The other day I spoke with University of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan. Rajan made a big splash at Jackson Hole back in 2005 when he stood up in front of a room full of prominent economic policy makers and gave a speech about all the risk that was building up in the financial system. He said we could be headed for serious problems. The crowd scoffed. He was entirely right.
Rajan has a new book out in which he argues that during the post-crisis clean-up we've been failing to take into account many of the underlying dynamics that led to collapse. As a consequence, the worldwide economy is still under threat. Some of the fault lines, as he calls them, are old hat: various countries' trade surpluses and deficits, for example. Some are much more provocative. For instance, he argues that the easy credit which fed the housing boom was partly the result of U.S. politicians not wanting to take the time to more substantively address the problem of growing income inequality. Here's a snippet from our conversation:
You write that growing income inequality in the U.S. fed the housing and financial crises. How so? People at the 90th percentile of income distribution, typically your office managers, are pulling away"”in terms of income"”from people at the 50th percentile of the distribution, typically your grocery shop clerk or manufacturing worker. Much of this is because of education. People with high school degrees and those without high school degrees are falling behind those who have a bachelor's degree and those who have higher degrees. The educational system hasn't kept up with the demand for highly skilled workers, and housing credit was an easy solution to that problem. People looking at their rising house prices pay less attention to their stagnant paychecks. This wasn't Machiavellian, but it was the path of least resistance. Bush called it the ownership society, and Clinton called it affordable housing, but they both focused on making loans for housing.
Is there historical precedent for using cheap credit as a political palliative, as you call it? Absolutely. Both across countries and within the United States. In many ways, farmers toward the end of the 19th century were falling behind the rest of the population. A big piece of the Populist platform was to push for more credit. The result was a tremendous expansion of banks in the early 20th century. Some would argue that the immense extension of credit to the farm sector in the 1910s and 20s was a precursor to the Great Depression.
So what's a better way of dealing with income inequality? To tackle the problem at the source. A large part of the population doesn't have the skills to compete in the modern economy. It's partly that they haven't kept pace with the technological change that's happening, and it's partly that people in the rest of the world are competing with them now. Being unskilled in the United States is a recipe for a life of stagnant wages and lots of uncertainty; we need to provide better skills to the population. One of the numbers that I cite, which is frightening, is that the fraction of people graduating from high school hasn't increased over the past 30 years. But it's not just fixing the schools, it's about families and the communities kids grow up in. It's a very big social problem, and that's why politicians say, "It's going to take too long to tackle this, let's try something else."
The entire Q&A will be going up on Time.com, and I'll link to it once it does.
In the meantime, I thought it might be interesting to toss out another one of Rajan's less-than-mainstream ideas: getting rid of deposit insurance. This didn't make it into the Q&A, but we chatted about it briefly.
Rajan's argument is that deposit insurance ensures a steady flow of cheap financing to banks"”it's essentially a government subsidy. The bigger the banks grow, the more subsidy they get. It's a back-door way of encouraging largeness.
Now, Rajan is not one of those economists who thinks having really big banks is inherently a bad thing. As he points out, after the Depression we thought have thousands of geographically dispersed small banks was the problem.
Nonetheless, he is against government gently nudging banks to get bigger and bigger, as, he holds, it does through deposit insurance. So we should get rid of it.
Well, not entirely. If we had no deposit insurance, then everyone would flock to the banks deemed the safest"”probably the big ones. In order to preserve the very important presence of smaller, community banks, they would still get to offer deposit insurance for their accounts. Eventually, though, as deposits at a bank grew, that would phase out. Banks could still offer savings and checking accounts, but they'd probably have to pay people more in interest to attract their money. As banks grew larger, so would their cost of capital. That would act as a natural break on growth.
When I first heard this idea, I was pretty opposed. That was partly because I am wary of one of Rajan's corollary arguments"”that deposit insurance isn't nearly as important to individuals now that they have the alternative of investing in super-safe money market mutual funds. Maybe I would have bought this before the financial crisis, but, as you may recall, the Reserve Fund "broke the buck" because it held commercial paper from Lehman Brothers. When that happened, such panic ensured that the FDIC rushed in to guarantee money market mutual funds.
