May 25, 2025

By Stephen Stofka

This is part of a series on persistent problems. The conversations are voiced by Abel, a Wilsonian with a faith that government can ameliorate social and economic injustices to improve society’s welfare, and Cain, who believes that individual autonomy, the free market and the price system promote the greatest good.

Cain said, “We left off last week talking about the strong correlation between personal income and life expectancy in the U.S.”

Abel looked up to the acoustic ceiling tile as he searched his memory, then looked at Cain. “I think it was .85 across the states.”

Cain glanced down at his phone. “I wondered how strong the correlation was among developed countries. It’s not pretty. Mexico and the U.S. are the only two countries below 80 years life expectancy. Oh wait, and the Slovak Republic, what people call Slovakia.”

Abel asked, “Is that where Melania Trump comes from?”

Cain shook his head. “No. Her family is from Slovenia, another central European country. Slovakia is the eastern half of what used to be Czechoslovakia. A fun fact. They are not a top producer of automobiles, but for the size of their population, they have the world’s largest auto manufacturing per capita (Source).

Abel asked, “How small is their population?”

Cain replied, “About 5.4 million. So, a little less than Denmark. Well, I started digging into auto production figures for the other two countries with relatively low life expectancy.”

Abel spread some honey on his toast. “What, like there’s a link between auto production and life expectancy?”

Cain shrugged. “I don’t know. Environmental hazards? Just wandering around in the data maze. Never know what I’ll find. I was surprised to find that the U.S. and Mexico have about the same auto production per capita. Not the same overall. Just per capita. Volume wise, the U.S is the number two producer in the world (Source).”

Abel asked, “Who is #1? China?”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, they produce three times what the U.S. does. Of course, they have four times the population. Anyway, I looked at what has happened to auto production in the U.S. We are producing the same amount of vehicles as we did thirty years ago (Source). Meanwhile, the population in this country has grown 30%.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “And Trump is going to restore that imbalance with tariffs somehow?”

Cain smirked. “All presidential candidates overpromise. Trump’s not the only one. In a deep housing and financial crisis, Obama promised to do what was best for working class families like the grandparents who raised him. What a bunch of B.S. that was. He did what was best for the banks and broker bonuses as millions lost their homes and most of their net worth.”

Abel sighed. “I don’t think most presidential candidates understand the forces that control the energy in this country. Trump says it’s the deep state. It’s the deep everything. The deep oil and gas industry, the deep defense industry, finance, healthcare, education and the tech ‘bros.’”

Cain laughed. “Good point. And they all have their lobbyists in Washington. It’s the swamp and its deep.”

Abel smiled. “And each president promises to clean up some part of that swamp. Then the gators in the swamp get a hold of their ankle.”

Cain shook his head. “I think it’s us the gators get a hold of. The politicians always seem to get away somehow.”

Abel grunted. “Too true. Anyway, so get back to life expectancy across developed countries.”

Cain replied, “Oh, yeah. So, the correlation between income and life expectancy across developed countries was not as strong the correlation between states, but it was still a moderately strong .6 (Source). I thought GDP growth would help produce better health outcomes and life expectancy, but no.”

Abel asked, “What if a lot of Americans are not benefitting from that economic growth? Too much inequality? We were comparing the U.S. and Great Britain last week on obesity in school kids. Great Britain has a much lower GINI coefficient than the U.S. so incomes over there are more evenly distributed (Source).”

Cain asked. “That measure includes transfer payments in income, right? Pretax or after tax?”

Abel nodded. “Yeah. It includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and supplemental income. Any income that doesn’t involve an exchange of goods or services (Source). The OECD tracks both before and after tax. England has the same GINI index as the U.S. in pre-tax income, but their tax system reduces inequality more than the U.S.”

Cain shrugged. “What’s the GINI for Mexico?”

