Posts Tagged ‘greed’

195532_600

Special mention

PettJ20170516_low  StiglT20170516_low

191129_600

Special mention

mrfishvacancy_1000_590_506 191155_600

tumblr_nu8bnhl1sY1ubpyeoo1_1280 (1)

[ht: sm]

mcfadden-12-7

Special mention

cjones07112015 hTD6j.AuSt.79

greed

Yesterday in our class on A Tale of Two Depressions, we discussed Robert McElvaine’s notion of “moral economy” (which he introduces in chapter 9 of his book, The Great Depression: America, 1929-1941). The idea is that, during the first Great Depression, Americans were engaged in an intense debate between different moral economies (which McElvaine characterizes as the difference between the “cooperative individualism” of workers and the “acquisitive individualism” of businesspeople).

As I explained to students, all economic theories—for example, neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian theories—represent moral economies. And they arrive at very different conclusions concerning the justice or fairness of capitalism. Thus, for example, neoclassical economists argue that everyone gets what they deserve and, through the workings of the invisible hand, the result will be full employment. In contrast, Keynesian economics is based on the proposition that, while everyone may get what they deserve (with the possible exception of coupon-clippers), it’s quite possible that will result in less-then-full-employment equilibrium, which then requires the visible hand of government intervention. Marxian economists propose a third possibility: even if everyone gets what they deserve in markets, in production things are different (because of exploitation)—and the consequence, whether there’s an invisible or visible hand, is inequality and instability. In other words, the three economic theories represent radically different moral economies.

One student then invoked the idea of moral economy and blamed greed for causing the current crisis. I responded by making the distinction between individual greed and economic institutions, which like the different notions of fairness among economic theories leads to quite different solutions: throw the greedy bankers in jail (which of course we haven’t done) or change the economic institutions (which we haven’t done either).

Chris Dillow makes a similar distinction between “greedy bankers” and “overly powerful bankers.” His view is that “the habit of over-emphasizing individuals’ traits and under-emphasizing situational forces” leads us to “to moralize inequality; the rich are rich because they are greedy whilst the poor are poor because they are lazy.”

What this effaces is the fact that inequalities in capitalism are instead the result of inequalities of power – a power which rests in part upon ideology. Moralizing inequality tends to blind us to this fact. It creates the illusion that capitalism would be acceptable if only those at the top were better people, when in fact the faults in capitalism are structural and not due to the flaws of passing individuals.

That’s pretty much the same distinction I was trying to make, although I still want to characterize the two explanations as different moral economies: one is a moral economy of flawed individuals, while the other is a moral economy of flawed institutions.*

 

*Although I’m willing to admit I’m sympathetic to Dillow’s view for another reason: because he invokes my favorite football club and blames Crystal Palace fans (who greeted Wayne Rooney with chants of “you fat greedy bastard”) for committing the error of “blaming Rooney’s salary upon his personal character rather than upon his situation.”

 

15-outrageous-scenes-in-martin-scorseses-wolf-of-wall-street-we-cant-wait-to-see

I went to see Martin Scorsese’s Wolf of Wall Street over the break—and, as readers know, I didn’t much like it.

Still, I can thank my luck stars I didn’t view it with Steve Perlberg in Manhattan’s financial district.

There’s a lot of talk about how Wall Street has “changed” since the financial crisis. Compliance is up, bonuses are down, the holiday parties are boring.

But you wouldn’t necessarily know that from what these guys were cheering at.

When Belfort — a drug addict who later attempts to remain sober — rips up a couch cushion to get to his secret coke stash, there were cheers.

Then, intercut with Popeye eating spinach, Belfort is irrevocably high on Quaaludes (or “ludes,” a muscle relaxer) and dumps coke into his nose to remedy the situation — more cheers.

The worst, though, mild spoiler alert … At one point later in the movie, the feds get Belfort to wear a wire to implicate others at his firm. Meeting with his No. 2, Belfort slides over a piece of paper: “Don’t incriminate yourself. I am wearing a wire.”

And the crowd goes wild. Don’t rat! Stand by your firm!

Bankers: First of all, don’t cheer in a movie. It’s weird. You can laugh, but no cheering. Second, guffawing while Leo attempts to evade federal indictment doesn’t exactly help America’s perception of your societal value.

Maybe Scorcese’s latest will come to play the same role as Oliver Stone’s 1987 film: an obvious critique of “greed is good” to many of us, but a celebration of that same ethos to the real wolves of Wall Street.

and121013web-600x446

Special mention

Kq9dT.AuSt.79 11.12.13: Steve Bell on world leaders taking selfies at the Mandela memorial