Does inequality lead to "decline and fall"?

Seeking to draw parallels between modern America and decadent Rome, Washington's Blog links to this:

A dwindling middle class, the flight of the rich to safer places (think of the recent Chinese and Russian expatriates)... it's suggestive.

The above arises indirectly from Barry Ritholtz's latest piece, in which he lists many economists and professors who also claim that widening income inequality harms the economy and generates boom-bust cycles.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Children's games

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Games_(Bruegel)#

In Philip K Dick's "Minority Report" anthology there is a short story called "War Game" (1959). A foreign power is subverting capitalist culture with a Monopoly-type board game in which the objective is not to get rich but actually to get rid of money and property. In the story, the children love it.

We were given similar messages in the Sixties, ironically by people who were or became millionaires - think of Pink Floyd's song "Money", the film "The Magic Christian" and so on. And as late as 1979, Pink Floyd were telling us "we don't need no education", though all its members were at technical colleges when they met each other. It is as though the long march through the institutions, having installed many bright grammar-school-educated Boomers in key positions, was to end with the systematic discouragement of similar competition from the next generation.

Last week, Julie Burchill wrote an excellent piece for The Spectator ("Meet the new faces of nepotism") on how the ladders of opportunity for the aspirant working-class have rattled up the walls. What matters now (again) is having the right parents:

"Yes, you chirpy Cockneys and you stoic Northerners, not only have the jobs your parents did — making things — disappeared, but the cushy jobs that a blessed few of you once might have escaped the surly bonds of the proletariat by nabbing — modelling, acting, writing for newspapers — have now been colonised by the children of the rich/famous/well-connected, too."

Now, the - well, now they are the underclass, thanks to GATT and Schengen, listen to hard-nosed rappers and play GTA5 with their primary age kids. I do wonder what this diet of violent games is doing to their imaginations and mental model of what society is really like. Perhaps the next revolution won't be students having self-righteous fun.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Inequality rises - tipping point near?

From Jesse

The wrecking crew

Jesse explains succinctly how the financiers are deliberately wrecking and looting what's left of the economy.

The money the government gave them isn't being loaned out, but instead is shoved into the stockmarket to create yet another illusory boom - so that more fees and bonuses can be earned. These are taken out of the system (where do they put their own stash?).

When the share-pumping stops, the market collapses again, less the plunder - so it's lower than before and there's even less cash to act as lifeblood for the real economy.

Meanwhile, the rich are, relatively speaking, richer than ever - even than their counterparts in 1929:

This threatens to destabilize society.

Okay, what's going to keep us up so high?

And another thing

BBC economic journalist Robert Peston recently professed himself "nauseous" on reading of the paltry £9 million per head earned by the hapless Rover Four; yet when I read his book "Who Runs Britain?" this year, I failed to see him confess a similar gut reaction to Sir Philip Green's £1.2 billion dividend raid on Arcadia Group. (Actually, the money went to his wife, who is domiciled for tax purposes in Monaco, but that hardly improves the flavour.)

At the time, this monster cash extraction (done with freshly borrowed money) was more than three times Arcadia's operating profits, but I'm sure the banks that (expensively) approved the loans didn't care. And it was legal.

However, if, in the economic downturn, turnover and profits are savaged, and tangible assets decline sharply in value, and Arcadia becomes very weak, or even goes bust, what will Peston say then? Arcadia Group employs 27,000 people; was it really OK, other than in a strictly legal sense, to put such a heavy yoke around its neck? Had the dividend not been paid - and especially, not been funded by humungous bank loans - what more might the group have achieved? The consolidated balance sheet for 31 August 2008 is here; what will the 2009 one look like?



What are the implications for our so-called democracy when captains of industry become so gigantic, and the rest of us become relatively as insignificant as crablice?

Spiralling round the black hole of inequality

"Economist's View" argues that the Gini Index will go on rising until someone positively stops it:

Once income concentration becomes a reinforcing cycle of the kind we are witnessing, it is never stopped by pure market forces. Only extensive government intervention, of the kind that will inevitably create high controversy, reverses this trend.

Read the rest of Mark Thoma's piece here.

Income mobility and income structure

A chewy piece from Professor Perry about the widely-held perception that the American middle class has essentially gotten nowhere since 1980. The research he discusses purports to show that large numbers of individuals have moved up and down between income brackets.

Elsewhere, I've read that the middle earning bracket as a whole has not advanced, and the top end has become wildly richer. But if individuals can progress up this ladder, does it matter that the gap between the rungs has stretched?

Massive inequality

I've said more than once that the housing market is segmented geographically and by price bracket, so discussion of house price movements in aggregate is not very helpful.

The same can be said of the savings rate, and here Andrew Kaplan plays with figures to show that US income is so unequally distributed that the top 1% could theoretically account for all the savings in the US. It is getting dangerous, I feel - I sense (I hear) among many ordinary people an inchoate rage against the financial elite, as well as against the remote political class that services them.

This concentration of wealth and power is exactly what sparked the American revolt of the 1770s. But a colonial secessionary war is quite different from a civil war; making peace after the latter is much harder. "O Freunde, nicht diese Töne."

