Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

NYT's piece on study "Income Inequality and Financial CrisesFollow

#1 Aug 22 2010 at 8:31 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
Income Inequality and Financial Crises

Quote:
By LOUISE STORY
Published: August 21, 2010

David A. Moss, an economic and policy historian at the Harvard Business School, has spent years studying income inequality. While he has long believed that the growing disparity between the rich and poor was harmful to the people on the bottom, he says he hadn’t seen the risks to the world of finance, where many of the richest earn their great fortunes.

Now, as he studies the financial crisis of 2008, Mr. Moss says that even Wall Street may have something serious to fear from inequality — namely, another crisis.

The possible connection between economic inequality and financial crises came to Mr. Moss about a year ago, when he was at his research center in Cambridge, Mass. A colleague suggested that he overlay two different graphs — one plotting financial regulation and bank failures, and the other charting trends in income inequality.

Mr. Moss says he was surprised by what he saw. The timelines danced in sync with each other. Income disparities between rich and poor widened as government regulations eased and bank failures rose.

“I could hardly believe how tight the fit was — it was a stunning correlation,” he said. “And it began to raise the question of whether there are causal links between financial deregulation, economic inequality and instability in the financial sector. Are all of these things connected?”



The reporter then goes on to say that
Quote:
"Moss is among a small group of economists, sociologists and legal scholars who are now trying to discover if income inequality contributes to financial crises."


The normal economist on the pro business side poo poos this.

Quote:
R. Glenn Hubbard, for instance, who was the top economic advisor to former President George W. Bush, said income inequality was not the culprit in the most recent crisis.

“Cars go faster every year, and G.D.P. rises every year, but that doesn’t mean speed causes G.D.P.,” said Mr. Hubbard, dean of the Columbia Business School and co-author of the coming book “Seeds of Destruction: Why the Path to Economic Ruin Runs Through Washington, and How to Reclaim American Prosperity.”


But if you take a look at all the resent financial Scandals there seem to show a link between them and Bubbles and the widening gab between the rich and poor.

Yes compare to 3th world standards the poor in America are well off with being able to have their TV's DVD players and Cell Phones" But they come with a different standard or living too.

I just got a Free Cell Phone from Virgin Mobile with 200 free minutes a month.It's a basic phone and if I want to send or receive text messages, or access the Internet, I have to buy a prepaid card or have my them charge my debit card. Several Cell phone providers are providing such services using funds from the Universal Service Fund charge on your phone bill.


Since Cell phones are replacing pay phones and many household are now going without land lines, the Lifeline Assistance program, that for years allow those on limited incomes have free access to a phone that allow them to make 30 calls a month, and then 110 cent a call thereafter.

I would have had to go with Lifetime Assistance if I lived by myself. My Daughter gave me a cell phone to use on her family plan, because of she was worry that I would get sick and not able to find a pay phone to call family for help. The $15 a month I pay them was well worth it, as we rarely had to worry about using all the minutes on their plan each month. I needed to get my own phone now, as she is getting a divorce and her husband will no longer keep her and me on his plan. I'm going to miss my old phone with it's keyboard for texting and camera.

The poor often end up paying more for electronics and large household items like beds frames and sofa's on monthly installments. When you're working poor, it's near impossible to save up enough for decent furniture, so they get pray on by Rent to Own stores.

I'm just lucky that I still have most of the furniture and stereo system, that I was able to get when I split up with my ex. Jonwin and I are actually looking at getting rid of at least one dresser and various other small items around the house to make room for everything I'm getting, when my father estate is finally settled. With some painting and wall repairs you would never know I was poor by the antiques I inherited, passed down through the generations. Many of my friends have to apply for a furniture grant to just get a bed when they move out of shelters and into a section 8 apartment.

So what do you say about this, the financial conservatives here in the Asylum?

____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#2 Aug 22 2010 at 10:41 AM Rating: Default
I'd have to say that he's no rocket scientist. Most of the middle class or hopefully not quite the poor have known this all along.
#3 Aug 22 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Tailmon wrote:
I'd have to say that he's no rocket scientist. Most of the middle class or hopefully not quite the poor have known this all along.
I'd have to say that he never claimed to, and that "feeling that something is probably true" means nothing compared to actual facts.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#4 Aug 22 2010 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,053 posts
Here another NYT's piece to add fuel to this thread.

