Stewart Lansley argues that high income inequality leads to economic slumps; we can only solve the latter if we deal with the former
Stewart Lansley is the author of “The Cost of Inequality: Three Decades of the Super-Rich and the Economy”; Stewart will be speaking at the Fabian Conference this Saturday
In power, one of Labour’s most significant moves was to drop the party’s traditional commitment to a more equal society.
In the election manifesto, Tony Blair wrote that he had ‘no time for the politics of envy’. He wanted a society that encouraged as he put it, ‘levelling up’ rather than ‘levelling down’. Stephen Byers, trade secretary from December 1998, said that wealth creation was now more important than wealth distribution.
New Labour had embraced the philosophy espoused by pro-market ideologues and rigorously applied by post-1979 Conservative governments – that too much equality would be a drag on economic progress.
As long as tackling poverty was made a priority, then the rich should be allowed to flourish. The accumulation of large fortunes might bring a bigger divide, but, by encouraging business, job and wealth creation, their encouragement would make everybody better off through an expanded economic cake.
It was the widespread acceptance of soaring levels of personal wealth, and the growing polarisation that went with it, that became one of the defining characteristics of the shift away from the social democratic values that had once dominated post-war politics and opinion.
Under Labour, the income gap between the very top and the rest continued to rise as finance capitalism became little more than a cash cow for a global financial and corporate elite.
Yet, far from building wealth-creating enterprise and a more productive economy, the surge in fortunes at the top merely led to an economy that became both more unequal and much more fragile.
Although denied by official accounts, the return of inequality levels last seen between the wars was one of the central factors driving us over the cliff in 2008 just as it was a key driver of the 1929 crash. Today, the persistence of great concentrations of income and wealth is merely prolonging the slump.
The evidence is that above a certain limit, inequality makes economies more prone to crisis. A widening gap intensifies the fluctuations of the business cycle, raising the height of the peaks and deepening and lengthening the troughs.
Heavily unequal societies impose deflationary pressures which makes them dependent on spiralling debt to prevent paralysis. But this in turn leads to over-extended booms and inflamed levels of economic risk. When booms turn, inevitably, to bust, the same concentrations lead to squeezed wages and unspent profits in a way which stifles recovery.
New Labour’s leaders were right in arguing that the left needs to have a more coherent policy for wealth creation. That is the route to wider prosperity for all.
But the central lesson of the last thirty years is that a widening income gap and a more productive economy do not go hand in hand. The great experiment in unequal market capitalism has been a colossal failure – even on its own terms.
An economic model that allows the richest members of society to accumulate a larger and larger share of the cake will eventually self-destruct. In the build-up to 2008, soaring inequality merely brought a dangerous mix of demand deflation, asset appreciation and a long squeeze on the productive economy which has ended in prolonged economic turmoil.
This is now being recognised at the highest levels.
As President Obama put it in his December attack on the great concentrations of wealth:
‘This kind of inequality – a level we haven’t seen since the Great Depression – hurts us all.’
Yet, despite the growing recognition, the great wealth divide has continued to grow through the recession. The lessons – across the political spectrum – are clear.
To avoid an era of near-permanent slump, the great concentrations of income and wealth need to be broken up – as they were from the 1930s; the wage share needs to be stabilised and restored to the post-war levels that brought equilibrium and sustained stability; creating more equal societies needs to be restored to a primary goal of domestic and global economic policy.
See also:
• To end inequality without redistribution of wealth, we should pay a living wage – Duncan Exley, December 8th 2011
• Unless pay gaps are reduced, we’ll end up with Victorian levels of inequality – Shamik Das, November 22nd 2011
• Cable gets it on pay and inequality – unlike the greedy IoD – Larissa Hansford, September 19th 2011
• Income inequality fell in Labour’s final year – Will Straw, May 19th 2011
• Tackling inequality is key to improving social mobility, Mr Clegg – Duncan Exley, April 5th 2011
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
24 Responses to “Inequality must be ended to prevent another financial crisis”
Anonymous
Yep.
Benefit claimants on 170K a of benefits.
People on minimum wage on 2.5K a year direct taxation.
It’s going to change.
Next, the assumption that its down to the banks. It was down to the people who didn’t repay their loans. The banking mess is a symptom.
Next crisis will be different. It’s a government debt crisis caused by incontinent governments running fraudulent accounts. [Civil servants beware, you’re top of the list for the victims of this. You’ve effectively loaned your entire pension to the government, who has hide it from the accounts].
UK government debt, 7,000 bn. This doesn’t include bailing out the 170K a benefit claimants when they ‘retire’. Add on another 10,000 bn for that. All rising with inflation.
Government tax revenues, 550 bn.
So you can’t get enough tax to redistribute. You can’t stop people moving their money where it can’t be stolen.
Anonymous
Yep – very well said.
And of course, there are successful, propserous examples of much more equal societies such as the Scandinavian countries. It’s a bit of a no brainer really – if the members of society have a common interest in making things better then success is more likely.
Just think of the difference between UK schooling arrangements and Finland’s world class system where charging for ‘private’ education for richer people’s kids is illegal. Of course our rich don’t want to ‘waste’ any more money on ‘state’ education when their kids are nicely fast tracking via a seperate system into all the best opportunities. And that’s just one of many built in conflicts of interest that hold us all back and waste resources.
Paul Strong
it's a no brainer…. http://t.co/Ghe64XSf
Ricardo Salta
Inequality must be ended to prevent another financial crisis | Left Foot Forward http://t.co/wh6kzpFI
Mattgaltress
Oh Dear, Lord Blagger.