Conservatism or Corporatism?

[bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com]

What accounts for the spikes in these graphs? Conservative (free market) policy or corporatist (government intervention) policy?









Why'd average Wall St. bonus pay recently quadruple average annual salaries? Why'd the financial sector recently triple the nonfinancial sector? Why'd the highest incomes recently increase 36 times faster than median family income?

Provide concrete explanations as to how X (policy) caused Y (economic indicator). Point to specific legislation or executive orders.

The liberal position is predictable: The unprecedented extreme growth in the financial sector and increased inequality is bad. Free market policy (deregulation of banks --> derivatives market expansion --> collapse) is to blame.

I'm more interested in the conservative position: How do you explain the unprecedented growth in the financial sector and the increased income inequality? What're the causes? Is corporatism (government interventionism) responsible? If so, how? Do you draw a connection between the above figures and the financial collapse?

I honestly don't understand the conservative position.

Comments

[wyrrlen.livejournal.com]

Well, you're neglecting that income inequality leads to political instability. While corporations may be benefitting greatly in the short term by exacerbating income inequality, it ultimately leads to an environment where it is more difficult to achieve financial success. I'm reminded of the story (possibly posted on talk politics?) of the inequality gap between Saddam Hussein's supporters and the iraqi populace being much greater than the income gap between the affluent and poor in european countries - it turned out that where the gap was smaller, the affluent made significantly more money than where the gap was greatest.

Perhaps I wouldn't call this a responsibility, though. I think it is more of an imperative to maintain stable markets in order to maximize financial outcomes.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Well, you're neglecting that income inequality leads to political instability. While corporations may be benefitting greatly in the short term by exacerbating income inequality, it ultimately leads to an environment where it is more difficult to achieve financial success.

Does it in a first world nation like the US, though? There is some class warfare in political play right now, but we're also a nation where the poor are able to have things we'd consider luxuries, like televisions and cell phones.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

'Well, you're neglecting that income inequality leads to political instability. '

I do not accept that premise as true.

Inequality is nebulous and worth little outside of absolute poverty.