“Cronyism Causes The Worst Kind Of Inequality”: Friends Of The Rulers Appropriating Wealth For Themselves
Economic inequality has skyrocketed in the U.S. during the past few decades. That has prompted many calls for government policies to reverse that trend. Defenders of the status quo argue that rising inequality is a necessary byproduct of economic growth — if we don’t allow people the chance to become extremely rich, the thinking goes, they will stop working, investing, saving and starting businesses. A receding tide will then cause all boats to sink.
Critics of the status quo have responded with the claim that inequality doesn’t help growth, but instead hurts it. This view was given ammunition by a number of recent studies, which have found a negative relationship between how much income inequality a country has and how fast it grows. One example is an International Monetary Fund study from 2015:
[W]e find an inverse relationship between the income share accruing to the rich (top 20 percent) and economic growth. If the income share of the top 20 percent increases by 1 percentage point, GDP growth is actually 0.08 percentage point lower in the following five years, suggesting that the benefits do not trickle down. Instead, a similar increase in the income share of the bottom 20 percent (the poor) is associated with 0.38 percentage point higher growth.
A similar 2014 study from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development concluded the same thing. Interestingly, the negative correlation between inequality and growth is found even when controlling for a country’s income level. This isn’t simply a case of wealthier countries growing more slowly and also being more unequal.
So the evidence is pretty clear: Higher inequality has been associated with lower growth. But as with all correlations, we should be very careful about interpreting this as causation. It might be that countries whose growth slows for any reason tend to experience an increase in inequality, as politically powerful groups stop focusing on expanding the pie and start trying to appropriate more of the pie for themselves.
The IMF and OECD list some channels by which inequality might actually be causing lower growth. The most important one has to do with investment. When poor people have more money, they can afford to invest more in human capital (education and skills) and nutrition. Because these investments have diminishing marginal returns — the first year of schooling matters a lot more than the 20th — every dollar invested by the poor raises national productivity by more than if it gets invested by the rich. In other words, the more resources shoring up a nation’s weak links, the better off that nation will be.
That’s a plausible hypothesis. But there might also be other factors contributing to the correlation between inequality and growth. It could be that there is something out there that causes both high inequality and low growth at the same time.
The obvious candidate for this dark force is crony capitalism. When a country succumbs to cronyism, friends of the rulers are able to appropriate large amounts of wealth for themselves — for example, by being awarded government-protected monopolies over certain markets, as in Russia after the fall of communism. That will obviously lead to inequality of income and wealth. It will also make the economy inefficient, since money is flowing to unproductive cronies. Cronyism may also reduce growth by allowing the wealthy to exert greater influence on political policy, creating inefficient subsidies for themselves and unfair penalties for their rivals.
Economists Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan and Jan Svejnar of Columbia recently set out to test the cronyism hypothesis. They focused not on income inequality, but on wealth inequality — a different, though probably related, measure. Concentrating on billionaires — the upper strata of the wealth distribution — they evaluated the political connections of each billionaire. They used the proportion of politically connected billionaires in a country as their measure of cronyism.
What they discovered was very interesting. The relationship between wealth inequality and growth was negative, as the IMF and others had found for income inequality. But only one kind of inequality was associated with low growth — the kind that came from cronyism. From the abstract of the paper:
[W]hen we control for the fact that some billionaires acquired wealth through political connections, the effect of politically connected wealth inequality is negative, while politically unconnected wealth inequality, income inequality, and initial poverty have no significant effect.
In other words, when billionaires make their money through means other than political connections, the resulting inequality isn’t bad for growth.
That’s a heartening message for defenders of the rich-country status quo. If cronyism is the real danger, it means that a lot of the inequality we’ve seen in recent decades is benign. Eliminate corrupt connections between politicians and businesspeople, and you’ll be safe.
But Bagchi and Svejnar’s finding cuts two ways. It also means that plain old inequality isn’t beneficial for growth, as its defenders have claimed. That removes one of the big objections government policy makers face in talking steps to reduce inequality — and that doing so is unlikely to hurt economic growth.
