Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Inequality and crises: coincidence or causation?
Paul Krugman
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.001
91
3
19
17
19
21
19
25
19
29
19
33
19
37
19
41
19
45
19
49
19
53
19
57
1961
1965
1969
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01
20
05
Top 1% share
Source: Piketty and Saez
Pre-2008: When I would talk to lay audiences aboutinequality, I would mention that we were reachinglevels not seen since 1929 – and that would inevitablylead to questions about whether we would soonhave another Depression. No, I’d say – there reallyisn’t a clear reason why high inequality should leadto macroeconomic crisis.
And then ….
Sources: Eichengreen and O’Rourke, World Trade Monitor
So a return of inequality to 1920s levels was followedby a financial crisis similar to the onset of theGreat Depression. Why? Three possibilities:
1. Coincidence
2. Common causation – e.g., neoliberal ideology
3. Actual causation: inequality somehow createsmacroeconomic vulnerability
Sharp rightward shift in politics in US and to lesserextent UK circa 1980. Reflected in polarization, andalso in policies – including financial deregulation.
Also, strong correlation between political shifts andinequality.
Source: Poole and Rosenthal
Source: Campbell and Hercowitz
So political shifts may have led both to rising inequalityand to a more vulnerable financial system
But might there be a direct causal link from inequalityto macro crisis?
Hobson’s choice: underconsumption theory
Robert Reich: “The problem wasn't that consumers lived beyond their means. It was that their means didn't keep up with what the growing economy was capable of producing at or near full-employment. A larger and larger share of total income went to people at the top.
“So in the longer term, it's hard to see where the buying power will come from unless America's vast middle class has more take-home pay.”
But underconsumption has both conceptual problemsand empirical troubles.
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
19
47
1950
19
53
19
56
19
59
19
62
19
65
19
68
19
71
1974
19
77
19
80
1983
19
86
19
89
19
92
19
95
1998
20
01
20
04
2007
Consumption share of GDP
Modern ideas: overconsumption (and over-indebtedness), not underconsumption
Frank: “The wealthy are spending more now simplybecause they have more money. But their spendinghas led others to spend more as well, includingmiddle-income families. If the real incomes ofmiddle-class families have grown only slightly, howhave they financed this additional consumption?In part by working longer hours, but mainly bysaving less and borrowing more.”
Also see Warren-Tyagi on bankruptcies.
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2001
91
3
19
18
19
23
19
28
19
33
19
38
19
43
19
48
19
53
19
58
19
63
19
68
19
73
19
78
19
83
19
88
19
93
19
98
20
03
Inequality and household debt
debt1
debt2
top1share
Sources: Piketty-Saez, Historical Statistics, Federal Reserve
Politics
InequalityFinancial fragility
?
