For example, a person who has no kids in the public schools would not pay for the schools, thus saving them money. There are, of course, some practical concerns that would need to be worked out here. For example, should people be allowed to provide their own police services and thus avoid paying for these services? As another example, there is the challenge of working out how the billing would be calculated and implemented. Fortunately, this is a technical challenge that existing business have already addressed, albeit on a much smaller scale. However, this is not just a matter of technical challenges.

An obvious problem is that there are people and organizations who cannot afford to pay for the services they need (or want) from the state. For example, people who receive food stamps or unemployment benefits obviously cannot pay the value for these goods. If they had the money to pay for them, they would not need them. As another example, companies that benefit from United States military interventions and foreign policy would be hard pressed to pay the full cost of these operations. As a third example, it would be absurd for companies that receive subsidies to pay for these subsidies. If they did, they would not be subsidies. The company would just give the state money to hand back to it, which would just be a waste of time. The same would apply to student financial aid and similar individual subsidies.

It could be replied that this is acceptable, those who cannot pay for the goods and services will be forced to work harder to be able to pay for what they need. Just as a person who wants to have a car must work to earn it, a person who wants to have police or fire protection must also work to earn it. If they cannot do so, then it will become a self-correcting problem as they die in fires or are killed by criminals. Naturally, the state could engage in some limited charity, much like businesses sometimes do. The state could also extend credit to citizens who are down on their luck or even conscript them so they can work off their debts to the state.

The counter to this is to argue that the state should not operate like a business because it has obligations that go beyond those imposed by payments for goods or services. The challenge is, of course, to argue for the basis of this obligation.

A second reason the state is not a business is that it is not supposed to operate to make a profit . This is not merely because the United States government spends more than it brings in, but because it does not even aim at making a profit. This is not to say that profits are not made by individuals, just that the state as a whole does not run on this model. This is presumably fortunate for the state, few other entities could operate at a deficit for so long without ceasing to be.

There is, of course, the question of whether the state should aim to operate at a profit. This, it must be noted, is distinct from the state operating with a balanced budget or even having a surplus of money. In the case of balancing the budget, the goal is to ensure that all expenditure is covered by the income of the state. While aiming at a surplus might seem to be the same as aiming for a profit, the difference lies in the intent. The usual goal of achieving a budget surplus is analogous to the goal of an individual trying to save money for future expenses.

In the case of profit, the goal would be for the state to make money beyond what is needed for current and future expenses. As with all profit making, this would require creating that profit gap between the cost of the good or service and what the customer pays for it. This could be done by underpaying those providing the goods and services or overcharging those receiving them, both of which might seem morally problematic for a government.

Profit, by its nature, must go to someone. For example, the owner of a small business gets the profits. As another example, the shareholders in a corporation get some of the profits. In the case of the government, there is the question of who should get the profit. One possibility is that all the citizens get a share of the profits, although this would just be re-paying citizens what they were either overcharged or underpaid. An alternative is to allow people to buy additional shares in the federal government, thus running it like a publicly traded corporation. China and Russia would presumably want to buy some of these stocks in the United States.

One argument for the profit approach is that it motivates people; so perhaps some of the profits of the state could go to government officials. The rather obvious concern here is that this would be a great motivator for corruption and abuse. For example, imagine if all courts aimed to operate at a profit for the judges and prosecutors. It could be contended that the market will work it out, just like it does in the private sector. The easy and obvious counter to this is that the private sector is well known for its corruption.

A second argument for the profit option is that it leads to greater efficiency. After all, every reduction in the cost of providing goods and services means more profits. While greater efficiency is desirable, there is the concern that costs would be reduced in harmful ways. For example, government employees might be underpaid. As another example, corners might be cut on quality and safety. The operation of for-profit prisons and universities provide tow cautionary tales about how a for-profit government would be bad for those outside the ruling class.  It can be countered that the current system is also problematic since there is no financial incentive to be efficient. An easy reply to this is that there are other incentives to be efficient. One of these is limited resources, people must be efficient to get their jobs done using what they have been provided with. Another is professionalism.

In light of the above discussion, while the state should aim at being efficient, it should not be a business.

The American anarchist Henry David Thoreau presented what has become a popular conservative view of the effect of government on business: “Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way…Trade and commerce, if they were not made of India-rubber, would never manage to bounce over obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way…” While this view of the role of the state in business is often taken as gospel by conservatives, there is the question of whether Thoreau is right. While I find his anarchism appealing, there are some problems with his view.

Thoreau is right that the government can be employed to thwart and impede enterprises. To illustrate, this can be done by granting special advantages and subsidies to certain companies or industries, thus impeding their competitors. However, he is mistaken in his claim that the government has never “furthered any enterprise.” I will begin with an easy and obvious reply to this claim.

Modern business could not exist without the physical and social infrastructure provided by the state. In terms of the physical infrastructure, businesses need the transportation infrastructure provided by the taxpayers. The most obvious aspect of this infrastructure is the system of roads that is paid for by the citizens and maintained by the government (citizens acting collectively). Without roads, most businesses could not operate as products could not be moved effectively, and customers would be hard pressed to reach the businesses.

Perhaps even more critical than the physical infrastructure is the social infrastructure created by the people acting collectively and through officials. The social infrastructure includes the legal system, laws, police services, military services, diplomatic services and so on for the structures that compose the governmental aspects of society.

For example, companies in the intellectual property business (which ranges from those dealing in the arts to pharmaceutical companies) require the legal system and law enforcement. For example, if the state did not enforce drug patents, the business model of the major pharmaceutical companies would be destroyed. As another example, if the state did not protect Disney’s intellectual property, their profits would suffer.