By: Noah Smith, Bloomberg View, Bloomberg Politics, December 24, 2015
“Wall Street Vampires”: Lurking In Their Coffins, The Enemies Of Reform Can’t Withstand Sunlight
Last year the vampires of finance bought themselves a Congress. I know it’s not nice to call them that, but I have my reasons, which I’ll explain in a bit. For now, however, let’s just note that these days Wall Street, which used to split its support between the parties, overwhelmingly favors the G.O.P. And the Republicans who came to power this year are returning the favor by trying to kill Dodd-Frank, the financial reform enacted in 2010.
And why must Dodd-Frank die? Because it’s working.
This statement may surprise progressives who believe that nothing significant has been done to rein in runaway bankers. And it’s true both that reform fell well short of what we really should have done and that it hasn’t yielded obvious, measurable triumphs like the gains in insurance thanks to Obamacare.
But Wall Street hates reform for a reason, and a closer look shows why.
For one thing, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — the brainchild of Senator Elizabeth Warren — is, by all accounts, having a major chilling effect on abusive lending practices. And early indications are that enhanced regulation of financial derivatives — which played a major role in the 2008 crisis — is having similar effects, increasing transparency and reducing the profits of middlemen.
What about the problem of financial industry structure, sometimes oversimplified with the phrase “too big to fail”? There, too, Dodd-Frank seems to be yielding real results, in fact, more than many supporters expected.
As I’ve just suggested, too big to fail doesn’t quite get at the problem here. What was really lethal was the interaction between size and complexity. Financial institutions had become chimeras: part bank, part hedge fund, part insurance company, and so on. This complexity let them evade regulation, yet be rescued from the consequences when their bets went bad. And bankers’ ability to have it both ways helped set America up for disaster.
Dodd-Frank addressed this problem by letting regulators subject “systemically important” financial institutions to extra regulation, and seize control of such institutions at times of crisis, as opposed to simply bailing them out. And it required that financial institutions in general put up more capital, reducing both their incentive to take excessive risks and the chance that risk-taking would lead to bankruptcy.
All of this seems to be working: “Shadow banking,” which created bank-type risks while evading bank-type regulation, is in retreat. You can see this in cases like that of General Electric, a manufacturing firm that turned itself into a financial wheeler-dealer, but is now trying to return to its roots. You can also see it in the overall numbers, where conventional banking — which is to say, banking subject to relatively strong regulation — has made a comeback. Evading the rules, it seems, isn’t as appealing as it used to be.
But the vampires are fighting back.
O.K., why do I call them that? Not because they drain the economy of its lifeblood, although they do: there’s a lot of evidence that oversize, overpaid financial industries — like ours — hurt economic growth and stability. Even the International Monetary Fund agrees.
But what really makes the word apt in this context is that the enemies of reform can’t withstand sunlight. Open defenses of Wall Street’s right to go back to its old ways are hard to find. When right-wing think tanks do try to claim that regulation is a bad thing that will hurt the economy, their hearts don’t seem to be in it. For example, the latest such “study,” from the American Action Forum, runs to all of four pages, and even its author, the economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, sounds embarrassed about his work.
What you mostly get, instead, is slavery-is-freedom claims that reform actually empowers the bad guys: for example, that regulating too-big-and-complex-to-fail institutions is somehow doing wheeler-dealers a favor, claims belied by the desperate efforts of such institutions to avoid the “systemically important” designation. The point is that almost nobody wants to be seen as a bought and paid-for servant of the financial industry, least of all those who really are exactly that.
And this in turn means that so far, at least, the vampires are getting a lot less than they expected for their money. Republicans would love to undo Dodd-Frank, but they are, rightly, afraid of the glare of publicity that defenders of reform like Senator Warren — who inspires a remarkable amount of fear in the unrighteous — would shine on their efforts.
Does this mean that all is well on the financial front? Of course not. Dodd-Frank is much better than nothing, but far from being all we need. And the vampires are still lurking in their coffins, waiting to strike again. But things could be worse.
By: Paul Waldman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, May 11, 2015
“Hatred, The New Republican Exceptionalism”: The GOP Just Screwed Ukraine Out Of Billions To Hurt Obama
You know those people who carry on all the time about how the United States looks weak to the world, and how we have to do everything we possibly can to help poor Ukraine stand up to the evil Vladimir Putin? Well, guess what they just did? They just made the United States look weak to the world—and they actually just reduced (yes, reduced) the amount of global aid that can flow to Ukraine to help it stand up to the evil Vladimir Putin.
