Occupy Wall Street and Washington's History of Financial Bailouts
Protesters in Lower Manhattan are missing the point. The so-called "one percent" actually does a lot of good. It's Washington's willingness to bailout banks that is the real problem.
RUSS ROBERTS is Professor of Economics and Mercatus Scholar at George Mason University. He is also Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and Creative Economist for Econstories.tv.
The protestors of the Occupy Wall Street complain about the unfairness of the bailout, unemployment, and taxes. But to make the U.S. economy more fair, Washington needs to use the capitalist system, not to destroy it.
Occupy Wall Street reminds me of a doctor who sees a patient with a broken arm, decides that both arms are broken, and proceeds to amputate them: The diagnosis is half right, and the cure may be worse than the disease.
Start with the diagnosis. "Us against them" always makes for good theater. But is the big problem with the American economy really the top one percent versus the rest of us? Are we being victimized by the fat cats? The data seems undeniable. The share of income going to the top one percent has risen dramatically over the last 40 years. If the top one percent have more, surely the rest of us have less, right? But as the writer P.J. O'Rourke has said, wealth is not a pizza. If we're sharing a pie, and you get a bigger piece, that does not mean that I have less to eat. It depends on what happens to the size of the pizza. Ten percent of an enormous pizza is more filling than all of a tiny one.
The protesters are right about one thing: Washington has been coddling Wall Street. But they have missed the most important way that Wall Street lives off the rest of us. Programs like the Troubled Asset Relief Program of 2008 are red herrings. TARP did send $700 billion to Wall Street, but most of it has been paid back.
There is a much more important, albeit quieter, favor Washington has been performing for Wall Street over the last 25 years: When large financial institutions get into trouble, policymakers make sure that their creditors receive 100 cents on the dollar...
Related
Jobs growth was slow in May, renewing pessimism about the U.S. economy. Spence, a Nobel Prize-winning economist writes that economic growth and employment in the United States have started to diverge, increasing income inequality and reducing jobs for less-educated workers.
1992 was a year of confusion and drift in the management of the international economy. The numbers for growth, income and employment were bad and public perception turned sour. Uncertain of its standing in the world, the United States provided little leadership in trade or finance. Europe and Japan, preoccupied with their own economic and political problems, were unable to fill the gap. By the fall, a paradox was plain to see: the United States conducted a domestically oriented presidential campaign while evidence mounted that only the United States was in a position to lead internationally for the next decade or longer. As 1993 started there was hope for better days based on U.S. economic recovery and President Clinton's instincts to be an internationalist and a free trader.
Last fall's protests at the World Trade Organization talks in Seattle made it clear that trade policy is no longer the exclusive domain of sheltered elites and corporate interests. Following the example of big business, unions are now going global -- backed by a growing worldwide consensus that freer trade must also protect human rights, the environment, and decent working conditions. The international ups strike in 1997 showed just how effective this new strategy can be.