As a further illustration, companies that do business internationally require the government’s military and diplomatic services to enable their business activities. In some cases, this involves the use of the military to serve the interest of business. In other cases, it is the less bloody hand of diplomacy that advances American business around the world.

All businesses rely on the currency system made possible by the state and they are all protected by the police. While there are non-state currencies (such as bitcoin) and companies can hire mercenaries, these options are not viable for most businesses.  All of this shows the state plays a critical role in allowing business to even exist. This can, however, be countered.

It could be argued that while the state is necessary for business (after all, there is little business in the state of nature), it does nothing beyond that and should just get out of the way to avoid impeding business. To use an analogy, someone must build the stadium for the football game, but they need to get out of the way when it is time for the players to take the field. The obvious reply is to show how the state has played a very positive role in the development of business.

The United States has made a practice of subsidizing and supporting what the ruling class sees as key businesses. In the 1800s, the railroads were developed with the assistance of the state. The development of the oil industry depended on the state, as did the development of modern agriculture. It could, of course, be objected that this subsidizing and support are bad things. But they are certainly not bad for the businesses that benefit. Elon Musk, for example, profits greatly from taxpayer money. Presumably he was so focused on cutting support for others so even more of this public money could end up in his accounts.

Another area where the state has helped advance business is in funding and engaging in research. This is often research that would be too expensive for private industry and research that requires a long time to yield benefits. One example of this is the development of space technology that made satellites possible. Another example is the development of the internet, which is the nervous system of the modern economy. The BBC’s “50 Things that Made the Modern Economy” does an excellent analysis of the role of governments in developing the technology that made the iPhone possible (and all smart phones).  Unfortunately for business, the Trump administration is (from malice or ignorance) cutting support for research.

One reason the United States has been so successful in the modern economy has been the past commitment of public money to basic research. While not all research leads to successful commercial applications (such as computers), the ability of the collective (us acting as the state) to support long term and expensive research has been critical to the advancement of technology and civilization.

This is not to take away from private sector research, but much of it is built upon public sector foundations. As is expected, private sector research now tends to focus on short-term profits rather than long term research. Unfortunately, this view has infected the public sector as well. As public money for research is reduced, public institutions seek private money, and this money often comes with strings and the risk of corruption. For example, “research” might be funded to “prove” that a product is safe or effective. While this does yield short-term gains, it will lead to a long-term disaster.

The state also helps further enterprise through laws regulating business. While this might seem like a paradox, it is easily shown by using an analogy to the role of the state in regulating the behavior of citizens.

Allowing businesses to operate with no regulation is like allowing anyone to operate without regulations. While the idea of an unregulated life might seem appealing, individuals need protection from others who might threaten their life, liberty and property. To this end, laws are created and enforced to protect people. The same applies to protecting businesses from other businesses (and businesses from people and people from businesses). This is, of course, the stock argument for having government rather than the unregulated state of nature. As Hobbes noted, a lack of government can become a war of all against all and this ends badly for everyone. The freer the market gets, the closer it gets to this state of nature  and this is well worth remembering. The ruling class controlling business does want the citizens to be in the state of nature relative to them but they want to be protected from each other and the citizens by the coercive power of the state.

It might be assumed that I foolishly think that all government involvement in business is good and that all regulations are desirable. This is not the case. Governments can wreck their own economies through corruption, bad regulations and other failures. This has happened in the past and is probably happening now.

Regulations are like any law as they can be good or bad, depending on what they achieve. Some regulations, such as those that encourage fair competition in business, are good. Others, such as those that grant certain companies unfair legal and financial advantages (such as Monsanto here), are not.

While rhetorical bumper stickers about government, business and regulation are appealing in a simplistic way, the reality of the situation requires more thought and due consideration of the positive role the state can play, with due vigilance against the harms that it can do.

 

The venerable Wells Fargo bank made the news in 2016 for financial misdeeds on a massive scale. Employees of the company, to meet the quotas set by management, created accounts without the permission of the clients. In response over 5,300 lower level employees were fired. Initially, CEO John Stumpf and former head of retail banking Carrie Tolstedt were to keep their rather sizable compensation for leading the company to a great financial “success” based on this fraud. However, the backlash from the public and the shareholders resulted in Stumpf and Carrie losing some of their financial compensation.

As would be expected, there were no plans for criminal charges of the sort that could result in jail time. This is consistent with how most financial misdeeds by the ruling elites are handled: some fines and, at worst, some forfeiture of ill-gotten gains. While I do not generally agree with Trump, he was not wrong when he pointed out that the system is rigged in favor of the elites and against the common people. The fact that Trump is one of the elites and has used the system does not prove him wrong (that would be fallacious reasoning); rather he also serves as more evidence for the rigging. Those who loath wealthy Democrats can also include them.

It is instructive to compare the punishment for other misdeeds to those imposed on Wells Fargo. Shoplifting is usually seen as a minor crime,  but a person who shoplifts property with a combined value of less than $300 can pay a fine up to $1000 or be sentenced to up to a year in jail. Shoplifting property with a combined value over $300 is a felony and can result in a sentence between one and ten years in jail. Wells Fargo robbed people through the use of fees and other charges that arose from the creation of unauthorized accounts.

While there are differences between the direct theft of shoplifting and the indirect robbery of imposing charges on unauthorized accounts, there is little moral distinction: after all, both are means of robbing someone of their rightful property.  Because of this, there would appear to be a need to revise the penalties so that they are properly proportional.

One option is to bring the punishment for major financial misdeeds in line with the punishment for shoplifting. This would involve changing the fine for financial misdeeds from being a fraction of the profits (or damages) of the misdeeds to a multiple of the profits (perhaps three or more times greater). It could be argued that such a harsh penalty could financially ruin an elite who lacked adequate assets to pay for their misdeed; however, the exact same argument can be advanced for poor shoplifters.