The deal was this: The Obama administration’s aid package to Ukraine placed before the Senate included some long-sought International Monetary Fund reforms. These reforms, which the administration agreed to in 2010 with the leading nations of Europe, and which those nations have already signed off on, would have helped Ukraine get more money from the IMF after this quick tranche from the United States ran dry. It’s complicated, but in essence, the reforms shifted money from one narrow spending category to a broader one that could be tapped by countries for projects like building and sustaining democracy, of which Ukraine is in rather desperate need. So while there wasn’t a specific dollar figure on the table, the IMF reforms could potentially, a Senate Democratic aide explained to me, have led to several billion more in aid to the country.
What’s to object to? To Republicans, this: The reforms include an increase in the U.S. contribution quota to the IMF of $63 billion. They would also give more voice to emerging nations. Now, these two measures are offset by the facts that 1) the overall U.S. expenditure on the IMF wouldn’t go up, because the U.S. would be allowed to decrease other commitments by a like amount, and 2) the U.S. would still have enough voting shares at IMF meetings to retain the veto power it has currently.
But those points don’t matter on the right, of course. Over there, it all spells a diminution of American power, the hated global governance, like Pat Buchanan’s old warnings about sending our boys out to global hotspots donning light-blue (i.e. United Nations) helmets. John McCain and Bob Corker, to their credit, supported the aid with the IMF reform tacked on. But most Republicans didn’t, and even though the full package easily passed a procedural vote, Democrats were getting the strong sense that an aid deal with the IMF stuff included wasn’t going to make it.
And so, it emerged this week that the Obama administration and Senate Democrats apparently backed off their demand for the Ukraine aid bill on Capitol Hill to include the reforms. On Monday, John Kerry visited Congress and threw in the towel. Better to have whatever we can get now than fight over this and delay matters. Or worse, lose altogether, because there was no chance that the House would ever have passed the IMF-laden version.
Let’s take stock of this. The Crimea/Ukraine crisis broke. Republicans immediately were all over Obama for being weak. The whole thing was his fault. We are all Ukrainians now. We had to stand with Ukraine to send a strong message to the malefactor Putin.
So what happens when the bill reaches them? The Obama administration tries to live up to an agreement it made—with our friends, our closest allies—four years ago at an opportune moment to press the issue, thinking that the idea that the reform would be of use to Ukraine might help matters. But as with everything, opposition to Obama is more important than anything else. If he’s for it, they’re against it. If Ukraine gets less money because of that, well, tough cheese for them.
And so it happens that the people who caterwaul about America being weak in the world become the very people who make it weaker. What does the world think as it watches this? Maybe some think merely that Obama is weak. But I’d wager most don’t. I’d wager most Europeans and others reach the right and reasonable conclusion: That American partisan dysfunction, driven far more by Republicans than by Democrats, now weakens not just our ability to carry out domestic politics but our foreign-policy aims as well.
Nothing like this has happened in decades. Yes Democrats—and several moderate Republicans, let’s remember, like John Sherman Cooper and Jacob Javits—blocked funding for the Vietnam War. But at least they were acting in accord with their long-stated principles and goal of ending that war. Today, Republicans are opposing their own stated principle of helping Ukraine as much as possible. Sen. Ted Cruz even went so far as to say that the proposed IMF reforms weakened the U.S. and strengthened Russia (I asked his spokesman to explain why this was so, and he wrote me back but never delivered an answer). In fact, Russia, Reuters has reported, is on record urging the IMF to adopt the reforms without U.S. support, and small wonder: Doing so would mean the end of the U.S. veto. So the Obama administration position of buying into the reforms is clearly something Russia doesn’t want to see.
Except for the very early days of the Cold War, politics never really quite stopped at the water’s edge. But politics did soften at the water’s edge. Not anymore. The Republicans are dug in, and as a result they are causing the very decline in standing and prestige that they are blaming on Obama. This jumps the shark from hurting the president to hurting the country. Hope they’re proud.