The Charitable-Giving Divide

It also seems the Richer you are the less empathy you have for your fellow man. Thankfully it can be treated by showing films about those less unfortunate then them. Unfortunately the reverse is also true that if you make a poor person free like they are well off their giving decreases.

Just might explain why one party tries to make the middle class think it's well off. They don't want to be pressured into giving up some of their earnings to pay taxes that would benefit others. Like maybe help the middle class send their children to the same college, their children attend.
____________________________
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
#5 Aug 22 2010 at 11:54 AM Rating: Good
You've touched on the Vimes Boot Theory of Economic Injustice here.

Pratchett wrote:
The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice runs thus:

At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earnt thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he, Vimes, could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he, Vimes, would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars.

Therefore over a period of ten years, he, Vimes, might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.

Without any especial rancour, Vimes stretched this theory to explain why Sybil Ramkin lived twice as comfortably as he did by spending about half as much every month.


Edited, Aug 22nd 2010 1:55pm by catwho
#6REDACTED, Posted: Aug 22 2010 at 12:05 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Heh, you must be rich or poor then. And I have to doubt any idiot of this caliber's facts.
#7 Aug 22 2010 at 8:55 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Tailmon wrote:
Heh, you must be rich or poor then.
Swing and a miss again.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#8 Aug 22 2010 at 10:30 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,877 posts
Huh, so they have evidence towards what I kept telling myself all along. Thank you ElneClare, I was hoping to come across some information concerning the disparity between the polar opposites of the financial spectrum. I am sure there are better analogies than what Glenn Hubbard just spewed out though that the republican party can come up with. Associating cars and the economy strikes me as something one would do if they feel pressured to come up with a quick rebuttal to a difficult to disprove statement. Here's hoping that with this coming information that they can come up with a better approach to economics and how to advance it in a more positive direction.

Here's hoping that half the stuff I just typed makes any sense. :l
#9 Aug 22 2010 at 11:14 PM Rating: Good
I think that's a rather premature ejaculation based on the body of evidence so far, Criminy.
#10 Aug 22 2010 at 11:33 PM Rating: Good
*****
15,952 posts
One side of politics emphasises the "trickle down" theory where the better off the rich are, the better off poor people will be. Moss has just discovered the other side of politics' reasoning: the better off poor people are (uplifted to a certain minimum standard of living), the better off rich people and the middle class are.
#11 Aug 23 2010 at 8:13 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
I think it's certainly responable to hypothisize that there is a direct link between deregulation and income disparity. I think it's also reasonable to suggest that deregulation (or missing regulation) can lead to market destabilization.

The author hasn't done any studies to draw any conclusion. Also I think they whole problem is much more systemic than simply deregulation -> income inequality -> financial crisis.

If a person is overweight, smokes, has a stressful job and high colesteral, and also never sees the doctor and then suddenly has a heart attack. You can't conclude that failing to visit the doctor leads to high cholesterol causing a heart attack.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#12 Aug 23 2010 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good
My guess: deregulation contributes to both income inequality and bank failures. If the correlation is tight, it may be that deregulation is either a major contributor, or came along with other contributors (such as changes in the tax policy).

I'm certain we'll see either income inequality or bank failure rate change one without the other, even if the past correlation was perfect. It just means there were policies untried in the past which may flourish in the future.
#13 Aug 23 2010 at 2:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Criminy wrote:
Associating cars and the economy strikes me as something one would do if they feel pressured to come up with a quick rebuttal to a difficult to disprove statement.


Sorry. I couldn't help but chuckle at this one. I'm sure you'll pipe up similarly the next time someone makes a broad "correlation isn't causation" counterargument...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Aug 23 2010 at 2:25 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Sorry. I couldn't help but chuckle at this one. I'm sure you'll pipe up similarly the next time someone makes a broad "correlation isn't causation" counterargument...


Hey, I'm sure he'll be making one of his own next time his girlfriend points out she'd only ever unsatisfied when she sleeps with him.
#15 Aug 23 2010 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
My guess: deregulation contributes to both income inequality and bank failures. If the correlation is tight, it may be that deregulation is either a major contributor, or came along with other contributors (such as changes in the tax policy).


There are two gross problems with the line of reasoning in the article:

1. The assumption that income inequality is "bad". They're trying to correlate three different things, but don't really say why those things are significant in any way. Only some economists think this is inherently bad.