Another option is to bring the punishments for shoplifting in line with those for the financial elites. This would change the fine for shoplifting from likely being more than the value of what was stolen to a fraction of what was stolen (if that). For example, if someone stole a $1,000 video card, then their punishment might be paying a $100 fine. The obvious objection to this proposal is that if shoplifters knew that their punishment would be a fraction of the value they had stolen, then this punishment would have no deterrent value. Shoplifting would be, in effect, shopping at a discount. It is thus hardly shocking that the financial elite are not deterred by the present system of punishment since they profit greatly if they do not get caught and do very well even if they are caught and “punished.”

It could be objected that the financial elite would be deterred on the grounds that they would still be better off using legal means to profit. That way they would keep 100% of their gain rather than a fraction. The easy and obvious reply is that this deterrent value is contingent on the elite believing that the legal approach would be more profitable than the illegal approach (with due consideration to the chance of getting caught and fined). Since punishment is often a fraction of the gain and the potential gain from misdeeds can be huge, this approach to punishment has far less deterrent value than a punishment in which the punished comes out at a loss rather than a gain. If a corporation could, for example, make 200% more by doing illegal things and they risk only losing a fraction of that gain, then doing illegal things is a smart move.

It is also interesting to compare the punishment for identity theft and fraud with the punishment of Wells Fargo. Conviction of identity theft can result in a sentence of one to seven years. Fraud charges also have sentences that range from one to ten years and beyond. While some do emphasize that Wells Fargo was not engaged in traditional identity theft, what they did was morally similar. As an example of traditional identity theft, a thief steals a person’s identity and gets a credit card under that name to use for their own gain. What Wells Fargo did was open accounts in people’s names without their permission so that the company could profit from this misuse of their identity. As such, the company was stealing from these people and doing the same sorts of harm inflicted by identity theft.

From a moral standpoint, those involved in these actions should face the same criminal charges and potential punishments that individuals acting on their own would face. This is morally required for consistency. Obviously enough, the laws are not consistent. We all know that the misdeeds of the elite and corporations are usually punished lightly or not at all. Nothing new, as the history of law is also the history of its unfair application. The injustice of justice, one might say.  However, this approach is problematic.

Seem from a certain moral perspective, the degree to which I am obligated to accept punishment for my misdeeds is proportional to the consistency and fairness of the system of justice. If others can walk away from the consequences of their misdeeds or enjoy light punishments for misdeeds that would result in harsh penalties for me, then I have little moral reason to willingly accept any punishments that might be inflicted on me. Naturally, the state has the power to inflict its punishments whether I accept them or not, but it seems important to a system of justice that the citizens accept the moral legitimacy of the punishment.

To use an analogy, imagine a professor who ran their class like the justice system is running. If an elite student cheated and got an initial grade of 100, they might be punished by having the grade docked to an 80 if caught. In contrast, the commoner students would fail and be sent before the academic misconduct board for such a misdeed. The commoner students who cheated would be right to rebel against this system and refuse to accept such punishments, though they did wrong, justice without consistency is but a mockery of real justice.

In light of this discussion, Wells Fargo was yet another example of the inherent injustice and inequality in the legal system. If we wish to have a just system of justice, these disparities must be addressed. These disparities also warrant moral disobedience in the face of punishment. Why should a shoplifter accept a fine that vastly exceeds what they steal when a financial elite can pay but a fraction of their theft and profit well from their misdeeds? They should not.

The student loan crisis occasionally gets attention in the media, but the coverage is often quick and shallow. Back in 2016 James B. Steele and Lance Williams of Reveal from the The Center for Investigative Reporting presented a more in-depth examination of the student loan industry. As a former student and current professor, I am concerned about student loans.

The original intention of student loans, broadly construed, was to provide lower income students with an affordable means of paying for college. Like most students, I had to take out loans to pay for school. This was back in the 1980s, when college costs were more reasonable and just as student loans were being transformed into a massive for-profit industry. As such, my loans were modest (about $8,000) and I was able to pay them off even on the pitiful salary I was earning as an adjunct professor. Times have, however, changed for the worse. And it just keeps getting worse under Republican rule for the rich, by the rich and against the poor.

Making a long story short, the federal government enabled banks and private equity companies to monetize the federal student loan program, allowing them to profit from the loans and fees. Because many state governments embraced an ideology of selfishness and opposition to the public good, they significantly cut their support for state colleges and universities, thus increasing the cost of tuition. At the same time, university administrations were growing both in terms of number of administrators and the size of salaries, thus increasing costs as well. There was also an increase in infrastructure costs due to new technology as well as a desire to market campuses as having amenities such as rock-climbing gyms. The result was $1.3 trillion in debt for 42 million Americans and this just keeps increasing. On the “positive” side, the government makes about 20% on its 2013 loans and the industry was humming along at $140 billion a year.

While the government held about 93% of the total debt, the debt collection was contracted to private companies and these were scooped up by the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. As expected, these contractors make large profits (about $2 billion per year back in 2016). The collection process is often very aggressive, and the industry has used its control over congress to ensure favorable laws. For example, student loan debt is one of the very few debts that are not discharged by bankruptcy.

While student loans were originally intended to benefit students, they now benefit the government and the private contractors to the detriment of students. As such, there is a moral concern here in addition to the practical concerns about loans.

If the primary purpose of student loans is to address economic inequality by assisting lower income students attend college, then its current state goes against this purpose. This is because the system is creates massive debt for students while creating massive profits for the state and private contractors. That is, students are being exploited by both the state and the private sector. The collusion of the state makes seeking redress rather difficult. After all, the people need to turn to the state for redress, yet the state is an interested party and under the influence of industry. This problem is, of course, not unique to student loans and it is one more example of how privatization is great for the private sector rich but often awful for citizens.