By: Michael Tomasky, The Daily Beast, March 26, 2014
“Liberty, Equality, Efficiency”: What’s Good For The “One-Percent” Isn’t Good For America
Most people, if pressed on the subject, would probably agree that extreme income inequality is a bad thing, although a fair number of conservatives believe that the whole subject of income distribution should be banned from public discourse. (Rick Santorum, the former senator and presidential candidate, wants to ban the term “middle class,” which he says is “class-envy, leftist language.” Who knew?) But what can be done about it?
The standard answer in American politics is, “Not much.” Almost 40 years ago Arthur Okun, chief economic adviser to President Lyndon Johnson, published a classic book titled “Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff,” arguing that redistributing income from the rich to the poor takes a toll on economic growth. Okun’s book set the terms for almost all the debate that followed: liberals might argue that the efficiency costs of redistribution were small, while conservatives argued that they were large, but everybody knew that doing anything to reduce inequality would have at least some negative impact on G.D.P.
But it appears that what everyone knew isn’t true. Taking action to reduce the extreme inequality of 21st-century America would probably increase, not reduce, economic growth.
Let’s start with the evidence.
It’s widely known that income inequality varies a great deal among advanced countries. In particular, disposable income in the United States and Britain is much more unequally distributed than it is in France, Germany or Scandinavia. It’s less well known that this difference is primarily the result of government policies. Data assembled by the Luxembourg Income Study (with which I will be associated starting this summer) show that primary income — income from wages, salaries, assets, and so on — is very unequally distributed in almost all countries. But taxes and transfers (aid in cash or kind) reduce this underlying inequality to varying degrees: some but not a lot in America, much more in many other countries.
So does reducing inequality through redistribution hurt economic growth? Not according to two landmark studies by economists at the International Monetary Fund, which is hardly a leftist organization. The first study looked at the historical relationship between inequality and growth, and found that nations with relatively low income inequality do better at achieving sustained economic growth as opposed to occasional “spurts.” The second, released last month, looked directly at the effect of income redistribution, and found that “redistribution appears generally benign in terms of its impact on growth.”
In short, Okun’s big trade-off doesn’t seem to be a trade-off at all. Nobody is proposing that we try to be Cuba, but moving American policies part of the way toward European norms would probably increase, not reduce, economic efficiency.
At this point someone is sure to say, “But doesn’t the crisis in Europe show the destructive effects of the welfare state?” No, it doesn’t. Europe is paying a heavy price for creating monetary union without political union. But within the euro area, countries doing a lot of redistribution have, if anything, weathered the crisis better than those that do less.
But how can the effects of redistribution on growth be benign? Doesn’t generous aid to the poor reduce their incentive to work? Don’t taxes on the rich reduce their incentive to get even richer? Yes and yes — but incentives aren’t the only things that matter. Resources matter too — and in a highly unequal society, many people don’t have them.
Think, in particular, about the ever-popular slogan that we should seek equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That may sound good to people with no idea what life is like for tens of millions of Americans; but for those with any reality sense, it’s a cruel joke. Almost 40 percent of American children live in poverty or near-poverty. Do you really think they have the same access to education and jobs as the children of the affluent?
In fact, low-income children are much less likely to complete college than their affluent counterparts, with the gap widening rapidly. And this isn’t just bad for those unlucky enough to be born to the wrong parents; it represents a huge and growing waste of human potential — a waste that surely acts as a powerful if invisible drag on economic growth.
Now, I don’t want to claim that addressing income inequality would help everyone. The very affluent would lose more from higher taxes than they gained from better economic growth. But it’s pretty clear that taking on inequality would be good, not just for the poor, but for the middle class (sorry, Senator Santorum).
In short, what’s good for the 1 percent isn’t good for America. And we don’t have to keep living in a new Gilded Age if we don’t want to.
By: Paul Krugman, Op-Ed Columnist, The New York Times, March 9, 2014
The Limits Of Free-Market Capitalism
Until a few years ago, my spiritual devotions were limited to the free market and the music of Patsy Cline. I’m sorry to say it’s just me and Patsy now.
