naked capitalism

Hhhm. Even though the UK 50% bonus “supertax” was deemed to be a bit of a failure (the banks just grossed up bonuses to compensate for the levy), Senators Barbara Boxer and James Webb have proposed a similar measure, and one wonders how it might fend off the sort of gaming that plagued the UK effort.

The one-time tax would be limited to bonuses of more than $400,000 at firm that received more than $5 billion in TARP funds. Bloomberg notes:

The bill would affect 13 firms and could raise $10 billion to help cut the federal deficit, Boxer said.

“It’s outrageous that many of these companies are doling out millions of dollars in bonuses while the rest of America feels the pain of reckless decisions,” said Boxer.

By Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns. I hope this is a good subject to discuss in light of the recent Obama Administration machinations regarding Fannie and Freddie, Big Pharma, and Healthcare.

Before the Christmas break, I wrote a post to tie together my thoughts on why I have found the Obama economic program so unsatisfying despite some obvious success in stabilizing the economy. This first part framed the status quo as an unequal division of spoils that has become more and more unequal due to kleptocracy aka looting.

In this post, I want to talk about Obama’s economic policies in the context of what I perceive as a crony capitalism which is now endemic in Washington. As I see it, Americans are angry because the economy is still quite fragile and the personal financial situation for many ordinary Americans is still quite dire. Yet, the so-called fat cats seem more pigs eating at the trough of government largesse. This juxtaposition is galling and undermines any success that the Obama Administration has achieved.

Sellout, bamboozler, or ingénue?

The question is this:

• Did President Obama sell out (i.e. he was a good guy but has been corrupted in short order) or;
• Did Obama find out he couldn’t change the status quo so easily (i.e. he was a good guy who was naive about the President’s real power) or;
• Did the President simply bamboozle us (i.e. he was a bad guy who tricked the electorate with his silver tongue)?

I will assert that this question is irrelevant as it ascribes intent when we should be looking either at motive or outcome. If you do look at motive and outcome, you will see why I will focus more on government’s allowing a purge of malinvestment and less on government’s stimulating aggregate demand going forward.

The Obama Way

First, as to intent, Ross Douthat has an interesting piece in the New York Times.  He contends that Barack Obama is a knee-jerk liberal who believes in working within institutions for change. According to Douthat, that makes him Obama an odd bird who seems a Machiavellian willing to cut any deal juxtaposed with the soaring rhetoric of fairly ideological big government liberalism.

The part I found most interesting is this:

Between the stimulus package, the pending health care bill and a new raft of financial regulations, Obama will soon be able to claim more major legislative accomplishments than any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson.

I think Obama could make those claims as well.  I was going to write about this in January 2010 after Obama’s first year anniversary and after healthcare had passed. But now seems a good time to reflect on this: How many President’s can point to the record of accomplishments he can (prevented depression, stabilized finance, saved auto industry, overhauled healthcare). You may not like his methods. You may not like his results. You may not like him. But, President Obama has actually been quite productive – far more productive in his first year than Bush, Clinton or Bush II.

But, despite this productivity, the President’s poll numbers are falling.  He is not benefitting from any of his so-called successes. Clearly, he is doing something wrong. Is it messaging, process, outcomes – what gives?

This is where Douthat is right on the mark when he says in his article:

The assumption that a compromised victory is better than no victory at all can produce phony achievements — like last week’s “global agreement” on climate change — and bloated, ugly legislation. And using cynical means to progressive ends (think of the pork-laden stimulus bill or the frantic vote-buying that preceded this week’s Senate health care votes) tends to confirm independent voters’ worst fears about liberal government: that it’s a racket rigged to benefit privileged insiders and a corrupt marketplace floated by our tax dollars.

The gulf between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions is quite large and that leaves independents who voted for him quite dissatisfied.

Obama’s Intent

People do want to focus on the ‘why?’ They want to know why there is such a large gap between what the President says and what he does. After the November elections, I wrote the politics of economics, saying:

What experimenters here have shown is that there is a real human need to explain. Things happen for a reason, don’t they?  Why did the stock market rally? Why did Harry do that? Why didn’t we do something to stop this? Why did I vote for that guy back then, when I now don’t like him as much?

To the degree there is an explanation void, it will be filled. The question is: filled with what?

Confirmation bias and the psychology of politics

In politics, how the void gets filled has much to do with philosophical/political predisposition and one’s world view.

This is a mistake.  If you want to know why someone does something, it is better to use preponderance of evidence, the burden of proof used in civil trials, as a measure.

Preponderance of the evidence, also known as balance of probabilities is the standard required in most civil cases. The standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true. Effectively, the standard is satisfied if there is greater than 50 percent chance that the proposition is true. Lord Denning, in Miller v. Minister of Pensions, described it simply as "more probable than not." Until 1970, this was also the standard used in juvenile court in the United States.

