Title: The Pursuit of Happiness in a More Perfect Union
Author: Robert G. Bill
Publisher: Xlibris
ISBN: 978-1-5245-5045-5
Pages: 294
Genre: Political Economy
Interviewed by: Barbara Bamberger Scott
Author Interview with Robert Bill
The Pursuit of Happiness in a More Perfect Union
Today we are talking with Mr. Robert G. Bill , author of “The Pursuit of Happiness in a More Perfect Union.”
PBR: What was the most important factor that impelled you to write this book?
As noted in the Preface, I was led to write this book during the 2016 presidential campaign as a result of the complete disagreement between liberal and conservative politicians, not only on domestic economic policies, but on the economic and historical facts which formed the basis of the proposed policies. Furthermore, even economists did not seem to agree on the fundamentals that drive the economy. In these circumstances, concerned citizens are necessarily left to their own devices. Not wanting to merely assume that my own preconceived notions were correct, I thought it would be of interest to form my own opinions through a gathering of economic data that in the age of the Internet are readily available from official government sources, while putting the data into context by looking at a number of historical accounts from authoritative historians. Although I am neither a historian or an economist, I believe that my experience in problem solving and evaluating data as one with a PhD in mechanical engineering is relevant and makes my assessment as reasonable as that of any other person, given that politicians and economists from the right and left have come to diametrically opposite conclusions. At any rate, concerned citizens cannot look to the experts to draw conclusions as is the case with science, but must make up their own minds After concluding that I had identified an approach that could be supported by economic facts and history, I thought it would worthwhile to share my work through publication.
PBR: What effect do you hope it will have on the general reading public?
I hope that the general reading public will see that liberal and conservative positions on economic domestic policy may be reconciled by policies seeking to enhance equality of opportunity for all, and that the national wealth and income make it possible to support such a policy while maintaining the historic dominance of the free market.
Much of the discussion by politicians concerning domestic economics is superficial or even factually incorrect. By providing citations for all economic data and historical facts, readers can judge for themselves the veracity of political debate. Data provided on national income and wealth and its distribution as well as on federal taxation, spending, and the national debt are frequently reported by politicians in a misleading fashion. These data are given here from official sources; however if desired, using the sources cited, readers can confirm my presentation or look into further details. Thus, while I hope the general public will agree with my conclusions, an important result of my book is the introduction of factual economic data into the publics’ economic reasoning.
PBR: What effect would you expect the book to have among those experienced in the field of economics? — Among those knowledgeable about the inner workings of the American political system?
I believe that the various economic schools are misleading in that they are missing various factors in the American economic experience depending on the particular economic school of thought. It would surprise me if my analysis would have an impact on economists. Various theories, whether emphasizing for example the classical free market, monetary policy, or neo-Keynesian analyses, are embraced as the only true approach to economics even though they fail to demonstrate significant predictive capability. In fact in contrast to the successes in the physical science, no models from ”economic science” have consistently predicted the economic crises of recent decades. Moreover economists still cannot even agree on the causes of the Great Depression. Perhaps the choice of economic school is simply dictated by the theories that are compatible with personal political dispositions. On the other hand, politicians of the right and left, having as elected officials a greater vested interest in accomplishment, should find my approach to be a politically attractive road to economic progress.
Conservative economists and politicians are certainly right, as documented in my book, in applauding the success of the market in creating wealth throughout American history; while focusing on it as a bulwark of individualism, appropriate to “the pursuit of happiness;” liberty; and decentralization of decision making. Conservatives often describe the benefits of the market and limited government in terms of Adam Smith’s perfectly competitive market although it has never existed. Thus, conservatives frequently ignore the empirically observable results of concentrated corporate power with its implications for misallocation of resources and frequent economic crises in a system motivated and justified by self-interest, but lacking in sufficient competition. Indeed, the current conservative proposals for limited government are consistent with a long history going back to the time before the Great Depression of seeking to reduce the federal budget and regulation. One would think from the rhetoric attached to the current proposals to reduce government spending that the nation was virtually insolvent instead of remaining at historically high levels of national wealth and income.
Liberals justifiably point to the evolution of the federal government’s role in the economy, with regulation and social investment as a reaction to economic crises and to negative social characteristics brought about by an imperfect market. From this point of view, the greater federal role is in keeping with the Constitution’s establishment of government to “promote the general welfare.” Of particular concern is the increasing inequality in wealth and income [Chapters 4 and 6] seen as a cause for the destabilization of the middle class. However, such inequality has been a part of American society since colonial times. Even in the more relevant industrial economy of the twentieth century onward, inequality has been a constant characteristic of the economy. For example, the portion of the nation’s wealth in the top 10% varied from 60% to 80% after 1910, with the current portion being about 70%. Thus, great inequality has accompanied the functioning of a market accepted as one of the important parts of the American “pursuit of happiness” [Chapter 5]. In my book, I argue that a more significant statistic, not central to either conservatives or liberals economic views, is the enormous wealth created in the United States since World War II. Even as recently as since the late 1950s, per capita wealth and income adjusted for inflation have increased about three-fold. Under these circumstances, it seems preposterous to believe equality of opportunity cannot be greatly enhanced through the elimination of poverty and through investments made for families, education, and medical and social security when already the late 1950s were described in Galbraith’s book title as The Affluent Society.
