Joseph Stiglitz: 'This Deficit Fetishism Is Killing Our Economy'
NEW YORK (AP) — What's wrong with the U.S. economy?
Growth comes in fits and starts. Unemployment has been over 8 percent
for three and a half years.
Cutting taxes and interest rates hasn't
worked, at least not enough.
To Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, the economy's
strange behavior can be traced to the growing gap between wealthy
Americans and everyone else.
In his new book, "The Price of Inequality," he connects surging
student loan debt, the real-estate bubble and many of the country's
other problems to greater inequality.
When the rich keep getting richer, he says, the costs pile up. For
instance, it's easier to climb up from poverty in Britain and Canada
than in the U.S.
"People at the bottom are less likely to live up to their potential," he says.
Stiglitz has taught at Yale, Oxford and MIT. He served on President
Bill Clinton's council of economic advisers, then left the White House
for the World Bank, where he was the chief economist.
He's now a
professor at Columbia University.
In
an interview with The Associated Press, Stiglitz singled out the
investment bank Goldman Sachs, warned about worrying over government
debt and argued that a wider income gap leads to a weaker economy.
Below are excerpts, edited for clarity.
___
Q: The Occupy Wall Street demonstrations are no longer in the news,
but you make the case that income inequality is more important than
ever. How so?
A: Because it's getting worse. Look at the recent Federal Reserve
numbers. Median wealth fell 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, bringing it
back to where it was in the early '90s. For two decades, all the
increase in the country's wealth, which was enormous, went to the people
at the very top.
It may have been a prosperous two decades. But it wasn't like we all shared in this prosperity.
The financial crisis really made this easy to understand. Inequality
has always been justified on the grounds that those at the top
contributed more to the economy — "the job creators."
Then came 2008 and 2009, and you saw these guys who brought the
economy to the brink of ruin walking off with hundreds of millions of
dollars. And you couldn't justify that in terms of contribution to
society.
The myth had been sold to people, and all of a sudden it was apparent to everybody that it was a lie.
Mitt Romney has called concerns about inequality the "politics of
envy." Well, that's wrong. Envy would be saying, "He's doing so much
better than me. I'm jealous." This is: "Why is he getting so much money,
and he brought us to the brink of ruin?" And those who worked hard are
the ones ruined. It's a question of fairness.
Q: Markets aren't meant to be fair. As long as we have markets, there
are going to be winners and losers. What's wrong with that?
A: I'm not arguing for the elimination of inequality. But the extreme
that we've reached is really bad. Particularly the way it's created. We
could have a more equal society and a more efficient, stable,
higher-growing economy. That's really the "so what." Even if you don't
have any moral values and you just want to maximize GDP growth, this
level of inequality is bad.
It's not just the unfairness. The point is that we're paying a high
price. The story we were told was that inequality was good for our
economy. I'm telling a different story, that this level of inequality is
bad for our economy.
Q: You argue that it's making our economy grow more slowly and
connect it to "rent- seeking." That's an economist's term. Can you
explain it in layman's terms?
A: Some people get an income from working, and some people get an
income just because they own a resource. Their income isn't the result
of effort. They're getting a larger share of the pie instead of making
the pie bigger. In fact, they're making it smaller.
Q: So, for example, I put a toll booth at a busy intersection and keep all the money for myself.
A: That's right. You just collect the money. You're not adding
anything. It's often used when we talk about oil-rich countries. The oil
is there, and everybody fights over the spoils. The result is that
those societies tend to do very badly because they spend all their
energy fighting over the pile of dollars rather than making the pile of
dollars bigger. They're trying to get a larger share of the rent.
Q: Where do you see this in the U.S.? Can you point to some specific examples?
A: You see it with oil and natural resources companies and their
mineral leases and timber leases. Banks engaged in predatory lending.
Visa and MasterCard just settled for $7 billion for anticompetitive
behavior. They were charging merchants more money because they have
monopoly power.
One good example was Goldman Sachs creating a security that's
designed to fail. That's just taking money from some fool who trusted
them. Our society functions well when people trust each other. It's
particularly important for people to trust their banks. Goldman
basically said, "You can't trust us."
Q: Economic growth is slowing again. Unemployment seems to be stuck
above 8 percent. Is that the result of high debts or slower spending?
A: The fundamental problem is not government debt. Over the past few
years, the budget deficit has been caused by low growth. If we focus on
growth, then we get growth, and our deficit will go down. If we just
focus on the deficit, we're not going to get anywhere.
This deficit fetishism is killing our economy. And you know what?
This is linked to inequality. If we go into austerity, that will lead to
higher unemployment and will increase inequality. Wages go down,
aggregate demand goes down, wealth goes down.
All the homeowners who are underwater, they can't consume. We gave
money to bail out the banking system, but we didn't give money to the
people who were underwater on their mortgages. They can't spend. That's
what's driving us down. It's household spending.
Q: And those with money to spend, you point out, spend less of every
dollar. Those at the top of the income scale save nearly a quarter of
their income. Those at the bottom spend every penny. Is that why tax
cuts seem to have little effect on spending?
A: Exactly. When you redistribute money from the bottom to the top,
the economy gets weaker. And all this stuff about the top investing in
the country is (nonsense). No, they don't. They're asking where they can
get the highest returns, and they're looking all over the globe. So
they're investing in China and Brazil and Latin America, emerging
markets, not America.
If the U.S. is a good place to invest, we'll get money from all over
the world. If we have an economy that's not growing, we won't get
investment. That's exactly what's happening. The Federal Reserve
stimulates the economy by buying bonds. Where's the money go? Abroad.
Q: What's the answer, then? Raising taxes on wealthy people can't possibly solve all the problems you mention.
A: No, there's no magic bullet. But there are other ways of doing
things. Just to pick one, look at how we finance higher education. Right
now, we have this predatory lending system by our banks with no relief
from bankruptcy. In some fundamental ways, it's really evil and
oppressive. Parents that co-sign student loans now find out they can't
discharge those loans, even in bankruptcy.
Education is so important, but there are so many barriers. Just 8
percent of those students in the most selective colleges come from the
bottom half of the income scale. Eight percent! They can't get in
because they don't get as good an education in elementary and high
schools. Education is the vehicle for social mobility. It's how we
restore the American dream.