As with many issues we discuss, I have started to view this through the lens of intent and motive. In a court of law, intent is the primary difference between manslaughter and murder. In the court of public opinion, a politician who intentionally violates public trust for a hidden agenda is ‘evil,’ but one who does so unintentionally is ‘misguided.’ In general, we like to ascribe intent because it makes it easier to denigrate or glorify the person in question.

Crony Capitalism

This is where cronyism enters the picture. There is a rather large body of evidence demonstrating that the Bush and Obama Administrations have favored large banks in an unseemly way. The same is true for the Congress and other big business insiders like Big Pharma, the Defense Industry and Health Insurance companies.

Witness these posts from the last month alone:

• The less optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis – Nov 2009
• Healthcare insurance industry insider: “We win” – Dec 2009
• Why is Barney Frank allowing lobbyists to gut financial reform? – Dec 2009
• Bank lobbying e-mail: Quid Pro Quo to kill mortgage modification bill – Dec 2009
• Obama and the Fat Cat bankers – Dec 2009
• U.S. forfeiting billions in future taxes to let Citi repay TARP  – Dec 2009
• Gasparino: No woodshed for the fat cats, just a lovefest – Dec 2009
• The phony Senate health care reform bill – Dec 2009
• On releasing Citi from TARP and banking by accounting subterfuge – Dec 2009
• Blodget: Obama suffers because “taxpayer always finishes last” –Dec 2009

I could provide you with a far longer list of posts from the January to April period when the Citi and BofA bailouts were conducted and the alphabet soup of liquidity programs began which Bank of America and Citi were prepared to game.

I said in March it’s the writedowns, stupid. When accounting rules were formally changed to reflect the de-facto accounting policies favoring banks, I knew the big banks were on easy street and The Fake Recovery had begun. So, by April, I said Wells profit forecast is a clear bullish sign.

Don’t even get me started on the stress tests. They were a sham from the start and were merely a means of recapitalizing the banks via inflated equity valuations. They were neither tests nor stressful, as Bill Black has demonstrated.

More recently, posts by Yves Smith and Bruce Krasting confirmed my long-held suspicions that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would be used as a nationalization of America’s mortgage problems via a back door bailout of banks.

The evidence, therefore, tends to demonstrate that we have witnessed an orchestrated campaign by the Bush and Obama Administrations to recapitalize too big to fail institutions by hook or by crook, bypassing Congressional approval if necessary. And when it comes to healthcare, both Congress and the White House have bent over backwards to keep the lobbyists onside. As I see it, our government has favored special interests in the past year of Obama’s tenure to our detriment.

Political legacy

Personally, I don’t buy the line that Obama is a liberal. I consider him more a corporatist (i.e someone who coddles big business). But, from a political perspective, it’s not really relevant, is it? What difference does it make whether President Obama is a liberal sellout as Matt Taibbi claims or a pragmatic corporatist, if the outcome for the electorate is largely the same? Forget about intent. Focus on actions.

As an aside, I should point out the logic likely employed by Geithner et al in bailing out the banks. I gave voice to this last month in the wildly optimistic view of Treasury’s handling of the crisis. Noam Schreiber takes this one better in the New Republic. If you still want a why – this is as good as any:

There’s an interesting back-and-forth between Dan Gross and Tim Geithner in Newsweek’s year-end interview issue:

GROSS: There have been, and continue to be, calls for you to go. How do you deal with those?

GEITHNER: I spent most of my professional life in this building. Watching the politics of the things we did in the past financial crises in Mexico and Asia had a powerful effect on me. The surveys were 9-to-1 against almost everything that helped contain the damage. And I watched exceptionally capable people just get killed in the court of public opinion as they defended those policies on the Hill. This is a necessary part of the office, certainly in financial crises. I think this really says something important about the president, not about me. The test is whether you have people willing to do the things that are deeply unpopular, deeply hard to understand, knowing that they’re necessary to do and better than the alternatives. …

This is a theme I wrote about in my profile of Larry Summers earlier this year. I don’t think you can underestimate the extent to which the financial crises in Mexico and Asia were a formative experience for the Obama economic team–especially in shaping their thinking on the intersection of politics and economic policy.

In his memoir, then-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who both men worked for at the time, summed up his views on the Mexican crisis by citing "the difficulties our political processes have in dealing effectively with issues that involve technical complexities, shorter-term cost to achieve longer-term gain, incomplete information and uncertain outcomes, opportunities for political advantage, and inadequate understanding." Obviously, these same difficulties made a big impression on Geithner and Summers, too. So they were more prepared than most for the political backlash this time around, even if the intensity may have surprised even them on occasion.

The recent Fannie-Freddie end run around Congress demonstrates Schreiber is right about the Asian and Tequila Crisis legacy -  as do the TARP money stimulus slush fund and the earlier liquidity packages.

