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

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Without putting to fine a point on it, do you think in that scenario, that my million dollars and nice car, could prevent you using your trillion dollars to buy judgements in court to your favour, to create political smear campaigns that discredits me which I don't have the funds to fight, or even to have me killed with virtually no chance of consequences to you, for instance?

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, I don't.

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

And you don't think that's a problem? Which the greater the disparity, the greater this problem becomes?

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You're working under the assumption that I accept your premise as valid in this circumstance.

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[mrsilence.livejournal.com]

Which particular assumption?

a) High relative wealth = high relative socio-political power
b) Power corrupts
c) Or?

Re: I think you need to check your adages

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Actually having $100 in the bank can in many cases lead to your winning judgments in court in the US.

In many cases a poor person merely needs to be harmed and sue a rich person or company and they will be awarded a judgment even if the defendant is judged to not be at fault merely on the grounds that said defendant was involved and can afford to pay.

This is not universal but it certainly exists.

The same is true on the political front. Your trillion dollars in the bank could not have bought John McCain the presidency, but a relatively speaking poor man (net wealth of only a few million) was able to win it on the basis of his charisma, charm, and skill at running a campaign.

Yes, wealth gets you power in the US but it is nowhere near the direct correlation that it is in places like Cuba or Nigeria.