It could be argued that the proper function of the state is to serve the interest of the financial elites at the expense of the citizens. If so, then the student loan program should continue as it is; it is great for the state and the financial class while crushing citizens under mountains of debt. If, however, the state should serve the good of the citizens in general, then the status quo is a disaster. My view is, not surprisingly, that of John Locke: the state is to serve the good of the people. As such,  the student loan industry needs to be changed.

One change that would help is for states to return to supporting public higher education. While there are legitimate concerns about budgets, education is a great investment in both the private good of the students and the public good. After all, civilization needs educated people to function and people with college degrees end up with higher incomes and thus pay more taxes (paying back the investment many times over). While there are professed ideological reasons for opposing this, there are also financial motivations: dismantling public education would push more students into the awful for-profit schools that devour money and excrete un(der)employed people burdened by massive debt. While this is great for the owners of these schools, it is awful for the students and society.

Another change, which has been proposed by others, is to change or end the privatized aspects of the system. While there is the myth that the private sector is vastly superior to the inefficient and incompetent state, the fact is that the efficiency of the private sector seems to mostly lie in making a profit for itself rather than running the student loan system in accord with its intended purpose. This is not to say that the state must be great in what it does, just that cutting out the large profits of the collection agencies would reduce the burden on students. This is, of course, a moral question about whether it is right or not to profit on the backs of students.

There has also been talk about reducing the interest rates of student loans and even proposals for free college. I do favor lower interest rates; if the purpose of the loans is to assist students rather than make money, then lower interest rates would be the right thing to do. As far as free college goes, there is the obvious problem that “free” college must be paid for by someone and it is a matter of shifting the burden from students to someone else. The ethics of such a shift depends on who is picking up the tab.

As a closing point, there is also the matter of student responsibility. My loans went entirely to paying education expenses, which is one reason my debt was low even for the time. While many students do use loans wisely, my experiences as a student and a professor have shown that some students use loan money unwisely and put themselves into debt for things that have no connection to education. For example, faculty sometimes joke that while administrators drive the most expensive cars, students drive the second most expensive and most faculty drive the worst. Students that overburden themselves with loans they use irresponsibly have only themselves to blame. However, the fact that a few students do this does not invalidate the claim that much of the debt burden inflicted on students is unjust.  We should, as always, be wary of attempts to demonize people based on anecdotal evidence and straw person attacks.

 

One way to justify income inequality is the incentive argument. The gist is that income inequality is necessary as a motivating factor: if people could not get rich, then they would not have the incentive to work hard, innovate, invent and so on. The argument requires the assumption that hard work, innovation, inventing and so on are good; an assumption that has some plausibility.

This argument does have considerable appeal. In terms of psychology, it is reasonable to make the descriptive claim that people are motivated by the possibility of gain. This view was held by Thomas Hobbes and others on the grounds that it matches the observed behavior of many (but not all) people. If this view is correct, then achieving the goods of hard work, innovation, invention and so on would require income inequality.

There is the counter that some are motivated by factors other than achieving inequality in financial gain. Some are motivated by altruism, by a desire to improve, by curiosity, by the love of invention, by the desire to create things of beauty, to solve problems and other motives that do not depend on income. These sorts of motivations do suggest that income inequality is not necessary as a motivating factor, at least for some people.

Since this is a matter of fact, it can (in theory) be settled by empirical research. It worth noting that even if income inequality is necessary as a motivating factor, there remain other concerns, such as the question of how much income inequality is necessary and how much is morally acceptable.

Interestingly, the incentive argument is a two-edged sword: while it can be used to justify income inequality, it can also be used to argue against the sort of economic inequality that exists in the United States many other countries. The argument is as follows.

While worker productivity has increased significantly in the United States income for workers has not matched this productivity. This is a change from the past, the income of workers generally went up more proportionally to the increase in productivity. This explains, in part, why CEO (and upper management in general) salaries have seen a significant increase relative to worker income: the increased productivity of the workers generates more income for the upper management than it does for the workers.

If it is assumed that gain is necessary for motivation and that inequality is justified by the results (working harder, innovating, producing and so on), then the workers should receive a greater proportion of the returns on their productivity. After all, if high executive compensation is justified on the grounds of its motivational power, then the same principle would apply to workers. They, too, should receive compensation proportional to their productivity, innovation and so on. If they do not, then the incentive argument would entail that they would have no incentive to be as productive, etc.

It could be argued that top management earns its higher income by being responsible for the increase in worker productivity, that the increase in worker productivity is not because of the workers but because of leadership being motivated by the possibility of gain. If this is the case, then the disparity would be  justified by the incentive argument: the workers are more productive because the CEO is motivated to make them more productive so she can have an even greater income.

 However, if the increased productivity is due mainly to the workers, then this counters the incentive argument: if workers are more productive than before with less relative compensation, then there does not seem to be the alleged connection between incentive and productivity required by the incentive argument. If workers will increase productivity while receiving less compensation relative to their productivity, then the same should hold for the top executives. While there are other ways to warrant extreme income inequality, the incentive argument has a problem.

One possible response is to argue there are relevant differences between the executives and workers such that executives need the incentive provided by extreme inequality and workers are motivated sufficiently by other factors (like being able to buy food). It could also be contended that the workers are motivated by the extreme inequality as well, perhaps they would not be as productive if they did not have the (almost certainly false) belief that they will become rich.