The problem for Obama politically is this:

At the same time, Obama doesn’t enjoy the kind of deep credibility with his base that both Reagan and Kennedy spent decades building. When Kennedy told liberals that a given compromise was the best they could get, they believed him. Whether the issue is health care or Afghanistan, Obama’s word doesn’t carry the same weight.

This leaves him walking a fine line. If Obama’s presidency succeeds, it will be a testament to what ideology tempered by institutionalism can accomplish. But his political approach leaves him in constant danger of losing center and left alike — of being dismissed by independents as another tax-and-spender, and disdained by liberals as a sellout.

Come 2011, I expect the perverse math of GDP reporting to spell a double dip recession. As the associated economic slowing will begin much earlier, expect to see the disdain for Obama that Douthat writes about exhibited at the polls in 2010.

See also “We’ll Be Judged on How We Dealt With the Things That Were Broken” from Slate to see how Tim Geithner feels things are going.

By Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns

Yesterday, I indicated I would write a few thematic posts as a look back at some of the more important economic topics that this credit crisis has uncovered. Tying posts together in a theme definitely gives a better holistic view of a the themes than the posts do in isolation. But I also enjoy writing this because the review process gives me a better perspective of where we have come from and helps judge where we are headed.

Yesterday, I wrote about economic stimulus. My conclusion was that while stimulus may have helped avert crisis, the process made clear that crony capitalism is alive and well. So, the second topic I wanted to address today was crony capitalism. However, in writing this post, the lead in describing kleptocracy became so long that I decided to cut this into two bits; this first one is on kleptocracy and a later one will be on crony capitalism.

The first post I wrote related to kleptocracy was in March of 2008 called “A populist interpretation of the latest Boom-Bust cycle.” At the time, I wasn’t really blogging very seriously. I had just started two weeks earlier and wanted to flesh out some ideas that I had long considered germane to the understanding of the credit crisis. But, in retrospect, the thesis I developed in this post has become central to my thinking about how the American and global economy have evolved in the fiat currency era.

Kleptocracy defined as the status quo

The thesis was this:

[Jared] Diamond postulates that more stratified societies are by definition less egalitarian, but more efficient and are, thus, able to eradicate or conquer more egalitarian, less stratified societies. Thus, all ‘advanced’ societies with high levels of GDP are complex and hierarchical.

The problem is: these more stratified, more complex societies are in essence Kleptocracies, where those in power re-distribute societal wealth to themselves. Those at the bottom of the society’s pyramid accept this unequal, non-egalitarian state of affairs because they too benefit from their society’s relative advancement. It’s a case of a rising tide lifting all boats.

In short, the playing field in all modern day nation states is by definition unequal. The question is whether this should be tolerated, mitigated or eliminated. An unwritten assumption I made when I wrote the post is that humans are genetically programmed for fairness. My understanding is that scientific studies have convincingly demonstrated that human beings will actually consciously disadvantage themselves to seek revenge as a means of restoring justice and fairness.

This would suggest that a major flaw in neoclassical economic models, especially as regards a self-equilibrating economy, is the focus on rational expectations and efficiency at the expense or fairness and/or irrationality. A neoclassical economist might tell you that a rising tide lifts all boats and it is rational self-protection for economic agents (aka real human beings) to accept inequality for this very reason. But, in the real world, fairness and justice are important as well. And when an economic system is deemed unfair, people will go so far as to hurt themselves economically in order to level the playing field.

Stability of status quo leads to overreach and instability

So, my thinking is this: because of the natural state of inequality endogenous to any stratified society, over time the natural tendency of any ruling elite is to deploy the state’s coercive power for greater and greater self-benefit. I liken this to Hyman Minsky’s instability of economic stability theorem. The stability of power leads to overreach and overthrow. This is a view largely consistent with Paul Kennedy’s themes of imperial overstretch in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

In the post I expressed these sentiments saying:

Diamond says the Kleptocrats maintain power using 4 different methods:

“1. Disarm the populace, and arm the elite.”

“2. Make the masses happy by redistributing much of the tribute received, in popular ways.”

“3. Use the monopoly of force to promote happiness, by maintaining public order and curbing violence. This is potentially a big and underappreciated advantage of centralized societies over noncentralized ones.”

“4. The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.”

Kleptocracy in America?

The obvious corollary of this theory is that most successful modern societies are, in fact, kleptocracies. The key is to use the four methods to gain popular support in order to re-distribute as much wealth to the ruling class as the populace will support. If the ruling class takes too much, it will be overthrown and replaced by a new ruling class (which in turn will re-distribute wealth to itself using the same four methods).

How the status quo maintains the status quo

Let me take these points one by one. I will preface this by saying that, as the stability of the economic status quo disintegrates into instability via economic depression, you should expect the ruling elite to step up uses of these methods of retaining power.  So when I wrote in my Depression piece about “more muscular forms of government,” this is part of what I was referring to.

