Skip to main content

The influence of financial elites

John Quiggin says the critical issue facing America is clawing back some of the money going to the top one percent; in effect, the super-rich have about the only good-sized pot of money out there, and if we're going to have reasonable public services, by gum the rich are going to have to pay for most of it.

Yglesias, on the other hand, says this focus is too narrow:
But a lot of the political dialogue I see online seems to consist of a slightly strange form of class resentment in which intellectuals, nonprofit workers, or public servants express bitterness about the high incomes of businesspeople whose lives they don’t actually envy. No doubt that are millions of working stiffs in America who really do envy Clarence Otis, Jr.’s life and career starting with many of the 180,000 or so other people working for Darden Restaurants. But by the same token, there are millions of Americans who envy the lives and careers of lots of other people who have “good jobs” that are good for reasons other than very high headline salaries. My job, for example, strikes me as a pretty damn good one even though my earnings are meager compared to the NYU professor. I don’t want to quit it and go work on Wall Street. That would be horrible. And it suggests to me that the questions of inequality and privilege in the United States are more complex than a simple chart of the income distribution suggests. What’s needed is to broaden the number of people with access to better lives across multiple dimensions.
These guys look to me to be talking past each other.  I would agree both that taxes on the rich, particularly on capital gains and other loopholes, should be drastically increased to pay for decent services and there are a lot of problems that are simply the result of foolish or inefficient policy—the war on drugs, for example.  But for my money the critical issue about ungodly wealth concentrations at the very tippy-top is what they mean about political influence, particularly in the financial sector.  I've just finished Fukuyama's The Origins of Political Order, and one of the themes running through the book is how societal collapse is often a result the state being unable to resist elites' efforts to entrench themselves and collect increasing rents from manipulating the political system.  It's what got the Mamluks, the Ottomans, old Hungary, Ancien RĂ©gime France, and Imperial Spain, among others.

A lot of liberals are well aware of the unfairness of having a huge and increasing share of national wealth going to a Russian-style oligarchy, but what we are less aware of is: that concentration of influence can destroy a country.  In some cases, elites prevent the state from responding to a changing environment.  In pre-revolutionary France, Louis XVI, facing deep financial and economic problems, attempted to institute reforms under Turgot and Malesherbes, but nobles forced them out, paving the way for the French Revolution.  In other cases, elites hamstring the state so badly that it cannot even defend itself, which is what did for the Kingdom of Hungary in 1241 when it was conquered by the Mongols.  In essence, elites can behave so selfishly that they pull the temple down on everyone's heads including their own.

Obviously, we're not going to be conquered by the Mongols.  The most hazardous domain today—not coincidentally, the area where elites have basically complete control—is the financial sector.  With the drastic acceleration of the flow of information the internet has brought, financial bubbles can be inflated at a staggering rate.  In 2000, subprime mortgage lending was $130 billion per year, $55 billion of which made it into bonds; in 2005, $625 billion of subprime lending was packaged into $507 billion worth of bonds.  That towering pile of imaginary money crashing down is what caused the Great Recession.

Basically, my point is that if America doesn't get a good firm grip on the throat of the financial sector, there's not going to be a prayer of decent public services, or anything else worth a damn.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Did Reality Winner Leak to the Intercept?

So Reality Winner, former NSA contractor, is in federal prison for leaking classified information — for five years and three months, the longest sentence of any whistleblower in history. She gave documents on how Russia had attempted to hack vendors of election machinery and software to The Intercept , which completely bungled basic security procedures (according to a recent New York Times piece from Ben Smith, the main fault lay with Matthew Cole and Richard Esposito ), leading to her capture within hours. Winner recently contracted COVID-19 in prison, and is reportedly suffering some lingering aftereffects. Glenn Greenwald has been furiously denying that he had anything at all to do with the Winner clusterfuck, and I recently got in an argument with him about it on Twitter. I read a New York story about Winner, which clearly implies that she was listening to the Intercepted podcast of March 22, 2017 , where Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill expressed skepticism about Russia actual...

The Setswana Grammar Manual

One of my few successes during my service here was formatting the Peace Corps South Africa grammar manual for Setswana, written mostly by Art Chambers, an SA16 volunteer.  For anyone wanting to learn Setswana, I reckon it's a pretty good primer, so I present it for free here .  If you think it sucks and you want to make changes, or you'd like to take a look at the raw TeX file, you can find it here .

On Refusing to Vote for Bloomberg

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is attempting to buy the Democratic nomination. With something like $400 million in personal spending so far, that much is clear — and it appears to be working at least somewhat well, as he is nearing second place in national polls. I would guess that he will quickly into diminishing returns, but on the other hand spending on this level is totally unprecedented. At this burn rate he could easily spend more than the entire 2016 presidential election cost both parties before the primary is over. I published a piece today outlining why I would not vote for Bloomberg against Trump (I would vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Biden), even though I live in a swing state. This got a lot of "vote blue no matter who" people riled up . They scolded me and demanded that I pre-commit to voting for Bloomberg should he win the nomination. The argument as I understand it is to try to make it as likely as possible that whatever Democrat wins t...