Karl Marx may have been wrong where it really mattered—communism, to paraphrase Churchill, is government “of the duds, by the duds, and for the duds”—but he was spot on about the pitfalls of capitalism, particularly when it came to the entrenchment of social classes, the fetish of consumption, the frequency of recession, and the concentration of industry. Yet, like trained seals, we continue to leap through the flaming rings of a system that is contemptuous of the public good while rewarding those who feed off “free” markets and the politicians who rig them. Nearly three years after the global economy almost collapsed under the weight of a corrupt and inbred financial order, Washington is still mired between the false choice of the state or private enterprise as the proper steward of the general welfare.
It should be clear to anyone who has lost a cell phone signal in our nation’s capital or been denied health coverage because of a pre-existing ailment that capitalism’s endgame is not freedom of choice and efficiency, but oligarchy. Many of America’s top industries—agriculture, airlines, media, medical care, banking, defense, auto production, telecommunications—are controlled by a handful of corporations who fix prices like cartels. As Marx predicted, the natural inclination of players in a market-driven economy is not to compete but to collude.
Reporting in Asia and the Middle East for many years, I prayed to the same kitchen gods of untrammeled commerce that now bewitch the Republican Party faithful and the neoliberals who inhabit the Obama White House. In Asia more than a decade ago, I covered the liquidation of state assets as prescribed by the International Monetary Fund, perhaps the largest-ever transfer of wealth from public to private hands, as if it were a new religion that would transform economies from the Korean peninsula to the Indian subcontinent. Laissez-faireism, I wrote, would liberate consumers and domesticate once overweening state-owned enterprises.
In fact, privatization merely shifted economic control from corrupt apparatchiks to their allies in business, a transaction lubricated with kick-backs and sweetheart deals. That’s what happened in the Middle East, and it became the spore that engendered the Arab uprising.
The corruption of capitalism in America is all the more appalling for its legality. With the economy still struggling to recover from a housing crisis fomented largely by Wall Street’s craving for mortgage-backed securities, prosecution of those responsible has been confined to a single lawsuit filed by the Securities Exchange Commission against a lone financier. The system is still lousy with loopholes, and the Republican Party, which demographically as well as ideologically is becoming a gated community for white, southern males, is calling for more deregulation, not less.
Which brings us to the central failure of American capitalism: the excoriation of the state.
So deep is the mythology of the free market that we ignore the consequences of starving our schools, libraries, public media, and roads and railways. We expect our teachers to assume the burdens of parenthood and then blame them for failing education. We lament our dependence on foreign oil and the aviation cartels, but we refuse to underwrite a passenger-rail equivalent of the interstate highway system. We disparage the coarse reductionism of corporate-owned news outlets while neglecting public broadcasting, an isolated archipelago of smart, responsible journalism.
Our hostility to the public sector—fountainhead of the Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Los Angeles Coliseum, our national parks, and countless other public utilities and services in addition to the federal highway system—is inversely proportional to our reverence for private consumption. As the economist John Kenneth Galbraith wrote in his 1958 book The Affluent Society, “Vacuum cleaners to ensure clean houses are praiseworthy and essential in our standard of living. Street cleaners to ensure clean streets are an unfortunate expense. Partly as a result, our houses are generally clean and our streets are generally filthy.” Galbraith also noted the uniquely American conceit of sanctioning debt when households and private investors hold it but condemning it when governments do.
Should the feds nationalize banks and appropriate soy fields? Certainly not. At its essence, there is probably no more efficient way of establishing the price of a particular good or service than market economics. Not all transactions are so simple, however, and there are some services—healthcare, for example, or transportation—that often fare better more as public goods than as private commodities. In order to save American capitalism, we must appreciate its limits even as we struggle to harness its power.
By: Stephen Glain, U. S. News and World Report, June 2, 2011
Share This Blog
mykeystrokes.com- “The Unrelenting Hostility Of Washington’s Courtier Press”: The Media’s Crusade Of Scandals Against Hillary Clinton
- “Endorsing This Philistine”: The Christian Right Has Surrendered To Trump
- “Cop Killers Serve No Cause”: It’s Getting To The Point Where No Lives Matter
- “We’re Not Post-Racial Yet”: The Demons Of Our Racist Past Still Haunt Us
- “Ghosts Of History”: Why America Recoils From Donald Trump
mykeystrokes.com 