Although I suppose you could argue that the government would do that again. And that a once-a-generation government guarantee would be better than an on-going one.
"The educational system hasn't kept up with the demand for highly skilled workers [...]"
What does this mean? What are highly skilled workers?
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
I think people put money in the bank because it is safe and liquid. Remember hearing of those who lost money in the bank runs of the depression and never did trust a bank after that. Every Friday night we can see a list of the Banks shut down after closing that day. I don't think removing that deposit insurance will inspire any confidence in this economy. Unfortunetly we have been losing manufactoring jobs for decades and even if all would complete a college education which they couldn't, where would they all apply there talent. I love to hear ideas but running low on hope.
You hit my feeling too... My hope is running low lately... I keep coming back in my mind to the fact that median incomes have stagnated which led to all that easy credit to maintain consumption levels... and now the savings rate has gone back down to 3%... and as you mention, the loss of manufacturing jobs...
I still think capacity utilization will stall out at 78% or below for many many years... Think about the consequences of that... 78% in the past only happened during recessions...and if it is now the best we can do !!!???
I see income inequality as a big factor in all this...
Of course, deposit insurance should be modified; it is too nonsensical and distortional as it now works. First, no depositor should get interest on the last six months of a deposit in a failed bank. As it is now, depositors simply look for the highest interest rate, confident that, if the bank fails, they will still win. If they invest in a financially risky bank for the high return and it fails, they should forfeit any return. Makes depositors a little more cautious about simply going after the highest return. Secondly, banks over $100 billion in deposits should not be in the FDIC. They can arrange other ways to prove their prudence and solvency. If depositors find the FDIC coverage more attractive, well that just means that banks won't become too big to fail. Your point that the money market bailout was a once in a lifetime event is not valid. The Feds have now demonstrated that they back money market funds if they are too big to fail, and the Feds have not shown what the threshold is. So they will have to step in for all failures. This is a disaster for moral hazard reasons. And the Fed has done nothing to address the issue. So these money fund depositors are plunging into the most risky funds for an extra 0.1% per year, confident that the Fed will keep them whole. And the guarantee seems to extend to covering commercial paper from insolvent firms. Quite an extension of FDIC. When will the Fed convince investors that these interventions will never, ever, be repeated. My idea would be that a first step would involve no payouts of Fed funds to foreign entities and no payout to a US entity which exceeds the federal tax payments it has made in the previous five years. This would sharply reduce the shenanigans in the global financial markets - -perhaps even introduce a little prudence. The odds of any rational idea coming out of Washington are below zero - that is, only irrational ideas will come out. The banking industry owns Washington. $600 million in lobbying on the financial reform suggests that the economic rents are worth $60 billion, using the rule of thumb that US politicians can be bought for 1% of the rents. They are cheaper than in other corrupt countries.
Barbara, per your comment "If we had no deposit insurance, then everyone would flock to the banks deemed the safest"¦" and stephenpoo's reply of why people put money in banks, would we have to change bank disclosure rules / practices? Currently, how can we tell if our banks are safe? They don't disclose much, not even when they borrow short-term funds from Fed (Bernanke has admitted this before). I understand the risk of bank runs if everyone must disclose their real conditions, but it's our money and we have the right to know the safety of our banks. Thoughts, Barbara? (thanks)
Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.
