Skip to main content

One response to this might be "better late than never". Actually, the spin on this story neglects to actually talk about the role S&P actually played in the financial crisis. But, apparently, the geniuses at S&P have now figured out what any normal person would understand: when a few people get all the marbles, not much is left for the others.

So, first, here's how the Times plays this:

Economists at Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services are the authors of the straightforwardly titled "How Increasing Inequality is Dampening U.S. Economic Growth, and Possible Ways to Change the Tide.” The fact that S&P, an apolitical organization that aims to produce reliable research for bond investors and others, is raising alarms about the risks that emerge from income inequality is a small but important sign of how a debate that has been largely confined to the academic world and left-of-center political circles is becoming more mainstream.
Then there are the economists in what can broadly be called the business forecasting community. They wear nicer suits than the academics, and are better at offering a glib, confident analysis of the latest jobs numbers delivered on CNBC or in front of a room full of executives who are their clients. They work for ratings firms like S&P, forecasting firms like Macroeconomic Advisers and the economics research departments of all the big banks.

The key difference, though, is that rather than trying to produce cutting-edge theory, they are trying to do the practical work of explaining to clients — companies trying to forecast future demand, investors trying to allocate assets — how the economy is likely to evolve. They’re not really driven by ideology, or by models that are rigorous enough in their theoretical underpinnings to pass academic peer review. Rather, their success or failure hinges on whether they’re successful at giving those clients an accurate picture of where the economy is heading.

Well, the first part is a shrug.

It's the second part that is stupefying. S&P is hardly simply an academic, non-involved party that produces material not driven by ideology.

As I wrote almost two years ago, Standard & Poor's was found to have “deceived” and “misled” 12 local councils in Australia that bought triple-A rated constant proportion debt obligations (CPDOs) from an intermediary in 2006.

And, for even longer, we've known that ratings agencies are not simply neutral agencies. They, indeed, are centers of corruption, which led the Justice Department to investigate more than three years ago whether S&P improperly rated dozens of mortgage securities in the years leading up to the financial crisis.

Indeed, finally, the Justice Department sued S&P (though, in my view, nothing was going to change because this was a civil suit and no high-ranking company official will pay for any crimes); the suit is currently in court.

So, honestly, this feels like a PR ploy: someone at S&P wants to jump on top of the hand-wringing about inequality. No one is suggesting in this report any changes in the entire financial system.

If you read the report, it's kind of a mish-mash of information--you could collect mostly using Goggle and a day's work.

It has this pearl for example:

There is no shortage of proposals for tackling extreme income inequality. President Obama has proposed an increase in the hourly minimum wage to $10.10 from the current rate of $7.25, and the IMF recently called on lawmakers to boost the wage (though it refrained from suggesting a specific level). Managing Director Christine Lagarde said that doing so would help raise the incomes of millions of poor and working-class Americans and "would be helpful from a macroeconomic point of view" (58).

An increase in the minimum wage would certainly carry with it short-term impacts, likely bringing 900,000 people above the poverty line in the second half of 2016--and, according to the CBO, lifting wages for 24 million workers at the next level above minimum wage. Fewer American households at or below the poverty line would also help bolster government balance sheets and likely improve state and local credit conditions.

But raising the minimum wage is not without negative consequences. Reduced labor demands resulting from higher wages could reduce potential hires by 500,000 jobs, according to CBO estimates (59). Further, while 49% of those workers making the minimum wage are under age 25, the CATO Institute reports that, of older workers (the other half of minimum wage earners), 29.2% live in poverty and 46.2% live near the poverty level, with family incomes less than 1.5 times the poverty line (60).

So, using the "on the one hand this but on the other hand that" approach, these people, who are so worried about inequality, raise the entirely inadequate proposal to raise the minimum wage--which would still leave millions in poverty and is truly meek--and, then, immediately, they try to undercut the campaign with the same bogus arguments foisted by its enemies...and those who lives just fine with inequality.

It does not take a genius to know that when you rob minimum wage workers of $300 billion just in the past five years, and keep wages low and destroy unions, that people can't afford to pay their bills and that hurts economic growth.

This isn't an exercise needing academic research or more argument.

It's all about political and economic power.

But, it is interesting that these people at the center of the corrupt system have to say something about inequality.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Breaking 1924. (7+ / 0-)

    This is why we got the stock market boom of the late Roaring 20's; wealth exploded at the top but was not being shared with the masses. Sure many were doing better, but not enough better to support the growing mass up top.

    So there were commodity, energy, high tech and finally real estate bubbles (sound familiar?) till the people weren't able to support the real estate bubble, and then SPLAT!!

    But unlike 2008, in 1929 government was all Republican, and they governed according to conservative Republican economics.

    --Thereby tripling the losses of the original crash by the time the Democrats swept in in a wave election.

    The stock market as a whole, the claimed focus of the S&P, has always done better under Democrats ever since.

    And yes now that we've returned to 1920's wealth inequity,
    it's hurting the stock market yet again.

    We gotta teach financial experts how to count to 99% in a lot less time than a century.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:49:32 PM PDT

  •  never would have been better... (9+ / 0-)

    glad you posted about this report. the other recommendation in this report (probably the only pure rec) for addressing inequality that suits the 1% is more investment in education. That the authors single out education speaks volumes. it's the only policy "solution" that isn't really a solution to income inequality. It totally lets the 1% off the hook by blaming government and working families. And the 1% take the recommendation as an invitation to investors to plow more $$ in the charter school movement and private higher ed.  

    •  Charter schools are in large part... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action

      .due to the inequality.

      Let's say you're a Big City mayor, and you've raised property taxes more than you want.  You've also raised sales and use taxes dramatically.  You realize that your tax hikes are exacerbating income inequality.

      But for whatever reasons, the operating expenses associated with the legacy public schools continue to increase dramatically.

      If you're the mayor, and someone proposes a charter school materially cheaper to operate than a legacy school, what do you?

      Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

      by PatriciaVa on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:58:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And Energy Taxes would exacerbate Inequality (0+ / 0-)

    No one can dispute that.

    Learn about Centrist Economics, learn about Robert Rubin's Hamilton Project.

    by PatriciaVa on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 12:51:27 PM PDT

  •  Neither Neoliberal Party (5+ / 0-)

    will respond such that the concentration of income and wealth would not continue to increase.

    As with Climate Change, this simply hasn't risen to the level of crisis. Too many establishment types still benefitting to care.

    I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

    Trust, but verify. - Reagan
    Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

    by Words In Action on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:26:49 PM PDT

  •  Tip'd and Rec'd. ... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    emal, Tasini, JVolvo

    ...Here's my version.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 01:40:04 PM PDT

  •  I'm pretty sure I heard somewhere that when (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    the price of labor gets low enough rich people buy it.

    Isn't that how labor markets work?

    The only reason that we don't have more employed people is that employing people costs too much.

    Seriously... Can they really get away with saying that?

    This shit drives me crazy. These economist guys talk in the most bland language and lull you into a sense of sleep security and then let the truth right out of the bag or tell you a bald faced lie like that.

    Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

    by k9disc on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 04:43:31 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site