... and the money trickles up

... Americans will thus pay for the TARP and low interest rate subsidies to their financial rulers with erosion in the purchasing power of the dollar. What we are experiencing is a massive redistribution of income from the American public to the financial sector.

- Paul Craig Roberts (htp: Jesse)

I see a bad moon rising

... sang Creedence Clearwater Revival. And as Panzner points out, inequality and growing poverty are factors that destabilise society.

He reproduces a graph (see below) that shows inequality is now higher than it was just before the Crash of 1929. The line also suggests that the rich do get hurt when the economy goes down - but they still do very well compared to the "ordinaries":

See where the least inequality came? Around 1980 - just when "it was decided" that lending and debt should take off and power a generation-long series of bubbles. Please see below my graph from June, which shows that political conservatives can be far from conservative when it comes to handling the nation's finances:

Social implications of advancing technology

... the economic problems of the future will not be about growth but about something more nettlesome: the ineluctable increase in the number of people with no marketable skills, and technology's role not as the antidote to social conflict, but as its instigator.

The battle will be over how to get the economy's winners to pay for an increasingly costly poor. ... In a future with higher taxes, the divide between rich and poor would be the central economic challenge.

- Economist's View

We're in for a big theoretical debate with highly practical consequences. Liberty, individualism, redistribution of wealth, where the wealth comes from in the first place, what is the Good Life... There must be somewhere between Goldman Sachs and Karl Marx. I don't like the two-party State (cosy-cosy) and I don't like bipolar philosophy.

Nail on head

The cure will be to increase the median wage, and to stop the transfer of the national income to fewer and fewer hands. For that is how the system is set up today. It is not the result of 'free markets' but a sustained transfer of wealth through regulatory and tax policies, and a pernicious corruption of the nation most significantly starting in 1980, although a case has been made for 1913.

- Jesse

What's happening to houses?

Mish gives us a few interesting graphs on the US housing market and asks whether it's hit bottom yet. I did leave a comment but it disappeared, so here's the gist:

It looks as if most of the air has come out of the balloon - in the US. Houses doubled in 5 years, and in some cities have now halved again.

As the tide recedes, it uncovers evidence that the market is segmented - look for example at New York compared to the others. The "best" areas are holding up better, and I'll bet the best houses within those areas ditto.

I think this segmentation will continue to be important, because of growing inequalities of wealth. This has been going on over there since 1980, but also historically (as Fischer in "The Great Wave" points out) the rich get comparatively richer in times of crisis.

I also think that the not-the-best-but-better-than-average housing sector will enjoy support for some time, because I suspect that there are not a few people downshifting from the most sought-after areas. These will be aware that they could have got more if they'd sold in 2007 (when I was mooting a caravan to my dearest), but have still done okay and so will not haggle too hard to get that nice little place in the country, especially since many sellers are hanging on stubbornly, waiting for an upturn.

Here in the UK, we have much less land available for residential development, and nothing like the oversupply of housing that exists in the US, so quite possibly our house price bottom will not be so deep. Of course, if our government hadn't encouraged the (legal and illegal) import of masses of poor people who also need a roof over their heads, the picture might have been somewhat different.

In both countries, we still face long-term economic decline; lower real wages as we continue to lose our manufacturing sector, higher energy and food prices and so on. So I expect house prices to continue their decline in real terms over the next generation.

On average, that is. I think we can take the Blair's real estate coup in Connaught Square as not untypical of what will happen in the best end of the market. Speaking of whom, I note that Tony's practising the "sneer of cold command" these days. Pitiable, really.

Where did the funny money go?

A few days ago, I charted American public debt in the 2oth century. I also wrote to the Spectator (they didn't publish) to point out that Ronald Reagan and the Bushes were far from conservative when it came to fiscal matters, and that this did not result in benefit to the average American.

Now I come across a graph that makes it plain:

I suppose much the same happened here in the UK. So that's why we got all those posh-cooking and property-in -Provence TV programmes. We were encouraged to dream about the top echelon, not try to join them. As Eva Peron said, "I am taking the jewels from the oligarchs for you"; but somehow we never got to wear them ourselves. Not unless we went into hock for them.

This Wiki entry on the Gini coefficient remarks "Overall, there is a clear negative correlation between Gini coefficient and GDP per capita; although the U.S.A, Hong Kong and Singapore are all rich and have high Gini coefficients." Perhaps there is going to be a reversion to the standard international model: a poorer USA with a high Gini coefficient. Or (same source) a reversion to the social stratification of 1929:

"Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:

1929: 45.0 (estimated)
1947: 37.6 (estimated)
1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
1970: 39.4
1980: 40.3
1990: 42.8
2000: 46.2
2007: 46.3"

This blog projects a Gini convergence between the USA and Mexico - perhaps it makes sense, on the reversion-to-mean basis:

How central market intervention increases inequality

This extract (highlight mine) from Robert P. Murphy's essay on the Mises Institute website explains some of the process whereby hard times help the rich get richer and the poor, poorer:

If the Fed doubles the money supply, in the long run, that will roughly double the prices of all goods and services. But if the Fed restricts the injection of new money into only the hands of a few privileged recipients, those people will be at a fantastic (albeit temporary) advantage relative to everyone else in the economy. They will get their hands on the billions in new dollars, while prices still reflect the old reality. The new money will then flow from sector to sector, pushing up prices as it ripples throughout the economy. But the last people in line receiving the new influx of twenty- and hundred-dollar bills will be much poorer than others, once prices settle down. Their paycheck was the last to rise, while they watched helplessly as more and more prices began doubling.