As Libertarians see it, the right to bear arms is an essential in stopping the elite from maintaining power unjustifiably. Obviously, which arms, when they can be borne and how is a constitutional issue that goes to the heart of American democracy.

The second issue is about “bread and circuses” or what I call the anesthetizing of the populace as ironically demonstrated in this Star Trek “Bread and Circuses” from TV, our own modern-day agent of mental anesthesia.

The third issue is about totalitarianism.  Civil libertarians like myself see the permanent war state as promulgated by the Bush administration post 9/11 – and now maintained by the Obama Administration – as a clear sign that the state’s use of the monopoly of force to promote order is rising and will continue to do so. Eisenhower’s military industrial state warnings were warranted. You can see some of the articles on that very topic here in my bookmarks. And you should note Obama’s poor record on civil liberties.

The last (and perhaps most important) issue, in my view, has to do with the unabiding faith in free markets that many now have. It is with religious zeal that these so-called Libertarians defend the primacy of markets over all else when in reality common sense would tell you that those with the greatest influence and money will always be at an advantage without some check on that influence and power.

How ideology is central to retaining the status quo ante

I think this last point is important. Think of how Diamond phrased this:

The remaining way for kleptocrats to gain public support is to construct an ideology or religion justifying kleptocracy.

The important thing to realize here is that ideology is a tool used to control the masses while those in power re-distribute to themselves. Diamond was probably talking here about ancient societies: the Mayans, Incas, the Greeks, the Romans, Easter Island. But, it does apply quite well to the modern-day. After all, in the U.S. average hourly earnings peaked more than 35 years ago. And we can see that most of the economic gains of the last two decades has been an illusion masked by gobs of debt.

But freshwater economists have this view that the economy is always self-equilibrating and this means government must be held at bay any- and everywhere lest it reduce the efficiency of the free market. This is an extreme ideological position which gained sway in the aftermath of the disaster of the 1970s. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan was an adherent of this ideology despite holding a central planning position as Federal Reserve Chairman which was antithetical to the views he espoused.

Markets are wonderful. A largely market-based economy is certainly more ‘efficient’ than a non-market based one (ask the Soviets). But, markets are not self-regulating. They fail – and catastrophically so. But no manner of real world experience seems to shake ideologues’ free-market zeal. To give you an example of the mindset, Alan Greenspan is reported to have thought that markets could even self-regulate fraud – no regulatory oversight necessary. 

See the video in Frontline – The Warning: Who Knew About the Looming Financial Crisis for this particular revelation and Ms. Watkins, why does Charlie have lit dynamite? for why this is absurd. Even when you think Greenspan has learned something, he proves time and again that he just doesn’t get it. And don’t think he is alone in officialdom. Former Fed official Frederic Mishkin has shown he doesn’t get it either.

Not only is the freshwater view of rational economic agents and efficiency completely ignorant of the role of fairness, it also disregards the very real tendency for power to consolidate over time and to lead to crony capitalism. This is what I refer to as “deregulation as crony capitalism.” I see it as central to the causes of the crisis.

I will pick up on this theme in a later post. Next up on my year in review is a post on crony capitalism in action and how the credit crisis solutions reveal that the ruling elite want to return to the status quo ante. Overreach has been the order of the day and will ultimately invite an opposing response.

As Jim Chanos, who pointed out this Bloomberg piece “Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public,” remarked, “Well, it appears that Goldman’s Best and Brightest may be hedging their goodwill built up by doing ‘God’s work’.”

I’ve heard the expression, “Trust in Allah, but tie up your camel,” but I can’t recall an exhortation that links faith with carrying firearms (although I suppose that gap in my knowledge may reflect a cloistered upbringing). The only heavily armed observant types I can think of in the US are the Branch Davidians, and we know how that movie turned out. Goldman has always been a cult, but one has to wonder what models they are now channeling.

In all seriousness, having grown up in a parts of the country where hunting season (deer and turkey) were a big deal, I get nervous when people who have little or no history of using firearms start toting them. There are rules most people who use guns routinely are taught, and my experience is that those individuals are far more careful than newbies who have seen way more movie and TV gunplay than real world use.

If you are worried about self defense, programs like this one (I’m not endorsing it , just using it as an example) are a safer and more effective solution to the real problem (what good is your pistol if you are jumped from behind?)

End of sermon and back to fun. From Alice Schroeder at Bloomberg:

“I just wrote my first reference for a gun permit,” said a friend, who told me of swearing to the good character of a Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who applied to the local police for a permit to buy a pistol. The banker had told this friend of mine that senior Goldman people have loaded up on firearms and are now equipped to defend themselves if there is a populist uprising against the bank.

I called Goldman Sachs spokesman Lucas van Praag to ask whether it’s true that Goldman partners feel they need handguns to protect themselves from the angry proletariat. He didn’t call me back. The New York Police Department has told me that “as a preliminary matter” it believes some of the bankers I inquired about do have pistol permits. The NYPD also said it will be a while before it can name names…..

