As the “Occupy Wall Street” movement continues to grow, the response from the movement’s targets has gradually changed — contemptuous dismissal has been replaced by whining. (A reader of my blog suggests that we start calling our ruling class the “kvetchocracy.”) The modern lords of finance look at the protesters and ask: “Don’t they understand what we’ve done for the US economy?”
The answer is: Yes. Many of the protesters do understand what Wall Street and more generally the nation’s economic elite have done for them, and that’s why they’re protesting.
On Saturday, the New York Times reported what people in the financial industry were saying privately about the protests. My favorite quote came from an unnamed money manager who declared: “Financial services are one of the last things we do in this country and do it well. Let’s embrace it.”
This is deeply unfair to US workers, who are good at lots of things, and could be even better if we made adequate investments in education and infrastructure, but to the extent that the US has lagged in everything except financial services, shouldn’t the question be why and whether it’s a trend we want to continue?
For the financialization of the US wasn’t dictated by the invisible hand of the market. What caused the financial industry to grow much faster than the rest of the economy starting in about 1980 was a series of deliberate policy choices, in particular a process of deregulation that continued right up to the eve of the 2008 crisis.
Not coincidentally, the era of an ever-growing financial industry was also an era of ever-growing inequality of income and wealth. Wall Street made a large direct contribution to economic polarization, because soaring incomes in finance accounted for a significant fraction of the rising share of the top 1 percent (and the top 0.1 percent, which accounts for most of the top 1 percent’s gains) in the nation’s income. More broadly, the same political forces that promoted financial deregulation fostered overall inequality in a variety of ways — undermining organized labor, doing away with the “outrage constraint” that used to limit executive paychecks and more.
Oh, and taxes on the wealthy were, of course, sharply reduced.
All of this was supposed to be justified by the results. The paychecks of the wizards of Wall Street were appropriate, we were told, because of the wonderful things they did, but somehow that wonderfulness failed to trickle down to the rest of the nation — and that was true even before the crisis.
Median family income, adjusted for inflation, grew only about a fifth as much between 1980 and 2007 as it did in the generation after World War II, even though the postwar economy was marked both by strict financial regulation and by much higher tax rates on the wealthy than anything currently under political discussion.
Then came the crisis, which proved that all those claims about how modern finance had reduced risk and made the system more stable were utter nonsense. Government bailouts were all that saved us from a financial meltdown as bad as or worse than the one that caused the Great Depression.
So what about the current situation?
Wall Street pay has rebounded, even as ordinary workers continue to suffer from high unemployment and falling real wages, yet it’s harder than ever to see what, if anything, financiers are doing to earn that money.
Why, then, does Wall Street expect anyone to take its whining seriously?
That money manager claiming that finance is the only thing the US does well also complained that New York’s two Democratic senators aren’t on his side, declaring: “They need to understand who their constituency is.”
Actually, they surely know very well who their constituency is — and even in New York, 16 out of 17 workers are employed by non-financial industries, but he wasn’t really talking about voters, of course. He was talking about the one thing Wall Street still has plenty of, thanks to those bailouts, despite its total loss of credibility — money.
Money talks in US politics and what the financial industry’s money has been saying lately is that it will punish any politician who dares to criticize that industry’s behavior, no matter how gently — as evidenced by the way Wall Street money has now abandoned US President Barack Obama in favor of Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney — and this explains the industry’s shock over recent events.
You see, until a few weeks ago it seemed as if Wall Street had effectively bribed and bullied the US political system into forgetting about that whole drawing lavish paychecks while destroying the world economy thing. Then, all of a sudden, some people insisted on bringing the subject up again and their outrage has found resonance with millions of Americans.
No wonder Wall Street is whining.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with