Conspiracy, not c*ck-up

Michael Hudson sees the current crisis as deliberately fomented, and intentionally anti-democratic (htp: Anon, on Nourishing Obscurity). The economic is now shading into the political:

What do you mean “failure”? Your perspective is from the bottom looking up. But the financial model has been a great success from the vantage point of the top of the economic pyramid looking down. The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy. From their point of view, their power has exceeded that of any time in which economic statistics have been kept.

You have to realize that what they’re trying to do is to roll back the Enlightenment, roll back the moral philosophy and social values of classical political economy and its culmination in Progressive Era legislation, as well as the New Deal institutions. They’re not trying to make the economy more equal, and they’re not trying to share power. Their greed is (as Aristotle noted) infinite. So what you find to be a violation of traditional values is a re-assertion of pre-industrial, feudal values. The economy is being set back on the road to debt peonage. The Road to Serfdom is not government sponsorship of economic progress and rising living standards; it’s the dismantling of government, the dissolution of regulatory agencies, to create a new feudal-type elite.

Meanwhile, Karl Denninger makes his case for the perpetrators of the credit crunch to be penalized under the US laws relating to mail fraud.

Am I the idiot, or are they?

For years, at least since the Reagan era, we in the US have heard the Republican Party mantra that the answer to growing the economy is to cut taxes for the richest, since they will 'invest in business'.

It never made sense to me, especially as I saw such a transfer of wealth to those same rich people, who spent their money on luxury imported goods. Incomes for the middle and lower class barely kept pace with inflation, even as industry became ever more efficient.

Today, thanks to posts here and elsewhere, I finally realized what is wrong with the claim above: buying stocks does not 'invest in a company', unless you are buying stock directly from that same company. All it does is put money in the pockets of the stockbrokers, while you have a piece of paper that must rise in value by profit plus fees, and find another sucker to buy it. The real estate market is no different.

Nonetheless, all of the experts that I have talked with over the years insisted that I simply didn't understand, implying that I was an idiot. Am I?

A glimpse from the rich man's coach

Here is a letter to the NYT from the insouciant Don Boudreaux. Unfortunately the comments to this piece on Cafe Hayek are closed - I wonder why? So I'll have to note here that it stirred a memory...

‘Now, you know,’ said Mr. Bounderby, taking some sherry, ‘we have never had any difficulty with you, and you have never been one of the unreasonable ones. You don’t expect to be set up in a coach and six, and to be fed on turtle soup and venison, with a gold spoon, as a good many of ’em do!’

Hard Times, by Charles Dickens

And another, from Shaw's Pygmalion:

I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.' But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.

The American Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal", and of course it was obvious even then that they are not so, whether by birth, upbringing, education or natural talent. Not, in those senses; but the bold defiance of Nature and Society represented by the libertarian revolution of America, and of revolutionary France, is that they have, they should be given, equal dignity, as of right.

And unless a tenured economics professor who boasts of not voting, in a colony that rebelled on the principle of "no taxation without representation", wishes to see the poor squashed while the rich loot the country without fear of retribution, he will need to develop his thesis somewhat.

I do not see how a country can be composed exclusively of the well-off, nor can I imagine how, given all their disadvantages, the poor may rise up as one and join the middle class. There will always be inequality, so our debate should be about setting a minimum standard for the poorest, while motivating them to better themselves if they possibly can. That's certainly a circle that will take some squaring, and a benefit-trap-riddled Britain can scarcely present itself as a model answer.

But I don't see how air conditioning and two cars (what? all poor families?) quite make up for the miseries of ill-health, disability and a shorter lifespan. And it's not entirely down to consciously-made bad choices, in quite the way Mr Boudreaux implies. The ideal-world notion of rational choice has to take into acount real-world limited intelligence, inadequate information, poorer education and in many cases disharmonious emotional constitutions produced by poor parenting, lousy neighbours, failing schools and fear of crime and destitution.

Dives should not look down upon Lazarus.

Big rewards for corporate failure

Wikipedia reports that chief executive Angelo Mozilo cashed in over $400 million (about a third of it in 2006/7) in Countrywide Financial stock before the failing lender's purchase by Bank of America this month. Karl Denninger's latest dramatic video presentation says, in effect, that bankers looted the system for personal gain and are now trying to get the taxpayer to foot the bill.

Investment wise owl Christopher Fildes has long advocated that, if they expect a bonus when things go well, directors should pay a "malus" when the company suffers. The French already use a bonus/malus system as a stick-and-carrot for car drivers.

Maybe then I'd be more reconciled to gross inequalities of wealth.