Has it really come to this? Imagine what emotions must be billowing through the halls of Goldman Sachs to provoke the firm into an apology. Talk that Goldman bankers might have armed themselves in self-defense would sound ludicrous, were it not so apt a metaphor for the way that the most successful people on Wall Street have become a target for public rage.

Yves here. This isn’t hard to understand at all. Goldman ran afoul of one of Machiavell’s big rules: “Men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.” Or its 21st century variant: “You can take from all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot take from all the people all of the time. ” But the banksters, and Goldman in particular, have been determined to push the limits of those formulas, and are learning, much to their surprise, that they neglected to consider the intensity of the backlash that might result from their considerable success in extracting rents from the populace. Or did they? Back to Schroeder:

Common sense tells you a handgun is probably not even all that useful…As for carrying a loaded pistol when you venture outside, dream on. Concealed gun permits are almost impossible for ordinary citizens to obtain in New York or nearby states.

In other words, a little humility and contrition are probably the better route.

Until a couple of weeks ago, that was obvious to everyone but Goldman, a firm famous for both prescience and arrogance. In a display of both, Blankfein began to raise his personal- security threat level…He keeps a summer home near the Hamptons, where unrestricted public access would put him at risk if the angry mobs rose up and marched to the East End of Long Island.

He tried to buy a house elsewhere without attracting attention…Then, Blankfein got permission from the local authorities to install a security gate at his house two months before Bear Stearns Cos. collapsed…. Blankfein somehow anticipated the persecution complex his fellow bankers would soon suffer. Surely, though, this man who can afford to surround himself with a private army of security guards isn’t sleeping with the key to a gun safe under his pillow. The thought is just too bizarre to be true.

So maybe other senior people at Goldman Sachs have gone out and bought guns, and they know something. But what?..

There you have it. The bailout was meant to keep the curtain drawn on the way the rich make money, not from the free market, but from the lack of one. Goldman Sachs blew its cover when the firm’s revenue from trading reached a record $27 billion in the first nine months of this year, and a public that was writhing in financial agony caught on that the profits earned on taxpayer capital were going to pay employee bonuses…

No, talk of Goldman and guns plays right into the way Wall- Streeters like to think of themselves. Even those who were bailed out believe they are tough, macho Clint Eastwoods of the financial frontier, protecting the fistful of dollars in one hand with the Glock in the other. The last thing they want is to be so reasonably paid that the peasants have no interest in lynching them.

Yves here. For the record, in the 1980s, people in the industry were greedy on a much more modest scale. A nice (and I mean nice, not ostentatious) apartment on the Upper East Side, private school for the kids, summer home, nanny, and a BMW or equivalent meant you were successful. And pretty much all i-Bankers, those at Goldman included, were careful not to flaunt their wealth. There was genuine horror when the story broke that Mike Milken made $500 million in a single year. It was seen as not as a titanic achievement, but as confirmation that something crooked must be up at Drexel. Back to the article:

And if the proles really do appear brandishing pitchforks at the doors of Park Avenue and the gates of Round Hill Road, you can be sure that the Goldman guys and their families will be holed up in their safe rooms with their firearms. If nothing else, that pistol permit might go part way toward explaining why they won’t be standing outside with the rest of the crowd, broke and humiliated, saying, “Damn, I was on the wrong side of a trade with Goldman again.”

In America, it isn’t hard to answer the question in the headline “yes.” The oft recited, “Our employees are our greatest asset” is pure Orwellian prattle; most companies treat employees as liabilities, doing everything they can to minimize labor costs, getting rid of workers whenever possible. And this now extends well up into the management ranks, with most people who are still on the corporate meal ticket assigned responsibilities that would have constituted 1.5 to two jobs a decade ago.

And before readers argue that this is a necessary response to globalization, the evidence does not support that view. If companies were simply responding to tougher competition (in this case, lower cost suppliers from overseas), you’d expect to pressure on wages AND profits. Instead, we’ve seen wage stagnation (save at the very top) with (pre bust) record profits.

If you look at past post-war expansion periods, the vast majority of GDP growth went to labor, in the form of increased hiring and higher wages. The post war average (pre the last upturn) was close to 60%; the low was 55%. The jobless recovery lived up to its billing, with under 30% of GDP gains going to workers. By contrast, the portion of GDP growth that went to profits was an all-time record.

Similarly, as any properly-trained MBA will tell you, companies can compete on other axes besides cost: convenience, product features, speed of delivery, other types of service. And US businesses have a huge advantage: physical proximity to the biggest consumer market. Offshoring and outsourcing create considerable rigidity and risk (more coordination required, which increases the odds of snafus) Some evidence supports the idea that outsourcing is a fad that US companies embraced whether or not it fully made sense. Most companies find outsourcing to be overrated as a cost saver. A former senior executive at Ethan Allen told me there was not reason for the US to cede anywhere close to as much furniture manufacturing as it did, particularly given the cost of shipping (often two ways, since much of the raw materials come from North America). But in Ethan Allen’s case, Wall Street wanted to hear they were manufacturing overseas, and they complied.