The Curious Capitalist Favorite Links Barry Ritholtz Brad DeLong Calculated Risk Econbrowser Econlog Epicurean Dealmaker Ezra Klein Felix Salmon Floyd Norris Greg Mankiw Growthology James Pethokoukis John Gapper Justin Fox Marginal Revolution Mark Thoma Matt McAlister Megan McArdle Mike Moffatt Nicholas Carr Paul Kedrosky Paul Krugman Philip Coggan Planet Money Roger Parloff Ryan Avent The Stash adFactory.getCmAd(300, 250, "global", "tout").write(); adFactory.getCmAd(300, 100, "article", "tout").write(); ArchiveMay 2010SMTWTFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 More News from Our Partners CNN Google unveils 'multimillion-channel' TV Long-lost brothers reunite via Twitter Facebookers respond to 'Draw Mohammed Day' Huffington Post Lloyd Chapman: Department of Energy Surrenders in Legal Battle for Bechtel Contracting Data Marc Stoiber: Sustain-enable: Why are companies sharing their green innovation? Wall Street Power Play: Bankers In Bizarre Showdown With Auto Dealers DailyFinance.com Facebook Shared Personal Data With Advertisers Without User Consent California Gold: BrightSource Raises $150 Million for Solar Books-A-Million Revenue Dips in First Quarter Without Rotten Tomato Total Recall: Saturday Night Live Movies RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: Invictus and The Messenger New Images For Despicable Me Life In Praise of the Typewriter RARE: The Night Marilyn Sang to JFK Space Shuttle Atlantis: Last Flight More on TIME.com » Scientist Creates Life. That's a Good Thing, Right? Dennis Blair Departs DNI, The Position Still Poorly Defined How Facebook Is Redefining Privacy Quotes of the Day » "I do not believe Malawi is ready at this point in time to see its sons getting married to other sons." NYAKWAWA USIWA USIWA, a Malawi judge, sentencing two gay men convicted of unnatural acts and gross indecency to 14 years of hard labor in prison, the maximum penalty allowed by law More Quotes » var ad = adFactory.getAd(88, 31); ad.setPosition(13) ad.write(); Today in Pictures » Aftermath Stay Connected with TIME.com Learn More » Subscribe to RSS Feeds Sign Up for Newsletters Add TIME Widgets Read TIME Mobile on Your Phone Become a Fan of TIME Get TIME Twitter Updates adFactory.getCmAd(115, 42, "homepage", "tout").write(); © 2010 Time Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | TIME For Kids | LIFE.com Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map TiiAdTrackRevSci(); function tiQuantcast() { } _qoptions={ qacct:"p-5dyPa639IrgIw", labels:tiQuantcast() } Powered by WordPress.com VIP var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-10268691-1"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} /* */ #wpcombar a#wpl-like-this { outline: none } #wpcombar a#wpl-like-this em { font-style: normal } #wpcombar a#wpl-like-this strong { font-size: 14px; } #wpcombar a.loading strong { display: none; } #wpcombar a.loading { background: url( http://wordpress.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/like/images/ajax-loader.gif ) 8px 50% no-repeat !important; padding-left: 27px } #wpcombar a.liked { background: #555; color: #f0f0f0 !important; margin-top: -1px; } #wpcombar div#reblog { background: #555; color: #fff; } _qacct='p-18-mFEk4J448M';_qoptions={labels:'adt.0,language.en,vip.timecuriouscapitalist'}; st_go({'blog':'5320466','v':'wpcom','user_id':'0','post':'10283','subd':'timecuriouscapitalist'}); ex_go({'crypt':'RDZ8LFkxbXF2TVluJVFmT0xoZkVaUCVrM3R3cCU2Wi10dWQ0JktGcGFFRkZuR0ZNW0dDN1J4NTFWaiU2Y1FZUHVSPytUVTJEWjhBQ2RTVEIleDJqNHZaP2FSaWcyY29XX2ZzRjNiZCt3VXVMUTBZWz9Bals3eTFhX1N+TnRBNFNVRTBwQSVzNFVwNk95aVRKcD9EVkFkU1lBajBabTJIdEpULUFPMlouLSZNRk5WK2drQS0uflJmLi9lcnhFUHMxbmxQSHg2RnFdbXcyUiU3bnEuQUU3WSZobnhhV1EzZDddaVY9VHAzUUgyWTIwSlJHJUlXUA=='}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('5320466',10283);}); Read Full Article »