2. Whose deciding if a given time period represents a period of deregulation? The current crisis is a great example of this. Talk to people on the left and they'll insist that it was deregulation which caused the crisis, which in turn is based on the assumption that we didn't regulate enough. Talk to people on the right, and they'll say we regulated too much and it was that regulation which caused the crisis.


So the whole line of reasoning becomes circular. If you are a liberal, you assume that deregulation leads to bank failures and thus always interpret the events surrounding economic crises as having occurred due to deregulation. You will then also look at income inequality, which you assume is "bad", and make the correlation made in the article.

Take away the liberal assumptions about income equality, and the liberal assumptions about what causes bank failures, and the whole theory kinda falls apart.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Aug 23 2010 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
1. The assumption that income inequality is "bad".


I always assumed that you thought that efforts to lower income inequality would lower the total, and were bad for that reason alone. I believe you have advanced that before. That I can understand.

I did not think anyone believes income inequality, alone, is ever a good thing - or even a neutral thing.

I am not talking about relatively small inequality but the vast differences which exist, for example, now in the US.

Further, total income equality would be madness - but not as mad as not caring at all.

I value the economy because it serves the interests of people, not the other way around.
#17 Aug 23 2010 at 4:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
yossarian wrote:
gbaji wrote:
1. The assumption that income inequality is "bad".


I always assumed that you thought that efforts to lower income inequality would lower the total, and were bad for that reason alone. I believe you have advanced that before. That I can understand.


That is correct. The methods used to "fix" income inequality inevitably result in less total wealth in the system, and successively less going forward.

Quote:
I did not think anyone believes income inequality, alone, is ever a good thing - or even a neutral thing.


That's backwards though. The question is whether income equality alone is a "bad thing". Is it inherently bad if personA earns 3 times what personB makes? I don't think so. I don't think you think so. But a whole lot of the arguments surrounding the issue seem to assume exactly that.

Quote:
I am not talking about relatively small inequality but the vast differences which exist, for example, now in the US.


But is that a bad thing? I don't think so at all.

Quote:
Further, total income equality would be madness - but not as mad as not caring at all.

I value the economy because it serves the interests of people, not the other way around.


And that gets to the crux of the issue. It's the degree to which we "care for people". Specifically, poor people. But isn't the better factor to examine how well off the poor person is relative to how they were say 10 or 20 years ago than to simply compare their average earnings to that of someone at the top of the economic heap?

What we are constantly exposed to is statements like "50 years ago, the average CEO earned X times more than his employees, and today it's Y". We're supposed to assume that this is "bad", right?

But shouldn't we instead be looking at the standard of living of his employees 50 years ago compared to today? And if the workers of today are better off, then they are better off, right? That's what actually matters. We should be saying that "50 years ago the average corporate worker lived in a rented home of X square feet, with no AC, and could not afford to drive a new car, while today the average corporate worker lives in a home Y square feet larger, has AC, and can buy a new car every Z years". We might even add in other comforts and such that said worker has today that he didn't have then if we wanted to.


Why focus on one and not the other? To me, it's irrelevant how much the worker makes compared to the CEO. Yet for some, that's the most important thing. I think that's strange...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Aug 23 2010 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
gbaji wrote:
2. Whose deciding if a given time period represents a period of deregulation?

de·reg·u·late
   /diˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [dee-reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA verb,-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to remove government regulatory controls from (an industry, a commodity, etc.): to deregulate the trucking industry; to deregulate oil prices.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to undergo deregulation: Some banks have already started to deregulate.


It looks to me like a period of deregulation is decided by removal of/loosening of government regulations, those are facts and not people's opinions on whether there are too many or too few regulations.
#19 Aug 23 2010 at 5:20 PM Rating: Good
This thread would be far better if we'd descended into puerility, as I wanted us to.

Come to think of it, we never do what I want. You know what? You guys... you guys can't play with my toys anymore!

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 11:20pm by Kavekk
#20 Aug 23 2010 at 5:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
gbaji wrote:
2. Whose deciding if a given time period represents a period of deregulation?

de·reg·u·late
   /diˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [dee-reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA verb,-lat·ed, -lat·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to remove government regulatory controls from (an industry, a commodity, etc.): to deregulate the trucking industry; to deregulate oil prices.
–verb (used without object)
2.
to undergo deregulation: Some banks have already started to deregulate.


It looks to me like a period of deregulation is decided by removal of/loosening of government regulations, those are facts and not people's opinions on whether there are too many or too few regulations.


