Friday, November 28, 2014

The New Inequality

PRINCETON – From the start, policy responses to the 2008 financial crisis were colored by memories and interpretations of the Great Depression. The conventional wisdom now holds that the world avoided a repeat of the interwar catastrophe, largely because policymakers made better decisions this time around. But, while there is plenty of room for self-congratulation, two features of the post-crisis recovery cast a shadow over the celebrations.

First, despite unprecedented monetary expansion and massive fiscal stimulus, recovery has been strikingly weak and fragile. In the eurozone, the debt crisis triggered a sharp turn to fiscal contraction – and, with it, a return to recession. But, even in the United States, where there was plenty of initial stimulus, the long-term growth rate seems likely to remain well below pre-crisis levels for the foreseeable future.

The faltering upswing recalls the 1930’s, when many prominent economists, including John Maynard Keynes and his leading American exponent, Alvin Hansen, decided that the world was entering a phase of secular stagnation. In their view, the Industrial Revolution’s vigor and dynamism had been exhausted, with nothing to replace it to sustain economic growth.

The second caveat about the post-crisis world is even more alarming. Many countries responded to the Great Depression by adopting policies aimed at reducing disparities in wealth and income. As a result, by the middle of the twentieth century, the extreme social and economic inequality that had characterized industrialized countries seemed to be disappearing.

But, since 2008, measured inequality, which was rising even before the financial crisis, has surged, owing largely to the very measures that are so often lauded for preventing another Great Depression. Non-conventional monetary policies fueled an asset boom, with share prices soaring and property prices in economic hubs like New York, London, Paris, Rio de Janeiro, and Shanghai shutting out domestic purchasers.

As the rich became richer, the middle classes were squeezed by near-zero nominal interest rates, which, in real terms, were actually negative. Meanwhile, working-class incomes were hit by rising competition for jobs from countries with lower labor costs.

Some central bankers like to recall Winston Churchill’s paean to the heroism of those who fought the decisive Battle of Britain: “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.” But, applied to the modern economy, such praise is awkward at best, because it is literally true: the financial system was stabilized by piling huge volumes of debt into a few central banks.

It is not just monetary policy that is having a polarizing impact. Europeans who are considering Keynesian policies are faced with the costly legacy of past public-investment projects. For example, the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens were supposed to turn Greece into a glittering and dynamic modern economy. But, while the games yielded an underground metro system for the city and a reasonably modern airport, they also produced the abandoned Hellinikon Olympic complex and a mountain of debt.

Moreover, critics rightly point to favoritism and other forms of corruption in awarding contracts for such projects. This is as much the case in developed countries like Greece and Spain as it is in developing and emerging economies.

The seamy side of China’s post-crisis stimulus package was ventilated in the trial of Liu Zhijun, who oversaw the development of China’s showcase high-speed rail network – a position that garnered him 374 properties, 16 cars, and 18 mistresses. When his death sentence appeared likely to be commuted to a prison term, China erupted with protests.

Such outrage over corruption is mirrored in the popular unrest sweeping across other large and apparently successful emerging-market economies. Until last summer, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan appeared to be the genius behind an unprecedented economic miracle. Then he announced a plan to replace the tree-lined Gezi Park in Istanbul’s Taksim Square with a replica of an Ottoman-era army barracks that would house a shopping mall, sparking massive popular protests.

Major sporting events have been met with particularly powerful backlashes. Poland was wracked by scandal after the foreign firms that won contracts for the 2012 UEFA European soccer championship took the government’s money but did not pay the Polish builders to whom they sub-contracted the work. In Brazil, protests against the upcoming FIFA World Cup continue, while Russia’s lavish Winter Olympic Games in Sochi risk becoming a public-relations catastrophe.

In short, the political economy of Keynesian stimulus projects can be highly problematic, because ordinary citizens often have no access to their benefits. To a world that is still reeling from the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, with its lurid revelations of malfeasance in the financial and real-estate industries, such high-profile projects look like another fix designed to reward a corrupt elite.