Abel flicked a finger across his phone. “Wow. The same as the U.S. after taxes. Boy, I thought we would be better than Mexico. Let’s see, what about Slovakia? No, that breaks the trend. They have an even lower GINI index than Great Britain, so more equality, and a low life expectancy as well.”

Cain smiled. “Every time I think, ‘that’s the key indicator,’ the data throws me a curve.”

Abel said, “So far what we are seeing is that average income has a strong influence on life expectancy but not the distribution of income. Is that the secret sauce to longer life expectancy? Raise average incomes?”

Cain replied, “It’s not that simple. We have a high income but relatively low life expectancy. But comparing the U.S. and Great Britain over time was interesting. Forty years ago the two countries had the same life expectancy. Since then the U.S. has averaged 3.6% real GDP growth (Source). That means that real GDP doubles in 20 years. Great Britain, on the other hand, has had only 2.5% annual growth, so it takes like 28 years for their GDP to double. Yet improvements in U.S. life expectancy have been far lower than Great Britain over that time.”

Abel asked, “What about healthcare spending? Inefficient overspending on healthcare and the military increases GDP. Any insights there?”

Cain sighed. “Well, you have a point there. The U.S. spends the highest amount of developed countries on healthcare, almost double the average (Source).”

Abel replied, “So other countries are spending less and getting better health outcomes. The public-private partnership in U.S. healthcare is not working and is not efficient. Are you ready to endorse universal health care?”

Cain smiled. “Them’s fighting words. Mexico has universal health care and it’s life expectancy is worse than the U.S. The same story for Slovakia.”

Abel argued, “Yeah, but Mexico and Slovakia are both rated poor in healthcare quality and innovation. The U.S. has good quality health care and the highest innovation ranking, but poor access and a fiscally unsustainable system (Source). Quality healthcare has to be accompanied by easy access to care. Will you agree with that?”

Cain frowned. “On the face of it, yes, but there are all these other factors we’ve looked at. This is a big country.”

Abel asked, “Ok, what about population density? There was a .5 correlation between life expectancy and density among the states.”

Cain nodded. “That was weird. It was the same between countries, so density has some effect on life expectancy, but the stronger factor was income.”

Abel frowned. “That’s surprising. In many European countries, the government provides healthcare so income should be a weaker factor.”

Cain replied, “The contradictions in these indicators drives me nuts. That’s why I say it’s too complicated to point to one or even two factors and say, ‘fix these and you’ll fix the problem.’”

Abel argued, “Well, we can’t sacrifice the good for the perfect.”

Cain studied the pancake on his fork for a moment. “I want simplicity. I dream of a society where we make clear rules, a society where people play by the rules.”

Abel laughed. “I was reading a book by David Graeber this week called The Utopia of Rules. He says it’s a wish that many of us have. You know, everybody knows and plays by the rules and those who play by the rules can win.”

Cain lifted his eyebrows. “Yeah, it seems like it’s the cheaters who win. That was the bitter truth that many of us learned during the financial crisis. No accountability for the cheaters.”

Abel argued, “Even before that. No accountability for actions in the Iraq war. Abu Ghraib. Hollywood had constructed a noble portrayal of American soldiers in combat. John Wayne. Gregory Peck and the like. Torturing prisoners was something the North Koreans and Chinese did. Not American soldiers.”

Cain sighed. “A reminder of Vietnam? Something’s happened in the past few decades. I’m still trying to get my head around it.”

Abel replied. “Graeber talks about sovereignty, something we normally associate with countries. In the post-Watergate consensus, Congress put constraints on the president. That’s changed in recent decades after 9-11, when Congress began to defer to the president. As Graeber notes, presidents can now order people assassinated, extradite prisoners of war to places where they can be tortured. They can conduct surveillance on ordinary citizens with flimsy pretext and sporadic oversight.”

Cain leaned back in his seat. “In Trump v. United States (Source) last year, the court conferred legal sovereignty on a president. A former president has absolute immunity for ‘official acts,’ although the court declined to define those. They used a previous 5-4 decision in Nixon v Fitzgerald holding that a former president had absolute immunity against civil litigation for damages.”