 

As a young man, I was not a car person. I was not interested in getting my license and not interested in owning a car. I relied on walking, running, and biking to get around. When I started work at Florida A&M University in 1993, I tried biking to work. My bike was destroyed by an SUV running a red light, and I barely escaped serious injury. I decided that I needed more speed, so I got a small Yamaha. After several near-death experiences, I decided I needed steel all around me and got a Toyota Tacoma in 2001. I was still not interested in vehicles and just took it in for service as needed. It had a few problems over the years, but the shop I went to generally did a good job and the prices were not too excessive. A couple years ago, it developed a mysterious hum that proved expensive and this got me interested in cars. Or rather, my truck. Being a philosopher, I naturally think of my experiences with the repairs in the context of a theory, in this case capitalism.

Practical folks are usually not interested in economic theories. They mostly operate within systems that theorists mirror in theories to criticize or justify the behavior of these practical folk. Consider, for example, capitalism. The theoretical ideal is that equals meet within the free market to engage in a fair struggle for success. In the case of businesses (broadly construed) the ideal is that they engage in battle until the businesses with the best products and best prices stand atop the corpses of their competition (with the invisible hand making this all happen as it should). In the case of the consumer, the ideal is that they engage as equals in the free market with these businesses, thus ensuring that they will get the best products at the best prices for themselves. The workers, within the magical world of the theory, also engage as equals with the businesses and work out a fair wage, fair working conditions and fair benefits. Outside of the theory, none of this holds true. So, let us look at cars and capitalism.

As I mentioned, my truck developed a mysterious hum. At the time, I knew very little about fixing vehicles, but I did know how to google the symptoms. Based on the sound and apparent location, it seemed most likely to be a bad fuel pump. While my truck does not have many miles, at the time it was 20 years old so I figured the pump could be dying of old age. The shop initially said it was my transmission, then went to the fuel pump. It was replaced and the hum went away briefly only to return. It went back to the shop and now they were sure it was the transmission. That was replaced with a remanufactured transmission. The hum remained, though they insisted that it passed all the tests. This inspired me to finally learn about cars.

I bought several books and read them, watched numerous credible YouTube videos on repairs and maintenance and learned all the parts of my truck. During this, I found that two hoses in the truck were damaged one had a visible hole, while the other was obviously cracked. Mind you, my truck had gone through three “multipoint” inspections and the paperwork claimed that the hoses and all been properly inspected and were in good shape. So, I replaced those hoses and did more checking, finding various other issues. For example, the battery had not been properly secured and had been sliding around. Fortunately, no damage was done, and I secured it properly. This nicely illustrates how idealized theoretical capitalism does not match the reality.

In the theory of capitalism, the goal is to maximize profits. This just mirrors the “desire for undue gain” that Plato talks about in his Republic and Hobbes’ reflection on gain in his Leviathan. Capitalism, in essence, enshrines greed as good. Practical folks do not care about this theory, but they do want to maximize their profit and hence repair shops have a clear and well-known incentive to do the least work for the most money. They are also incentivized to convince customers that expensive repairs are needed even when they are not. For example, carefully checking the hoses in my truck would take time and not yield much profit. And failed hoses could mean lucrative repair jobs later. As another example, the shop went right to claiming that the fuel pump and then the transmission were the issue, rather than considering less lucrative explanations. To be fair, issues can be hard to diagnose, but the profit motive pushes businesses to go with the expensive diagnosis rather than testing fixes that would be much cheaper.

It can be argued that this was all on me; the shop and I met as equal individuals in a free market, and they got the better of me. However, most of us do not meet repair shops as equals for two obvious reasons. First, most of us lack adequate knowledge to properly diagnose our vehicles and determine the necessity of repairs. As I mentioned, I had never had any interest in cars and only owned one to decrease my chances of being killed on the road. But this ignorance cost me. Ignorance would obviously not be a systematic problem if businesses were honest; while they might make honest errors, you would never need to worry about being deceived. That said, ignorance could still be a problem if you pick an incompetent business out of ignorance. As such, if you want to enter the free market and be able to compete, you will need to learn many things. While you cannot become an expert at everything, you can develop enough knowledge to make a better assessment of when you are being misled.

It could be objected that it is just obvious that people generally do not meet as equals in such situations; you go to a repair shop because you lack the knowledge (or equipment) to do the work yourself. In reply, I agree that this is why people go to shops; but it simply confirms that people generally not meet as equals in a free market: one person or group will usually be at a significant disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

It could also be objected that shops which exploit customers will end up harming themselves. As Benjamin Frankin was reportedly fond of saying, honesty is the best policy. As one of my professors pointed out long ago, this is a utilitarian approach to honesty: it is not that honesty is right, it is that it is the best policy from a practical standpoint. While shops do sometimes suffer from being exposed, dishonest behavior persists. This is because if a shop comes out ahead, then being dishonest is the best policy when one assumes that the goal is maximizing profit. As such, it is wise to be on guard—everyone has a clear incentive to maximize their profit at your expense. While some people think that this is just another bad apple problem in capitalism, this is capitalism: the goal is maximizing profits and there is more profit in exploiting ignorance than in scrupulous honesty. If you think otherwise, you presumably just agree immediately with whatever the folks at the shop tell you and pay up with a smile, believing they gave you God’s truth. But I assume you are sensible enough to be a cautious consumer, you know that their goal is to take as much of your money as they can and your goal is to get as much as you can for as little as possible.

Second, when you need a repair you most likely need them far more than they need you. As such, you are operating at a disadvantage. Often you need your vehicle to get to work, to make the money you will need to pay for the vehicle. While you can leave to find another shop, they most likely have a waiting list of customers. You probably need the repair done ASAP, while you are just another job in the queue for them. If your car is having serious issues, then taking it elsewhere might require a tow or put you at risk. As such, you will usually be operating at a disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

This could be defended by pointing out that capitalism excels at creating and meeting needs (and wants). It is working as intended that there is a shop available to repair your vehicle that you probably need to get to work. What more could you want? Reliable and convenient public transportation? An economic system in which you are not dependent on a for-profit repair system?

