[identity profile] bord-du-rasoir.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] talkpolitics
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.

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 15:51 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
Good thread...which means it won't last very long, unfortunately.

I'll add something that baffles me:

The reliance and even worship of the free market, it seems, is predicated on the need for continued economic growth. In a closed system - there are only so many resources, after all - isn't continued growth anathema to sustainable living conditions? I mean, if it's such a horrible thing to have "negative growth" (a hideous euphemism among many in economics), then why don't those who espouse the free market ever do something to prepare for these inevitable reversals? The cycle is called "boom AND bust", isn't it? It seems frightfully nearsighted and narrow-minded to demand continual growth without realizing that recession is inevitable.

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 16:07 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] verytwistedmind.livejournal.com
Then what do you think would be more appropriate? A controlled market?

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 16:10 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] htpcl.livejournal.com
A father-knows-best state.

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 16:26 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ddstory.livejournal.com
Isn't it possible to moderate markets without outright controlling them? "Here are your limits. Now go play."

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 17:04 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] the-rukh.livejournal.com
Yes, but children don't like being told they can't play in the street.

(no subject)

Date: 20/4/10 16:41 (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mikeyxw.livejournal.com
Growth usually comes from doing more with the resources that you have rather than getting more resources. For example, developed economies tend to generate much more GDP for the same amount of energy. We're constantly getting more efficient in reducing the amount of labor and raw materials used to make stuff. This makes everyone richer, as the supply of stuff increases faster than the number of consumers.

Boom and bust cycles are really around credit and inventory, not the lack of resources.

Credits & Style Info

Talk Politics.

A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods

DAILY QUOTE:
"Someone's selling Greenland now?" (asthfghl)
"Yes get your bids in quick!" (oportet)
"Let me get my Bid Coins and I'll be there in a minute." (asthfghl)

May 2025

M T W T F S S
   12 3 4
56 78 91011
12 13 1415 161718
19202122 232425
262728293031 

Summary