Except that not everyone agrees about whether a given thing increases or decreases regulation, much less whether a given period of time was marked by more or less regulation. All the definitions in the world don't make any difference if the left thinks that the financial crisis occurred as a result of deregulation and the right thinks it occurred as a result of too much regulation.

Clearly, one side thinks there was too much regulation and the other too little. Which one is correct though? It's purely subjective.

My point is that a liberal economist will use data which follows his own assumptions regarding periods of higher or lower regulation and will thus arrive at the incredibly circular "conclusion" that deregulation causes financial crises and regulation prevents it. And he'll then take that data and correlate it with periods of higher or lower income inequality and OMGZ arrive at yet another completely circular conclusion!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Aug 23 2010 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
But shouldn't we instead be looking at the standard of living of his employees 50 years ago compared to today? And if the workers of today are better off, then they are better off, right? That's what actually matters. We should be saying that "50 years ago the average corporate worker lived in a rented home of X square feet, with no AC, and could not afford to drive a new car, while today the average corporate worker lives in a home Y square feet larger, has AC, and can buy a new car every Z years". We might even add in other comforts and such that said worker has today that he didn't have then if we wanted to.
Yeah, well... fifty years ago, the average corporate worker probably owned his house, even if it was smaller than the average house today.

The average corporate worker today is probably renting, the landlord is probably in danger of defaulting on the second or third mortgage on the property (as well as on the mortgage on his own house), and is probably driving a 15-year-old car.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 5:40pm by MDenham
#22 Aug 23 2010 at 7:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
MDenham wrote:
Yeah, well... fifty years ago, the average corporate worker probably owned his house, even if it was smaller than the average house today.


Probably? You're basing this on what exactly? 50 years ago, home ownership rates were lower than they are today (even with the recent collapse of the housing market, and significant lending problems). And the houses were smaller. And they had fewer conveniences. All of which have quite a bit to do with standard of living.

Quote:
The average corporate worker today is probably renting, the landlord is probably in danger of defaulting on the second or third mortgage on the property (as well as on the mortgage on his own house), and is probably driving a 15-year-old car.


Lol... Are you seriously arguing that a working or middle class person today has a lower standard of living than he had 50 years ago? I'd be curious what tortured definition of "standard of living" you're using there. Readily available consumer electronics products alone has accounted for a massive shift in standard of living. Even if adjusted wages were the same (which they aren't, they've gone up slightly) that would result in a greater standard of living. Even if home ownership rates were the same (and they aren't, they've gone up as well), the homes people live in today are better than the ones they lived in 50 years ago. Yes. Even rented homes are better.


The point here is that we should be measuring advancement by those criteria and *not* by a questionable relative measurement like income inequality between the top and bottom. The former measurement is what matters to us. It's what measures the quality of our actual lives. The latter measurement really doesn't affect you and me at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Aug 23 2010 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
MDenham wrote:
Yeah, well... fifty years ago, the average corporate worker probably owned his house, even if it was smaller than the average house today.


Probably? You're basing this on what exactly? 50 years ago, home ownership rates were lower than they are today (even with the recent collapse of the housing market, and significant lending problems). And the houses were smaller. And they had fewer conveniences. All of which have quite a bit to do with standard of living.
Go away and let me complain about my life in peace. :-D
#24 Aug 23 2010 at 7:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
What's wrong with driving a 15 year old car?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#25 Aug 23 2010 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
TirithRR wrote:
What's wrong with driving a 15 year old car?
Nothing, really. I happen to like the van that we replaced our four-year-old car that got repoed with.

NOTE: I'm working in a job that, 50 years ago (or, for that matter, 20 years ago) would have probably paid well enough to put me firmly in the middle class, rather than in this ******** "barely making ends meet" position I'm presently in. Trying to convince me that the standard of living has improved in that time span is probably a futile effort based on that.

Edited, Aug 23rd 2010 6:37pm by MDenham
#26 Aug 23 2010 at 7:40 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
MDenham wrote:
NOTE: I'm working in a job that, 50 years ago (or, for that matter, 20 years ago) would have probably paid well enough to put me firmly in the middle class, rather than in this bullsh*t "barely making ends meet" position I'm presently in. Trying to convince me that the standard of living has improved in that time span is probably a futile effort based on that.


Well, back when fast food was first coming out, it was a booming business. Now flipping burgers isn't exactly "new age".
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 383 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (383)