If you are a good capitalist, you will be aware of this disadvantage and try to mitigate it. Conveniently, solving your ignorance problem can also help with solving your need problem: the more capable you are at diagnosing your vehicle and repairing it yourself, the less you will need to enter the marketplace to compete as an “equal.”

When the left proposes to provide new and expanded benefits to non-rich Americans, the right replies with two stock arguments. The first is the deficit argument, which I addressed in my previous essay. The second is the Dependency argument.

The gist of the Dependency argument is that if people get assistance or benefits of a certain sort from the state, such as unemployment benefits or childcare, then they risk becoming dependent upon the state. Since this dependence is claimed to have negative consequences, such assistance and benefits should be limited or not provided. This can be seen as a utilitarian argument.

There are numerous variations of this argument which tend to focus on specific alleged harm. For example, it might be contended that if unemployment benefits are too generous then people will not want to work. As a specific illustration, in  April, 2020 Senator Lindsey Graham argued that public financial relief for the coronavirus would incentivize workers to leave their jobs. Other alleged harms include damage to the moral character of the recipients of such benefits and, on a larger scale, the creation of  a culture of dependency and a culture of entitlement. While this argument is passionately advanced by many on the right, there are two main issues that need to be addressed. The first is whether the argument is being made in good faith. The second is whether the argument is a good one from a logical standpoint.

Bad faith argumentation can occur in a variety of ways. One way is for a person to knowingly use fallacies or rhetoric as substitutes for good reasoning. Interestingly, a person can use fallacies and rhetoric in good faith when they do so unintentionally. In such cases, they are using bad logic in good faith. Another way is for a person to use premises they believe are untrue. Naturally, a person can make untrue claims in good faith; they do not realize their claims are untrue. Another way a person can argue in bad faith is to advance arguments that they do not believe in. This usually involves making arguments based on principles or reasons that they do not actually accept, while they pretend that they do.

Because of the problem of other minds, sorting out when people are engaged in bad faith argumentation can be challenging. After all, even if you can show that a person has used a fallacy or made a false claim, this does not itself prove they were arguing in bad faith: bad faith involves intent. Fortunately, there are ways to make a decent case that someone is engaged in bad faith and one of these is to provide evidence of inconsistency. This is, unfortunately, not always decisive: people can be sincerely inconsistent because they do not understand the implications of their claims and for other reasons that do not involve an intent at deceit. But in the case of the right, their dependency argument seems to generally be a bad faith argument.

If we take the Dependency arguments seriously, then they would also tell against inheritance, something beloved by the right since it helps entrench wealth and enhance inequality. In fact, philosophers have long made this argument.

Mary Wollstonecraft contends that hereditary wealth is morally wrong because it produces idleness and impedes people from developing their virtues. Inheritance is unearned. So, if receiving unearned resources creates dependency, then inheritance would create dependency. It could be countered that people can earn an inheritance, that it might be granted because of their hard work or some other relevant factor. While such cases would be worth considering, earning it hard work is not the usual way one qualifies for an inheritance. However, an earned inheritance would certainly not be subject to this argument. This exactly mirrors the conservative Dependency arguments, and they should, if they are consistent, agree with Wollstonecraft. But they clearly do not.

As one would expect, conservatives on the right generally favor protecting inheritance and oppose estate taxes. During the first Trump administration, the exemption to the estate tax increased to $5.49 million and in 2017 it increased again to $11.18 million. The Big Beautiful Bill also aimed at reducing taxes on the estates of the extremely wealthy.  This is inconsistent with their Dependency argument. If they truly fear that people getting small benefits from the state will create dependency and destroy incentives, then they should be terrified by such massive inheritances: these would, as Wollstonecraft argued, seem to be vastly more harmful. If one does not like the inheritance argument, then there is also the welfare for the wealthy argument.

While there are some exceptions, the right typically favors subsidies and benefits for corporations, businesses, and the wealthy. As such, it is hardly surprising that the bulk of social welfare spending benefits them rather than the poor. With almost no exceptions, one does not hear the people railing about the alleged dependency of the poor argue against these benefits and assistance. They are only concerned when the beneficiaries are the poor rather than the rich.

One can, of course, argue that there are relevant differences between benefits and assistance for the rich and those for those who are not rich. Often, these arguments also tend to be made in bad faith. A common tactic is to use the Perfect Analogy fallacy. This fallacy occurs when one takes the standards for assessing an argument by analogy to the extreme and imposes unreasonable requirements for similarity. This is the opposite of the Poor or False Analogy fallacy; this occurs when the standards are applied too laxly by the person making the argument.

 As a tactic, when using the Perfect Analogy Fallacy, one simply refuses to accept that the two things are similar, no matter what evidence or reasons are presented. As always, it can be challenging to prove that someone is doing this in bad faith, but one can sometimes push the person into trying to defend something that they clearly do not believe, and their bad faith becomes evident. That said, one must always be careful not to assume that a person who rejects an analogy must be arguing in bad faith or that they must be wrong—to refuse to consider their arguments would be an act of bad faith.

In closing, those who oppose the state helping the non-rich and use the Dependency argument generally seem to be arguing in bad faith. Naturally, if they have also argued against inheritance and benefits for the wealthy using the Dependency argument, then they can be  arguing in good faith. As far as whether benefits create dependency or destroy incentives to work, that is another matter. But the answer seems to be “no”, as long as one looks at the statistical data rather than simply speaking from ideology or “common sense.”

