“The Engine Of American Inequality”: The Consequences Of A Free Wheeling, Unchecked Financial Industry
The past three decades have been a period of explosive growth for Wall Street and the financial industry. Meanwhile, a tiny slice of the population has claimed an ever-bigger share of this country’s economic rewards. The highest-earning one percent of Americans collected roughly 20 percent of total income last year; the top .01 percent – not enough people to fill a football stadium – had 5.5 percent of the income.
Could there be a connection here? Could our booming financial sector, which now generates an astonishing 30 percent of all corporate profits (more than double the figure of thirty years ago), help explain America’s rapid ascent to the highest level of economic inequality since the eve of the Great Depression, and the highest of any of the world’s rich nations? A growing number of economists and other authorities think the first trend may have more than a little something to do with the second.
The economic and political establishments long ago settled on a theory of rising inequality: technology and globalization, they told us, were carving a rift through the American labor force between those with and without the right kind of education and know-how. This idea was criticized from the start for ignoring a formidable corporate campaign to rewrite the rules of the U.S. economy at workers’ expense, and over time it has increasingly failed to account for the reality of who is getting ahead and who is falling behind.
In his 1991 book “The Work of Nations,” former (then future) Labor Secretary Robert Reich embraced a version of the “skills-gap” story. But in his recent film “Inequality for All,” Reich has more to say about discrepancies of power than of skill.
The longer this trend continues, in fact, the more it resembles the Occupy Movement’s picture of a soaring 1 percent and a lagging 99 percent. Out of every dollar of income growth between 1976 and 2007, the richest one percent of U.S. households collected 58 cents; and after taking a big hit in the financial crisis, they were soon back on track, capturing an extraordinary 95 percent of all the income gains between 2009 and 2012. To put it more plainly, since the beginning of the current economic “recovery,” the top 1 percent (who make upwards of $400,000 a year in household income) are pretty much the only ones who have recovered.
Within that small subset of Americans, executives, traders, fund managers and others associated with the financial sector loom large, comprising about a seventh of the one-percenters and accounting for about one fourth of their income gains over the past thirty-plus years. That’s not counting the many lawyers and consultants with financial sector clientele, or the growing number of executives of nonfinancial companies who seem to make most of their money these days through stock options and short-term financial plays. Together, corporate executives and financial sector employees account for well over half the post-1980 income growth of the top 1 percent and more than two-thirds of the even more remarkable gains of the top 0.1 percent.
Pinpointing the causes of an economic trend is a hard business. But there is global as well as historical evidence for a link between financial sector expansion and rising inequality. Studies of rich and relatively poor nations alike suggest that inequality goes up when societies tie their fortunes to a free-wheeling financial industry and the easy flow of global capital. There is also substantial research to suggest that much of the financial sector’s recent growth has come by extracting wealth from other areas of the economy, not by spurring innovation and opportunity for the society at large.
Several recent studies trace the industry’s pay-and-profit surge mostly to its success in the political and regulatory arenas. See, for example, this paper by Thomas Philippon and Ariell Reshef of New York University and the University of Virginia, who attribute between 30 and 50 percent of the financial sector’s recent gains to economic “rents.” That’s basically a polite way of describing the ability of many of today’s financial heavyweights to use their market clout, their inside knowledge and various explicit and implicit taxpayer subsidies to make money out of thin air.
Banking and finance were not always a road to fabulous riches in this country. As recently as the early 1980s – and throughout much of the 20th century – there was almost no pay differential between financial and non-financial professionals. Today, by contrast, financial workers make about 1.83 times as much as other white-collar workers. You’d have to go back to the Roaring Twenties, at the tail end of America’s original Gilded Age, to find another period when financial sector incomes and profits reached such conspicuous heights. That should tell us something.
In any case, these are pivotal questions for the country – and unavoidable questions for those seeking a path toward what President Obama has been calling a “middle-out” rather than a top-down economy. Broad prosperity, the president says, calls for greater public investment in education, infrastructure and other long-term needs, and for higher taxes on the wealthy to help pay for such things. That may be a worthy agenda. It has certainly proved to be a politically difficult agenda. But in a country that has let its financial sector become an engine of inequality, more will be required.
If we believe in our founding ideal of America as a land where children should start off on roughly the same footing regardless of history or ancestry, we will all have to screw up our courage and refocus on (among other challenges) the unfinished work of making sure we have a financial economy that serves the real economy, not the other way around.
By: Jim Lardner, U. S. News and World Report, October 11, 2013
“Too Big To Exist”: Wall Street Hogs Still Running Wild
Wall Street is a beast.
And proud of it! In fact, a pair of animals are the stock market’s longtime symbols: One is a snorting bull, representing surging stock prices; the other is a bear, representing a down market devouring stock value.
But I recently received a letter from a creative fellow named Charles saying that we need a third animal to depict the true nature of the Wall Street beast: a hog.
Yes! And we could name it “Jamie.” Jamie Dimon — I mean the multimillionaire, silver-haired, golden-tongued CEO of JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank.
For years, Dimon has wallowed in the warm glow of America’s financial, political and media limelight, hailed as a paragon of sound management and banker ethics. He’s been publicly lauded by President Obama, celebrated by The New York Times and courted by leaders of both parties.
