Did income inequality help cause the financial crisis? (Part 2)

Justin lives! And he’s guest blogging for Ezra Klein this week. Check it out here. Yesterday he blogged about… whether or not income inequality helped cause the financial crisis. Sound familiar?

In addition to that blog post, Justin recently wrote this HBR piece in which he reviews the growing literature on the topic. He mentions the Raghu Rajan book I’ve talked about before, but he saves his highest praise for Winner-Take-All Politics, a new book by political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson.

That work includes an interesting argument about the growing power of corporations. In the review, Justin writes:

The crucial turning point, [Hacker and Pierson] say, came not in 1980, when Ronald Reagan was elected, but two years before. The business community, reeling after years of labor victories and regulatory encroachments, had begun to organize over the course of the 1970s and focus its energy on politics. The Chamber of Commerce tripled its budget. The Business Roundtable and the American Council for Capital Formation were born. The first two big legislative wins came in 1978, when the Democrat-controlled Congress killed off a proposal to create an office of consumer representation and a union-backed revision of labor laws.

After that there was no turning back: Business groups had figured out how to work the new levers of power in Washington, while the mass-membership organizations that had represented working America—not just labor unions but also the likes of the American Legion and the Elks—fell into sharp decline.

The only caveat I’d add—based on dozens of interviews with small business owners over the past year or so—is that there is often a difference between policies pursued by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and policies that small companies and entrepreneurs would find most useful. We often talk about “business” as if that’s a monolithic group. It’s really not.

Justin’s article also does a nice job summarizing the quantitative evidence which leads us to talk about income inequality in the first place. Yesterday there was some questioning about whether income inequality was actually a thing in the world, or if people who didn’t make more money were simply lazy. I found this passage illustrative:

In the late 1970s, a 50-year trend toward more equal distribution of incomes in the United States was reversed. At first there was debate over the evidence, but by the 1990s economists of almost every stripe agreed that income disparity was rising. When President George W. Bush declared in early 2007 that “income inequality is real—it’s been rising for more than 25 years,” the matter seemed settled.

Related Topics: income inequality, Justin Fox, Economy & Policy
  • Latest on Business

    Thomas Patterson / Statesman-Journal / AP

    The Bleak Unemployment Report: Is Europe to Blame?

    For the first time in almost a year, the unemployment rate rose to 8.2% in May as the economic recovery appeared to not only slow but almost completely stall. And it gets worse.

    The Jury Is Out on the EuroSlate

    Getty Images

    Smartphones of the Future: 6 Predictions

    Future mobile devices will change the way you do business–in ways you probably can’t even imagine. Here are a few predictions.

  • waltwriston

    The financial system is the main threat too the real economy (and itself for that matter), upon which it’s suppose to rest. While say may say that the financial sector is the main driver of the economy: this is simply false, as it siphons off real wealth through artificial appreciation of financial assets. I leave two links both by Herman Daly.

    http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.11053.aspx

    http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

  • http://cdw2233.wordpress.com cdw2233

    Walt Wriston provides an enormous public service by identifing the greatest threat to the economy as well as income inequality: the financial system, which Jack Bogle and Paul Volcker have pointed out now takes 40% of the profits of all American companies, vs. about 5% in 1980.

    Paul Volcker also recently said that the only thing the US economy has gotten from the financial sectorfor this 40% in terms of what matters, increased producutivity, is “the ATM machine.”

    In short: “Americans today make money by handling money and shuffling it around instead of creating and producing goods with some actual value,” so that the “American economy… is an economy without substance,” is how Akio Morita described this threat to our economy and greatest source of income inequality.

    The solution? Prof. Al Rappaport of Nortwesten has developed I suggest an important part of the solution, somehing the SEC can adopt without legislation:
    change the basic metric of accounting from accrued earnings, to Long Term Cash Flow (LTCF). As Peter Drucker pointed out: “We depend on cash flow because any second-year accounting student can manipulate a P&L.”

    The SEC can stop the manipulation of the P&L accrued earnings and threat to the economy, and increasing income inequality, by adopting LTCF soon.

    More detail on LTCF is available by Googling Rappaport or on request from weller@nxgh.net.

  • waltwriston

    Thanks, but the “real” and now dead Citicorp CEO Walt Wriston would rebuttal that money is the ultimate source of voting. Something he called global plebiscite as identified in his book: The Twilight of Sovereignty. And, as such he/she who has the most money has the most votes.

    Daly’s links are IMO right on the mark, in that; we cannot get out of this recession by growth because growth is now becoming more uneconomic esp. the hyper-growth of the financial sector ~ 5X’s relative to the real economy.

  • waltwriston

    Thought I’d add this link from a interview of Wriston by Thomas Bass.

    http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.10/wriston_pr.html

  • http://rodgermmitchell.wordpress.com Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

    cdw2233,

    “. . . the financial system, which Jack Bogle and Paul Volcker have pointed out now takes 40% of the profits of all American companies, vs. about 5% in 1980.”
    .
    So what happens to those profits? Do they disappear into nothingness? No, the profits go right back into the economy as wages and purchases of goods and services.
    .
    “Paul Volcker also recently said that the only thing the US economy has gotten from the financial sector for this 40% in terms of what matters, increased producutivity, is ‘the ATM machine’.”
    .
    Hard to believe such silliness. How about the employment in the financial sector. Where does Volcker get such nonsense?
    .
    “In short: ‘Americans today make money by handling money and shuffling it around instead of creating and producing goods with some actual value,’ so that the ‘American economy… is an economy without substance’”
    .
    Can you believe such tripe? The U.S. is an economy without substance??? I suppose, the only “substance” is what factories and farmers make? Can you imagine this man actually is taken seriously?
    .
    The only thing without substance is childish pronouncements like Bogle’s and Volcker’s.

    Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

  • dochosvet

    income inequality
    Lets see if I can get this reasonably accurate. A long time ago I read an article explaining how things have not changed much in the last 1000 years or so(maybe always?) In the dark ages the common folks and serfs, shoe makers, weavers or what ever had about the same ratio of wealth to the kings, earls, dukes etc as we have now. I make a living and have a little business but I assure you that I can keep it in perspective and know that that my income probably is about the same ratio as the shoe maker to the dukes and kings. There for there has always been inequality and the guys at the top seem to know how to keep it that way. It is fun to think about it and discuss it but in the end history march’s on and the core principles do not change. A job is not going to change it unless you are delusional.

  • waltwriston

    “. . . the financial system, which Jack Bogle and Paul Volcker have pointed out now takes 40% of the profits of all American companies, vs. about 5% in 1980.”
    .
    “So what happens to those profits? Do they disappear into nothingness? No, the profits go right back into the economy as wages and purchases of goods and services.”

    Not in this tight credit economy! The bottom-line of corporations are on a general scale 60% debt 40% equity (the bigger the corp the larger the leverage). And, that’s not counting extendable credit by said financial institutions. If credit fails in this fake monetary system the so-called industries in this country and for that matter the world largely fail! Add in receivables gone bad and credit card (funny money) not paid in this country is literally living on borrowed time.

blog comments powered by Disqus