, and they have cast the woke elite as the generals of this opposing force. “Wokeness”, like “cancel culture” and “critical race theory”, is ill-defined and used as a vague catch-all for things the right does not like. In large part, the war on wokeness has been manufactured by the right’s elite. In part, the war arises from grievances of the base. There are even some non-imaginary conflicts in this war —at least on the part of the Americans that can be seen as blue-collar workers. I will be focusing on this and will try to define the groups and harms as clearly and honestly as possible.

Put roughly, the United States has two broad categories of blue-collar workers. There are the traditional blue-collar workers, such as those in manufacturing, employees of plumbing businesses, truck drivers and so on. There are also the blue-collar elites; they own small businesses, are successful self-employed electricians, work as middle managers at blue-collar industries and so on. As with any class, there are degrees of each. For example, a successful self-employed plumber could be considered a blue-collar elite, but would be lower on the economic class structure than someone who owns and operates a profitable plumbing company they built up from their original one-person business. Someone who simply bought a plumbing company with their inheritance would most likely be a white-collar elite.

The woke, broadly speaking, could be seen as folks on the left who embrace liberal values. While this aspect of the definition is contentious, the woke can be seen as focusing mostly on social issues relating to such factors as race and sexuality and being less (or not at all) concerned about general economic issues.

The woke can be seen as breaking away from concerns about the lower economic classes in general and focusing on specific oppressed groups. The woke elite are what David Brooks calls the Bobos; this is the ruling class of the left that has largely abandoned the working class left of the past. There are, of course, degrees in these classes. A poor college student working at McDonalds for tuition money who blogs and tweets in support of transgender rights could be seen as woke, but not elite. Stephen Colbert can be seen as an example of a top tier woke elite. As noted above, there is the problem of what counts as being in the woke class and the right’s “definition” is so vague it is useless in a rigorous discussion. To be fair, they do not intend this usage: “woke” is a political term and is kept intentionally vague. The right calls those concerned with broad economic issues “socialists”, “communists” and “Marxists.” But they also apply these labels to mainstream corporate Democrats, such as former VP Harris.

As would be expected, these terms are usually not used rigorously, correctly, or consistently. A person could be condemned as being “woke” for allegedly ignoring the plight of workers while simultaneously being blasted for being a “socialist” who supports unions, better benefits, and higher wages. But back to the woke elite and blue-collar folks.

As noted above, the elite of the right blast the woke elite for abandoning the blue collars in favor of a woke ideology. The blue-collar workers believe, correctly, that their situation has gotten worse, especially relative to their parents and grandparents. The blue-collar elites, though well off economically, see themselves as victims: they are excluded, mocked, or simply ignored by the woke elite. They are not wrong about this. I will begin with the workers.

Trump and his fellows have appealed to the perception of white, blue-collar workers that the woke elites have abandoned them in favor of woke ideology. There are also those who accept racist explanations for their woes. For example, there is the idea that minorities are stealing jobs from white workers (with the aid of the woke elites). These workers are not wrong that they are being hurt, but their explanations tend to be mistaken. So, let us look at the woke elite and race.

The woke elite and right elite are both fighting to stay at the top of the hierarchy, but they do differ in some of their methods.  But there are similarities. The woke elite, by definition, profess to be anti-racist (or at least not racist). But they generally benefit from racism in two ways. First, the white woke elite benefited from past racism and benefit from current racism in the usual ways, though they profess to condemn these things. Second, racism gives them a battleground with their opposing elite on the right. The elite of the right have, for the most part, use racism as a tool to maintain the social hierarchy that benefits them. For example, they use racism to divide the working class against each other. The woke left elite can be sincere in this fight, but they also benefit from keeping the fight focused on such matters as race to distract from concerns about class, since they are part of the upper classes.

Both the work elite and right elite are careful to avoid engaging each other issues of economic class; this is because they largely agree on the economic class structure (them on the top, everyone else beneath them) and do not want to disrupt that. A key difference, as noted above, is race. For the right, race is both a tool to maintain the existing hierarchy and a key part of the hierarchy. While the woke elite benefit from racism, they are like elites prior to the construction of race: their hierarchy is not built on race, and racism is not one of their tools. While professing a kinder, gentler view of economics, they do all they can to lock themselves in their position and thus lock out others. One example is education: the woke elites jealously protect their control over who has access to elite universities. The infamous college admission scandal laid bare how the elites attempt to control this access.

A second example is the concentration of the woke elite in a few cities. This has hyper concentrated wealth with a range of negative effects. This includes harm to the cities that would seem to benefit from this, such as a skyrocketing cost of living. A third example, which is what the right (ironically) focuses on is that the woke elite have transformed the Democrats from a party with some meaningful commitment to workers into a party that has abandoned them in many ways. It has also had a similar impact on the American left in general. There are, of course, some who have remained strongly committed to workers, such as Bernie Sanders. But the blue-collar workers are right to recognize the woke elite as their enemies, but not for the reasons the right gives. It is not the anti-racism of the woke that hurts workers, but their commitment to maintaining the economic social order. The woke elite are committed to maintaining the existing social order, they just do not use racism as a tool in doing so because they have other tools that work very well. And, if they embraced racism, they would just be elites of the right.

The right is correct to call out the woke elites for abandoning the workers, but they only offer lies, racism, sexism, and no real help. They have no desire to meaningfully improve conditions for the workers, the “woke” Bezos and anti-woke Ted Cruz are both vehemently anti-worker. The difference is that Cruz sees racism as a critical tool and Bezos (probably) does not since he has other tools that keep him on top. As such, blue collar workers need a third party, one that will fight for them and not for the woke elite or the right elite.