Moreover, other countries, equally exposed to globalization, have not seen a squeezing down on workers to the benefit of the top 1% to anywhere the degree the US has, nor is the international pattern consistent with globalization (or other common culprits) being the driver. The Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) group put out a working paper by Andrea Brandolini and Timothy Smeeding with some international comparisons on income inequality, titled “Inequality Patterns in Western-Type Democracies: Cross-Country Differences and Time Changes”:

National experiences vary during the last four decades and there is no one overarching common story. There was some tendency for the disposable income distribution to narrow until the mid-1970s. Then, income inequality rose sharply in the United Kingdom in the 1980s and in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s (and still continuing), but more moderately in Canada, Sweden, Finland and West Germany in the 1990s. Moreover, the timing and magnitude of the increase differed widely across nations. Inequality did not show any persistent tendency to rise in the Netherlands, France and Italy. Commonality seems to be greater for market income inequality: in five of the six countries for which we have data, we observe an increase in the 1980s and early 1990s and a substantial stability afterwards.

Changing public monetary redistribution appears to be an important determinant of the time pattern of the inequality of disposable incomes. Changes in inequality do not exhibit clear trajectories, but rather irregular movements, with more substantial changes often concentrated in rather short lapses of time. Together with the lack of a common international pattern, this suggests to look at explanations based on the joint working of multiple factors which sometimes balance out, sometimes reinforce each other, rather than to focus on explanations centered on a single cause like deindustrialization, skill-biased technological progress, or globalization. Identifying and characterizing episodes and turning points in the dynamics of inequality may reveal more fruitful than searching for overarching general tendencies.

Other factors are that changes in policy have reduced the bargaining power of workers, and to a much greater degree than most realize. For instance, MIT economists Frank Levy and Peter Temin argued that, “Institutions and norms affect the distribution of economic rewards.” The paper combines some novel analyses with a Depression-to-present-day narrative of evolving labor-business-government relationships (one nice touch is a comparison of starting salaries at Cravath versus that of average graduate degree holders to illustrate the rise of “winner take all” inequalities).

Government also gave signals through tax structures and other mechanisms of their view of the appropriate level of labor compensation. For example, when Kennedy implemented tax cuts, the Council of Economic Advisers announced wage and price guidelines that indicated that labor should share pro rata. The paper describes other ways that the government let businesses know that it expected productivity gains to be shared with workers. Again, these measures took the form of guidance rather than intervention, but also reflected prevailing ideas of fairness.

By contrast, a piece today in Firedoglake (hat tip reader John D) illustrates how much values have changed, first with a graphic, and some scathing commentary:

Friday, a group of Trade Associations ran a full-page ad in the New York Times demonstrating their loathing for the employees of their members:

Expensive new mandates on businesses will result in lost jobs, lower wages, less flexibility and higher health care costs.

Let me translate that from scary talk to plain English. Business will dump every last cent of the costs of health care on employees. No business will give up a single penny of its profits to keep its workers healthy. Anyone who wants health care has to pay for it at whatever price the insurance companies want to charge, and business will cooperate in shifting costs to workers. And there is nothing you can do about it. The profits we suck out of your labor belongs to us, and you don’t get any.

Sound a bit like class warfare? It’s not a surprising reaction when one party keeps cutting itself the an overly large slice of the pie, and then adding insult to injury through spurious rationalizations.

Reader and life-long Chicago resident John Bougearel asked me to reissue a post encouraging readers to participate in peaceful demonstrations during the American Bankers Association annual meeting in Chicago October 25-27. The sessions are organized by a coalition of community, consumer and labor organizations and are called “Showdown in Chicago“. You can find more details via the link.

A number of commentators are planning a series of related posts and hopefully op-ed and news articles around this time. William Black and Dean Baker are among those leading the effort.

John Bougearel reacted to something I wrote two days ago:

But per the social psychology research, this “you are in a minority, you are wrong” message DOES dissuade a lot of people. It is remarkably poisonous. And it discourages people from taking concrete action. I was surprised that some people bothered to comment on a post I put up yesterday, calling on people in the Chicago area to attend some peaceful demonstrations against the banking industry during the American Bankers Association national meeting, October 25 through 27. Some people weighed in, saying (basically) “don’t bother”.

I suppose it makes a difference whether one is old enough to remember the 1960s. Because people in large numbers got out and protested, two sets of changes that seemed impossible came about: civil rights for blacks and an end to the US involvement in Vietnam.

His comment:

I will be more than happy to be in the minority and told I am wrong. The truth of the matter is we who object are neither the minority or wrong. Being told such is intended to be dismissive and minimize our voice.