Abel argued, “But Trump v. United States was a criminal matter, not civil. The court just expanded the scope of the previous decision. I mean, this court has overruled previous court precedents about abortion and gun rights made during the 1970s. Then they base their ruling on a closely decided case in 1982?”

Cain nodded. “They created a radical expansion of presidential immunity, then didn’t have the backbone to establish any limits on official acts. I mean, Fitzgerald was a civil case about back pay and wrongful employment termination, not trying to overturn an election. To use that as a basis for their decision indicates just how arbitrary the conservative justices have become.”

Abel argued, “They might say that it is incremental jurisprudence.”

Cain smirked. “Incremental policymaking is a hallmark of our political system. That’s what these conservative justices have become. Activist politicians.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “Why did you vote for him?”

Cain took a deep breath. “You keep asking me that. The better of two bad alternatives. Why did you vote for Harris?”

Abel laughed. “The better of two bad alternatives.”

Cain replied, “I thought that there was still a Republican Party that would restrain Trump’s impulses. The party is gone. Only the nationalist radicals and hesitant members remain. The name is an empty shell.”

Abel said, “Last week, you mentioned activist courts and an activist executive branch. I don’t attach much meaning to the word. If people don’t like certain policies they attach the word “activist” to whoever made the policy.”

Cain shook his head. “You’re right. A lot of people do that. I mean it in the sense that some political actor makes a rule that makes it likely there will be more rules to refine that first rule.”

Abel argued, “We’ve got a complex society managed by a big bureaucracy. The proliferation of rules is inevitable.”

Cain took a sip of coffee. “Those are procedural rules. What I’m talking about is something different. ‘Principle’ would be better rule. Like sailors back in the old days using the north star as a guiding rule. Then they had a bunch of procedural rules to help them keep to that guiding rule.”

Abel interrupted, “You said political actors made the rule. So you’re not talking about some rule made at an office meeting.”

Cain nodded. “Right. The Supreme Court’s Heller decision in 2008 established an individual right to have a gun (Source). Since then there have two more decisions. McDonald in 2010 extended that right to include the states. The Bruen decision in 2022 ruled that gun laws could no longer use state interests as a balancing test. They had to be consistent with historic tradition. Three cases in fourteen years made it to the Supreme Court? That indicates that the Heller decision was not a well constructed principle. Of course, that applies to a lot of laws.”

Abel replied, “So compare that to Roe, the abortion decision in 1973. The Casey decision in 1992, then Gonzalez in 2007. That’s 34 years for two refinements.”

Cain nodded. “Someone could argue with the reasoning in Roe, but the length of time between refinements of the rule indicates that it was a well constructed rule, as rules go.”

Abel continued, “Maybe I’m not clear on the distinction. If the precedent or outcome of a rule is flawed, how can it be a good rule?”

Cain smiled. “A rule should be clear. It should have as few exceptions as possible.”

Abel looked doubtful. “That’s unreasonable. Take, for example, the rule against killing. There are lots of exceptions. War, self-defense. Is abortion an act of killing? Depends on your definition. Hunting animals? Isn’t that killing? This is the real world. It’s complicated.”

Cain smirked. “Of course it is. I said, ‘as few exceptions as possible.’ I didn’t say ‘no exceptions.’ When lawmakers make rules, they should ask themselves, ‘Does this rule invite a lot of exceptions? How can I change the wording of the rule to reduce exceptions?’ It’s just a principle to keep in mind.”

Abel asked, “So give me an example of a rule that you like as a rule, even though you might disagree with the reasoning.”

Cain barely paused. “The DOGE cuts. The rule was simple. Cut anyone who had less than a year’s employment, I believe. While the rule was clear, it produced undesirable outcomes. They had to hire some critical people back. We won’t know the full impact of the DOGE cuts for a while.”