But, suddenly last summer, a big “oink” erupted from Chase, and Jamie’s inner hoggishness was revealed. It started when one of Chase’s investment arms went awry and lost $2 billion. At first, Dimon haughtily dismissed this as “a tempest in a teapot.” But the loss of investors’ money soon grew to a staggering $6 billion. Criminal probes began, investors squirmed, media coverage grew testy, and then came the revelation that took all the glitter off of Dimon.
On March 14, a U.S. Senate committee issued a scathing 300-page report documenting that the loss was not a mere “trade blunder” by Chase underlings, but the product of a systemic corporate culture of recklessness, greed and deception. An internal email from Jamie himself, with the words “I approve,” traced the stench all the way to the top. Not only did Dimon know what was going on, he enabled it.
JPMorgan’s mess stems from the same dangerous combo that rocked America’s financial system in 2007 and crashed our economy: ethical rot in executive suites, sycophantic politicians and reporters and willfully blind regulators. Meanwhile, Jamie is still Boss Hog at the giant bank and still drawing millions of dollars in annual pay and perks. Also, only one week after the Senate report came out, he was even given a media award for best 2012 performance by a CEO facing a corporate crisis. E-I-E-I-O!
For a better performance on containing banker narcissism, our lawmakers might look to Europe. I know that it’s considered un-American to like anything those “namby-pamby” European nations do, but still: Let’s hear it for the Swiss!
In a March 3 referendum, the mild-mannered, pacifist-minded Swiss people rose up and hammered their corporate executives who’ve been grabbing ripoff pay packages, despite having made massive financial messes.
Two-thirds of voters emphatically shouted “yes” to a maverick ballot proposal requiring that shareholders be given the binding say on executive pay. Violators of the new rules would sacrifice up to six years of salary and face three years in jail. That’s hardly namby-pamby.
Indeed, America’s lawmakers and regulators are the ones who’ve been squishy-soft on banksterism. Jamie is not the only one being coddled — none of the Wall Street titans whose greed wrecked our economy have even been pursued by the law, much less put in jail.
It’s no surprise, then, that those bankers have gone right back to scamming — and gleefully enriching themselves. Hardly a week goes by without another revelation of big-bank fraud, yet the banks simply pay an inconsequential fine and the culprits skate free.
Forget about too big to fail, banks have become “too big to jail.” Our nation’s top prosecutor, Attorney General Eric Holder, recently conceded that finagling financial giants are being given a pass: “It does become difficult for us to prosecute them,” he told a Senate subcommittee, “when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy.”
Meanwhile, just four giants — Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo — put nearly $20 million into last year’s elections, mostly to back Republicans promising to weaken the few feeble restraints we now have on banker thievery. With such Keystone Kops overseeing them, why would any Wall Streeter even think of going straight? Nothing will change until officials gut it up, go after lawless bankers and bust up the banks that are too big to exist.
By: Jim Hightower, The National Memo, April 3, 2013
Looming Government Shutdown Reminds Us That Congress Is Not A Business
It’s become common to bash large public institutions with the phrase, “if I ran my business the way they run [government/public schools/whatever], I’d be bankrupt.”
Maybe so. But Congress and law making are not businesses (the high-cost business of campaigning and lobbying aside). And public schools are not businesses, either.
Still there’s a tendency to think that putting corporate executives or small business owners in leadership positions at public institutions will somehow make those entities profitable or successful. That accounts for the election of some businesspeople to Congress, and the appointment of former magazine magnate Cathie Black as New York City schools chancellor.
Just a few months after her appointment by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Black is out. It was hardly a surprise, her approval rating among city residents had been an anemic 17 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last month. She had made some foolish comments, such as suggesting that birth control was the solution to schools overcrowding, and she upset some parents with her proposal to install an “elite” new high school inside an existing Park Slope high school.
Black had no education experience, which might have contributed to her troubles. She may be great at bottom-line decisions, but such calculations are nearly impossible in a public school. You can’t fire your students to improve your graduation rate. You can call a school “failing” for not reaching certain testing standards, but the school can’t do anything about the challenges–such as poverty, substance abuse in the home, or language barriers–that make certain student populations more difficult to teach.
And ironically, the business model on Wall Street doesn’t follow the market approach being imposed on schools. Financial big-wigs who helped run the economy into the ground got big bonuses, despite their poor performance. Their businesses weren’t closed for incompetence; they were given government bailouts. There is indeed an argument to be made that letting those businesses fail would have done tremendous damage to innocent parties, such as people whose IRAs are dependent on the performance of stocks over which they have no control. So why are schools not given the same “business” courtesy?
The same goes for the federal budget. Sure, one couldn’t run a business budget in the same way. But then, the government can’t fire Social Security recipients. It can’t–not without planning and consensus–decide to shutter “underperforming” enterprises such as the Afghan war. The government is meant to take care of everyone, to some degree, and unlike a business, the government can’t pick and choose which customers to target.
As stubbornness in Congress threatens a government shutdown, lawmakers tethered to a business model approach should remember their roles. A CEO or small business owner can dictate; a House member is one of 435 and must accept the needs and perspectives of the rest of the chamber. Businesses can price items high enough to cut out low-income consumers. Government has an obligation–though to what degree is a valid discussion–to protect the neediest. Having former businesspeople in Congress provides a valuable perspective in a diverse institution. But Congress is not a business.
By: Susan Milligan, U.S. News and World Report, April 7, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 