I have reached the point where it is high time to push-back on the message we are being spoon-fed and to educate and promote the message that it is time to push back on the powers that be. We can start with peaceful demonstrations in the style of MLK. What was startling watching the MLK and Malcom X video clips is how relevant their experience of being black in America relates to being middle class in America today. It is high time middle class America finds its voice and is heard above controlled messages press releases leaked to MSM.

We can not, above all, allow our voice to be drowned out by mainstream media and the powers that be who influence what is peddled through MSM. Our voices are certainly not being represented through our votes, and when that happens, it is no different than the early colonists who fought against taxation without representation. Since our votes find no voice in Congress or Capitol Hill, it is time for grassroots organizations to take over the role that was intended for our elected officials.

And I get the pseudo-protest and protest points cited above in comments, and I get the Malcolm X message, but the MLK message of non-violent protest is authentic and not pseudo as some might imagine. There is power in non-violent protest, resulting in change that can be durable and long-lasting. But an effort must be made at a grass-roots level and it must sweep through the nation.

Here are excerpts from the original post:

Dean Baker, a couple of days ago at Huffington Post, called on readers to go to Chicago to participate in peaceful protests during the annual meetings of the American Bankers Association on October 25 to 27. A coalition of community, labor, and consumer groups are organizing this “Showdown in Chicago.”

If you saw Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story, a disconcerting bit was his discussion of a series of research reports put out by Citigroup for some of its asset management client in 2005 on “Plutonomy”. It argued that a world ordered to suit the whims of the top 1% was well underway. The only thing that might get in the way was that the other 99% had the force of numbers on its side.

Sometimes it takes a show of numbers to change the dynamic. As Baker pointed out:

The elites hate to acknowledge it, but when large numbers of ordinary people are moved to action, it changes the narrow political world where the elites call the shots. Inside accounts reveal the extent to which Johnson and Nixon’s conduct of the Vietnam War was constrained by the huge anti-war movement. It was the civil rights movement, not compelling arguments, that convinced members of Congress to end legal racial discrimination. More recently, the townhall meetings, dominated by people opposed to health care reform, have been a serious roadblock for those pushing reform….

A big turnout at this event can make a real difference. Just to review the scorecard, most of the country is still suffering the fallout from the bankers’ irrational exuberance of the housing bubble era. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and other forecasters expect the suffering to endure for years to come.

As we noted yesterday, ordinary people who still have jobs are often seeing their wages cut, while Wall Street, the beneficiary of rich subsidies, is expecting a banner year.

If you live in or near Chicago, see if you can organize others to join you. And dress nicely! One favorite strategy is to dismiss protestors as ruffians.

The economy must be better, because the rich are spending more. I have to wonder how much of the increase in spending is the result of direct benefit from financial services industry subsidies (ie, people working for large financial firms spending more because they are confident they will have a good to great bonus this year) versus indirect (people feeling better because their stock portfolios have recovered somewhat).

From Bloomberg:

Spending in the U.S. on luxury goods and services spurted 29 percent in the third quarter from the previous three months, as consumers with the highest incomes unleashed pent-up demand, according to Unity Marketing.

Spending among 1,067 consumers with average annual income of $228,800 rose to $18,826 each in the three months ended in September from $14,554 a quarter earlier….

The increase was driven by consumers with the highest income levels, starting at $250,000 a year….The wealthy curbed purchasing earlier this year because of Wall Street job cuts, lower home values and volatile financial markets.

“No question that this quarter’s spending increase is good news for luxury marketers,” Danziger said in a telephone interview today. “Many affluent consumers returned after sitting on the sidelines for a year. However, the richest are few in number, 2.5 million households, so competition will be fierce to win their attention.”…

Gains in confidence among luxury consumers, meanwhile, slowed, Unity Marketing said.

The researcher’s luxury confidence index rose 1.6 points to 75.9, after jumping 18.6 points to 74.3 in the previous quarter. That index peaked at 113.2 at the end of March 2006. Its low was 40.3 in September 2008. It started at 100 in January 2004.

Ed Harrison has an excellent post over on his Credit Writedowns blog, following up and elaborating on his “Greed is Not Good” post here yesterday.

To whet your appetite, here it the beginning of “More on greed, regulation, Lehman and the financial industry“:

In one of my latest posts I said “greed is not good.” Quite frankly, I looked at this statement as self-evident in the wake of an economic catastrophe where greed was a defining element. Yet, a remarkable number of people commented in defense of greed; they seem to believe greed is a good thing. So, I would like to clarify a few things about greed in the context of the recent financial crisis and prudent regulation of the financial industry.