It is my hope, therefore, that economists and politicians would abandon views which focus on just the market or alternatively views focusing on the limitations of the market and income inequality.. Economic data and history show that both the market and government are critical to America’s economic success and that extreme economic views of the left and right are based upon foundations which are factually incorrect. I believe that the best way to reconcile conflicts between individualism and the general welfare is through equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity avoids pitting the market under limited government against an interventionist government with an explicit goal of reducing inequality. In contrast, equality of opportunity can reconcile conservative and liberal approaches by creating greater participation in the market while using government to empower people to make their own choices. Abraham Lincoln saw equality of opportunity as fundamental to the vision of America in his call for “equal privileges in the race of life,” as it brings together the “unalienable rights” of the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution’s call to” promote the general welfare.” The economic data reported in the book show that enhancing equality of opportunity through the elimination of poverty and through investments made for families, education, and medical and social security is feasible now under current economic conditions while maintaining an acceptable level of federal debt and not significantly interfering in the market [Chapters 7 and 8]. As acceptance of such programs depends on acceptance by our government representatives, proposals to enhance government by the consent of the governed are also recommended in the context of the vision of the Founding Fathers and the evolution of American society [Chapter 8].
PBR: Would you expect your economic proposals to meet with greater acceptance among liberals, or conservatives?
I expect that liberals would be more likely to accept my proposals as they are in agreement with many of their commonly held objectives. Indeed, I would hope that focusing on equality of opportunity rather than income equality would be more politically palatable in a nation which has long accepted income inequality and demanded individual responsibility as part of the price of liberty.
Conservatives with their uncritical support of the market and profound suspicion of government intervention are likely to be dismissive of my proposals. However, as the conservative economist Milton Friedman noted such proposals as a minimum income, in essence one of my proposals, empower the individual to act, while at the same time removing the need for government programs. My other proposals are similarly to be seen in this light. By investing in all citizens, conservatives should see that we may return to the economic performance of post-World War II America in which all income groups shared in the nation’s growth as a product of the market. As I have documented, this can be done without sacrificing the dominant position of the market in the American economy.
PBR: What was the hardest part of writing this book?
The hardest part of writing my book preceded my decision to write it. I began the journey that ended with the publication of my book simply with the desire to understand what was factually true about the American economy. The cacophony of incompatible views given by politicians and economists led me to a search for economic data available from the government through the Internet. I was pleasantly surprised that such historical data as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), national income and wealth and its distribution, federal revenue, spending, and tax policy were available from among others: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the IRS, US Census Bureau, and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The data from these organizations are not always presented in a user friendly manner in regard to how the results are defined; however, with some effort, I believe a reasonably accurate picture was obtained, certainly sufficiently accurate to understand the larger trends that I have emphasized.
The second hardest part was the development of an approach to return the nation to the type of economic performance that prevailed from the end of World War II to the late 1970s when all income groups shared in the nation’s growth (as alluded to by the graph on the front of the book). Here my review of the economic history of that period led me to believe that what is currently missing is the kind of investment that is best represented by the GI Bill which so many Americans benefitted from after World War II. My proposals should be considered as a generalization of this approach to investment in the public. I have provided financial figures that are compatible with our current national income and are certainly consistent with tax policy of that extraordinarily successful post-war period. However, the details of my proposals should be looked at as documenting their economic feasibility. I would certainly hope that those elected and specifically tasked to serve the nation could meet my goals with greater financial precision.
PBR: Do you plan on writing another book?
I do not have any current plans to write another book. My book seemed to me to be worthy of seeing the light of day in that it contained important economic facts which were generally unknown by the public. In particular, that wealth and income on a national and per capital level are near historic highs flies in the face of conservative views that government spending must be curtailed or views of many liberals that we must have greater economic growth to help the middle and lower economic classes. Also the general discussion on income inequality suggests that it is a new phenomenon when it is as old as the nation. My researches led me to believe that a focus on equality of opportunity would be more politically and economically effective. I do not have such a vision on another subject at present that compels me to write.
I must say, however, that after writing my book, I have begun to be interested in the paradox of an American free market system motivated by Adam Smith’s self-interest although found within a society where many, if not probably most Americans still hear the command to “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Perhaps someday, I may understand something worth saying about the implications of this undoubtedly important American social phenomenon.
PBR: What inspires you to write?
This is my second book. My first, Images of Mathematics Viewed Through Number, Algebra, and Geometry, obviously is completely different from my current effort. It was written for inquisitive high school students and those who have moved on who wish a broader understanding of the math they have been taught but which is hidden within standard teaching methods. .For example I believe it is generally unknown that the number line is overwhelming composed of irrational numbers, that the geometry of the familiar Pythagorean Theorem may be wildly changed by simply changing one of Euclid’s postulates, or that systems of mathematics as simple as that of the arithmetic of the natural numbers cannot be proved to be consistent within the rules of that system. Thus, my inspiration to write apparently has come from my desire to express ideas that I believe are important (and fascinating to me), but generally unknown. I have found that writing is also a great way to obtain a deeper understanding of a subject of interest in that the process reveals ideas that are inherent in your general thoughts, but not explicitly understood until you put words on a page.
To learn more about “The Pursuit of Happiness in a More Perfect Union” please visit: Pacific Book Review