But there is a crucial distinction: what is fueling inequality now is not unfettered capitalism, but problematic public-policy efforts to stabilize economies in the wake of the financial crisis. Capitalist competition erodes monopoly profits, whereas public policy risks creating entrenched privilege. Today, with both expansionary monetary policy and increased state spending prompting a powerful backlash from the excluded and the under-privileged, steps taken in the name of avoiding another Great Depression may end up exacerbating social polarization.

Read more from "Unequal at Any Speed?"

  • Contact us to secure rights


  • Hide Comments Hide Comments Read Comments (4)

    Please login or register to post a comment

    1. Commentedbill greene

      As Basle Jean-Luc points out, the corrupt alliance between Washington, The Fed, The Treasury, and Goldman Sachs, Chase and Citigroup, was the main culprit in the 2008 sub-prime mortgage collapse. This oligopolistic perversion of the free market allowed unprecedented profits for the few individuals most culpable for the financial disaster which wiped out the savings of millions, yet enriched the perps who were bailed out and are now allowed to continue their speculative actions. Itr is ironic that president Obama who rails against the 1%, and seeks to redistribute the assets of the rich, has vigrously enabled the one-tenth of 1% who are the most harmful and least deserving. They get prefered LTCG tax treatment for short-tern investments! They get bailed out for their losses, and keep their winnings. They run the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, and the Justice Department with the main purpose of enriching their bretheren at Golman Sachs, et al. How can a Princeton Professor not rail at this too obvious corruption of our nation, and the related naked theft of the peoples' earnings and savings? He points a finger at "entrenched privilege" and "problematic public-policy efforts" but does not come out and actually identify the problem. Like Basle, I am a Princeton graduate, but lament the lack of clear dialogue about the basic causes of the 2008 crisis from the so=called elite economists there. The importance of unvarnished answers is heightened by the fact that the same corrupt practices continue on Wall Street, setting us up for another crash!

    2. CommentedAlan Luchetti

      "First, despite unprecedented monetary expansion and massive fiscal stimulus, recovery has been strikingly weak and fragile."

      There has not been massive fiscal stimulus. In Europe and the UK there has been been austerity. In the US, states' austerity has cancelled out federal fiscal stimulus that ended in any event when the GOP took the House after the 2010 midterms.

    3. CommentedTom Laney

      Here's a good commentary on inequality. Well worth reading.

    4. CommentedBasle Jean-Luc

      Harold James’s editorial is a piece of casuistic.
      Claiming, as he does, that inequality “surged” after 2008 “owing largely to the very measures that are so often lauded for preventing another Great Depression” is focusing on the tree rather than the forest. Inequality began to rise in the mid-80s in the United States and has many causes.
      Stating that “unfettered capitalism” is not fueling inequality because “capitalist competition erodes monopoly profits” is misleading. Competition erodes profit in theory. In practice, large corporations warped the system to their advantage. The American financial sector is a case in point. Wall Street is an oligopoly with the Federal Reserve’s backing. When irresponsible policies brought it to collapse, it was “stabilized by piling huge volumes of debt” onto the Fed’s books, saving it from bankruptcy with no penalty and/or losses for its executives and shareholders – a clear case of privatizing profits and socializing losses.
      Previously, Congress and the White House had repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 to replace it by the much more liberal Gramm Leach Bliley Act of 1999. Its two main proponents, Sandy Weill and John Reed, respectively chairman of Travelers and Citigroup, later recognized that this was a mistake. The new act is one of the subprime crisis’s main causes.
      “Corruption breads inequality”. True again, but not for the reasons given by Harold James. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup and a few others enjoy near absolute power in the field of finance. All are guilty of massive wrongdoing.
      Concluding that “the political economy of Keynesian stimulus projects can be highly problematic… because ordinary citizens often have no access to their benefits” is another deceptive, casuistic statement. Presumably, Harold James means that the money spent to rescue the banks did not benefit the average American which is true. But, in so doing, he makes the reader believe that the budget deficit meant to soften the blow on ordinary people was a waste of money. This is clearly not the case. This is why the Senate is considering re-stating the unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless.
      All in all, a very weak piece for a Princeton University Professor.
      Jean-Luc L. Basle, Princeton University graduate and former Vice President Citigroup New York (1972-1995)