Greed is not good

Greed is defined as:

A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed (Merriam Webster)

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth (Free Online Dictionary)

The selfish desire for or pursuit of money, wealth, food, or other possessions, especially when this denies the same goods to others. It is generally considered a vice, and is one of the seven deadly sins in Catholicism. (People who do not view unconstrained acquisitiveness as a vice will generally use a word other than greed, which has strong negative connotations.) (The Free Dictionary)

The obsession with accumulating material goods (Access-Jesus)

Do you notice the commonalities in all these definitions? Excessive, selfish, more than what one needs or deserves, unconstrained, obsessive. You can make the non-judgmental argument as I did that greed is neither good nor bad. But, in what twisted world view is any of this good? Greed is not ambition or hunger or drive. Greed is by definition excessive and unconstrained, and, thus, leads to unstable and suboptimal outcomes. Greed is not good.

Ed discusses how the free market ideology is a religion and serves to maintain the power of kleptocrats and why regulation is the least bad of the options available to deal with the concentrations of power that are inherent features of a stratified society. His post continues here.

The Wall Street Journal story, “The ‘Democratization of Credit’ Is Over — Now It’s Payback Time,” is a solid piece of reporting on how credit that was once offered liberally to lower income consumers has now left a very big hangover. It’s worse than with other income strata for an obvious reason, namely, low income consumers are almost by definition budget stressed, so adding debt to the mix has high odds of leading to a bad outcome (save when used prudently as a short-term bridge, or for a long-term investment, and even then only when conservative cash flow projections confirm the debt service is manageable).

I wish the story had more on how this looked from the lenders’ side, as in what their margins and default assumptions were, but even with the focus on borrowers, the article is revealing. It focuses on Karen King, who admits that, at $36,000 in debt, she had too much of a good time and is now paying for it, literally and figuratively.

But the story glosses over two issues. Of her $36,000 owed, $26,000 is student loans:

Her biggest chunk of debt, $26,000, stems from student loans to pay for her two-year associate’s degree from a community college — loans now in the hands of collectors. The remaining $10,000 or so includes old credit-card balances, debt to a store that rents furniture, utility bills and back taxes. Another obligation is $400 a month she contributes to the rent on her grandfather’s two-bedroom apartment, where her mother, uncle and sister also live.

The story dwells on the lifestyle she had (dining out 2-3 times a week, going to movies) that presumably was a big contributor to the $10,000 she now owes, but skips past the $26,000. Ms. King worked in a shoe store and now drives a tour bus for $13 an hour plus tips. Did that associate degree do her any good in the job market? And I have to wonder if the student debt, which she was not doubt told was sensible (”an investment in your future”) desensitized her to taking on more debt. I admittedly came of age in the era before education inflation kicked in, but my mother recently found one of the old bills from college. I made some crude assumptions and compounded forward the Harvard tuition, room and board forward, and it came a bit over $20,000 a year in current dollars. Ms. King no doubt overspent, but a more important contributor to her current mess is that she threw away a lot of money on a useless degree.

The second interesting bit is she has decided not to declare bankruptcy, the reason apparently being that her impaired credit record has led her to be turned down for jobs. Her debt management decisions are driven by the impact on that scorecard:

When a utility to which she owed $300 offered to settle for less, Ms. King says, she declined, because she was told an overdue bill takes longer to come off a person’s credit report when it is settled for a partial payment.

She rejected any idea of a bankruptcy filing for the same reason. “It takes forever to come off” the credit report, she says.

Before the way to punish debtors was to send them to debtors prison. Now it appears to be to restrict their access to work. Perverse, but effective.

As much as commentators are trying to put a happy face on recent data releases showing that job losses are slowing, it still means that fewer people are working. Moreover, one element of the poor jobs environment that it not getting enough play is the way wages are deteriorating. Some who have full-time work have been asked to take pay cuts to preserve jobs; those who work part time are seeing their hours cut.

A sign of how difficult things are for some: food stamps users are increasingly employed. From the Financial Times:

The number of working Americans turning to free government food stamps has surged as their hours and wages erode…

While the increase in take-up is often attributed to the sharp rise in unemployment – which on Friday hit 9.7 per cent – the Financial Times has learnt that some 40 per cent of the families now on food stamps have “earned income”, up from 25 per cent two years ago.

The agriculture department, which runs the programme, attributes this rise to workers having their hours cut back.

“I’m sort of stunned, it seems like a dire warning . . . that even the jobs people are retaining in this recession aren’t at the wage level and hours level that they need to provide for their families,” said Heidi Shierholz, economist at the Economic Policy Institute….

Less attention has been paid to those still in the workforce, whose incomes are also being squeezed. The average working week is now about 33 hours, the lowest on record, while the number forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time work has risen more than 50 per cent in the past year to a record 8.8m. Wages and benefits have decelerated.

The food stamp data suggest that “the labour market problems are more significant than you would expect, given just the unemployment rate”, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “For me it suggests the consumer is not going to rebound or contribute to economic growth for the next year, as the consumer would in a traditional economic recovery.”

Another implication is that when the economy recovers, employers will first return staff whose hours have ben cut back to full time before hiring new staff, so improvements in unemployment will be slow in coming.