There is a Big Lie pushed by centrist types that is almost as pernicious as the Big Lie that Donald Trump won the 2020 election. It is that inequality was driven by technology, an autonomous force in the world, not policy choices made by politicians.
This lie permeates just about all political discussions in major news outlets, not only in the New York Times, but also the Washington Post, the Atlantic, the New Yorker, and just about every other elite media outlet. It matters because this Big Lie means that we shouldn’t point fingers at the people in power who made policy decisions in the last four decades, the rise in inequality was due to forces of nature, like floods and hurricanes.
The latest rendition of the Big Lie comes in a big think news analysis about the 2024 election from longtime NYT reporter Roger Cohen. The piece explains the anger motivating Trump voters, as well as supporters of right-wing populists in other countries, as stemming in part from:
“when hope collapsed in the communities technology left behind.”
This sort of line is absolute accepted wisdom in elite policy debates. It is also absurd on its face.
Governments set the rules that determine who wins and who gets “left behind.” Technology does not do this by itself.
To take the most obvious example, the government gives out patent and copyright monopolies. These are policies intended to promote innovation and creative work. They arguably are good policies, but technology does not give us these monopolies, governments do.
Do they matter? Ask yourself how rich Bill Gates would be right now if anyone could use any Microsoft software anywhere they wanted without paying Mr. Gates a penny. He might still have done fine in that situation, but he would not be one of the richest people in the world.
These government granted monopolies likely transfer over $1 trillion ($7k per family) a year from the rest of us to those in a position to benefit from them. In the case of prescription drugs alone it likely comes to more than $500 billion a year. In addition to transferring money from the rest of us to those at the top, these monopolies also make it difficult for millions to pay for the drugs, which would be cheap in a free market, that they need for their health and their lives.
This massive transfer of income is entirely the result of policy choices. The issue is not just whether or not to have patents and copyrights, but how long and strong they should be, what items should be protected, and who benefits from government supported work. The last point is especially important in the case of prescription drugs, where the government spends more than $50 billion a year on biomedical research. This research is mostly turned over to the pharmaceutical industry, which is then allowed to get patent monopolies on the fruits of government research and make large profits.
It is a neat trick to say that the income distribution that results from these government policies are just the work of technology, that only ignorant people would be angry over, but it is a complete lie and people have every right in the world to be angry.
To be clear, I am sure that almost no one among the MAGA hordes has given serious thought to patent and copyright monopolies. This is the sort of nerdy stuff that they don’t have time for and is concealed from them anyhow.
But they do see the results, people and communities are left behind, not by technology but by deliberate policy choices. And they are very angry over it.
Donald Trump doesn’t have the answers for this. Pretending to be a tough guy, as he lines his own and his friends’ pockets, is not going to help the people who lost good-paying union jobs in manufacturing and other sectors. But he has a winning message in telling people they actually do have something to be angry over. It would be good if the New York Times and other leading news outlets could at least acknowledge this fact instead of continuing to spread their Big Lie.
(I go into the issue of patent and copyright monopolies, as well as other ways the government has structured the market to redistribute income upward, in Rigged [it’s free.])
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, DC. Dean previously worked as a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and an assistant professor at Bucknell University. He has also worked as a consultant for the World Bank, the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, and the OECD's Trade Union Advisory Council.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate
