![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
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.




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)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)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 16:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 16:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 17:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 20/4/10 16:41 (UTC)Boom and bust cycles are really around credit and inventory, not the lack of resources.