While the rich have long enjoyed luxury cars, mansions and yachts, their newest luxury vehicle is the spaceship. Musk has the most useful rockets as his SpaceX vessels can put satellites into orbit and reach the International Space Station. While they do make some innovations, they are more of an evolution of existing rockets rather than a revolution in space travel.

Virgin Galactic has a spaceplane, which can be likened to a passenger version of the old X-15. While spaceplanes have potential, Virgin Galactic seems mostly focused on space tourism. Bezos has a conventional rocket that shot him and later, Katy Perry, into space. Because of its limited reach, it seems suitable mostly for space tourism.  As would be expected, critics see these billionaire space vessels as wasteful excesses: resources are being expended for ego trips to space that would be better used to address serious problems here on earth.

Bezos has acknowledged the validity of this criticism, saying “Well, I say they’re largely right. We have to do both. You know, we have lots of problems here and now on Earth and we need to work on those, and we always need to look to the future. We’ve always done that as a species, as a civilization. We have to do both.” He claimed that his mission is aimed at “building a road to space for the next generations to do amazing things there, and those amazing things will solve problems here on Earth.” Is Bezos right?

He is right that the critics are largely right: while Musk can claim his SpaceX ships put cargo into space, Branson and Bezos have been joyriding (just barely) into space. Vast resources were expended to for these joyrides, and, in the case of Bezos, it can be argued that his flight was enabled by his brutal exploitation of his workforce. As is well known, Amazon workers have been pushed so hard that they need to pee in bottles to meet the requirements of their job. Amazon’s leadership has also been busy crushing unions, thus enabling Bezos to expand his wealth to the point that he has his own rocket ship. This creates a powerful symbol for use in arguing about taxing the rich and increasing the minimum wage. In the glare of rocket engines, it seems absurd to argue the rich would be hurt by having to pay more taxes or that business like Amazon would be meaningfully harmed if they had to provide workers with better pay and benefits. After all, if a company is so well off that its owner has his own rocket ship, it is absurd to argue against treating employees better on the grounds that the company cannot afford to do so. Bezos could have forgone some of that rocket ship money and eased up on his employees so that they would not have needed to pee in bottles. Given his bountiful wealth, he could easily have done both. But he decided not to. He also could have used all those resources to address problems here on earth while still maintaining a lavish lifestyle including multiple yachts.  His counter is, as mentioned above, that he is building a road to space.

For sci-fi fans, it is obvious that Bezos is probably thinking of Heinlein’s novella The Man Who Sold the Moon. This novella recounts the machinations of Harriman, “the last of the robber barons”, to get to the moon. In the story, Harriman manipulates and schemes to get backing for his plan and uses the money to acquire talented people to solve the technical problems. The story includes a successful flight the moon and ends with the plans to establish a colony on the moon. But Harriman is never allowed to go to the moon: he is seen as too important to risk. Heinlein does present a plausible tale, and it is still well worth reading today. But, of course, the actual world turned out differently.

Like most other huge endeavors, the moon was reached as part of a collective effort by a state when the United States put the first person on the moon. This public development of technology laid the foundation of billionaire space flight, just as their businesses were built on public foundations.  For a while, it seemed like a version of Heinlein’s vision might come to pass. But a moon colony was never established and humanity’s expansion into space has been slow and limited for many reasons.

We do have the technology to create a moon base and plans have long existed to do just that. As such, Bezos and his fellows are not really in the business of overcoming technological hurdles for a moon base or space expansion. As noted above, Musk and Bezos have rockets and Branson has a spaceplane. They have offered some evolution of technology that, in Musk’s case, has been heavily subsidized by the taxpayers.

Also, while they are extremely wealthy, they do not have the resources to establish a significant moon base, let alone a Mars colony. But one could argue that they can shape public policy towards space. To use an obvious analogy, the United States government has heavily subsidized railroads, fossil fuels and interstate highways. This has usually been done at the behest of the wealthy. This public investment has provided infrastructure and, of course, vast fortunes for some. As such, the space billionaires might be planning something similar with space: a vast public investment gets them into a position where they can make private profit. Musk is already doing the best here; he has been getting contracts from the state to provide space vessels and services.  Bezos and Branson are behind here, but they seem to be aiming at space tourism. They, it seems, are adopting the model of selling their services to the wealthy.

In terms of billionaires building the road to space, the highway system and railroads provide good analogies: they were built by public funds and now the billionaires are cashing in. It is debatable whether paying billions to billionaires for space is superior to using those billions to fund public space operations. While there is the myth that the private sector is magically better than the public sector, there is the obvious question of how billionaires will make a profit while somehow also being cheaper and better than what could be done by NASA. The answer, as is usually the case, will probably be to simply lie.  

In terms of the road to space leading to amazing things that will solve problems here on earth, a case can be made for this. One example is asteroid mining. Asteroids contain resources and space mining would seem to avoid the usual environmental harms of mining on earth. However, there is the obvious concern about how those resources will be used and who they will benefit. If this just leads to space trillionaires while most people remain poor, then this will only solve the problem of not being a space trillionaire. One would need to go through and assess all the plausible benefits to make (or break) this claim, which is beyond the scope of this short essay.

In closing, an obvious critical consideration is what would be the best investment for problem solving. Sci-fi fans find the idea of space as the solution appealing. But we need to be realistic about this. For example, while a Mars colony sounds cool, those resources could be used to address problems on earth. For example, the failing infrastructure of the United States could be repaired and upgraded, and this would solve many problems. It would not be as cool as a Mars colony but would certainly solve more problems.

Because of my love of sci-fi, I want humanity to go into space. But moral considerations point to focusing more on solving problems here on earth. As Bezos said, we can do both. But this would require the billionaires to decide to use some of their billions to solve these problems. Many of which they themselves have created and thus could often easily fix by simply ceasing to cause harm.