Abel nodded. “They will cover up the mistakes. That decision was more a programming rule. Code in a criteria and get a list of employee names, then give them notice. Can you think of a law, like something that a legislature deliberated over?”

Cain stared into his coffee cup as though it held the answer. “How about a so-called bathroom bill? They are clear. Only people of a particular sex as listed on their birth certificate can use a single sex bathroom (Source). I might sympathize with people who are struggling with their gender identity. But the language of the bill is clear.”

Abel shook his head. “That, to you, is a good rule? How many of us carry our birth certificates with us when we use the bathroom? It has an impractical condition.”

Cain nodded. “But that’s not what I’m talking about. That’s the distinction. The language of the bill itself is clear. Take for instance the 1972 Clean Water Act. It gave the EPA regulatory power over the ‘waters of the United States.’ Courts and agencies have been fighting over that term and its, let’s see, boundaries for decades. What does that term include and exclude? A clear rule has terms in it with good boundaries.”

Abel frowned. “The Supreme Court often asks what is the limiting principle.”

Cain replied, “Yeah, a good defining characteristic.”

Abel asked, “So you don’t like the term ‘general welfare’ in the Constitution.”

Cain smiled. “You’re right. I don’t. The anti-Federalists at the Constitutional Convention didn’t like it either.”

Abel nodded. “Right. Yeah, Michael Klarman discussed that in his book ‘The Framers’ Coup.’ Did you ever think that politicians might purposely choose a term that has no clear boundaries? It’s the only way that lawmakers can agree on something. The astronomer Carl Sagan once said that people find agreement when they use a broad term like ‘God,’ which encompasses a lot of different concepts (Source).”

Cain nodded. “Good point. It’s a way of kicking the can down the road. It signals that lawmakers wanted to complete some law, to claim an accomplishment when there were still parts not done. So they take the undone stuff, the stuff they can not agree on, and slap a label on it, like ‘general welfare’ or ‘waters of the united states.’”

Abel set his glass of water down. “Those conservative justices who use a textualist approach to analyze a case may be looking at text that was written using ill-defined terms, terms without clear boundaries, to use your term. The textualists claim that their approach is grounded in empirical evidence, but the evidence itself, the text of the law, lacks definition.”

Cain smiled. “I like that connection. It shows the limits of any judicial interpretation.”

Abel replied, “So let’s get back to activist policies. You sounded fed up last week.”

Cain nodded. “Yeah, Democrats are activist. That’s their brand. A hallmark of the Republican Party used to be a certain policy restraint, a prudent caution. No more. It’s so disappointing and it leaves a lot of voters like me in a political limbo. Neither party represents our approach to governing. You know, quit meddling. This tariff business is meddling in the extreme.”

Abel raised his eyebrows. “It was a Republican president and strongly Republican House and Senate that initiated the Smoot-Hawley tariffs in 1930. They imposed tariffs on more than 20,000 goods.”

Cain interrupted, “And imposed no tariff or low rates on a lot of goods. As I said, the hallmark of a badly constructed rule is a lot of exceptions.”

Abel continued, “Ok, the tariffs were activist policymaking by Republicans who held the Presidency and strong majorities in the House and Senate. The Republicans are all about restraint. They restrain free trade, individual choice, government support of child care, to name a few.”

Cain smirked, “Like the Democrats don’t do the same. Restrict guns, oil and gas drilling, dictate to automakers the kinds of cars they can produce. I mean, it’s the Democrats who created the bureaucratic state. All that rule-making limits choices.”

Abel laughed as he slid out of the booth. “Ironic. In his book, David Graeber writes about a paradox. He calls it the Iron Law of Liberalism. When a government tries to promote the free market, it often creates even more regulations. In their own way, both parties are guilty of making too many rules, of creating bureaucratic tangles.”

Cain looked up at Abel. “I wish we could change that somehow. See you next week.”

Abel gave a short wave. “I’ll pick up the check. Till next week.”

////////////////////

Image by ChatGPT