Income inequality in the US

Rajan illustrates his thesis with regard to widening income inequality by directing attention to the growing disparity in wages, the most important constituent of incomes in the US, across the general population. The wages of a person at the 90th-percentile – that is, a person earning more than 90 percent of the general population – increased by about 65 percent more than one at the 10th-percentile over the thirty-year period from 1975 to 2005.^[7] A multitude of factors, such as widespread deregulation and the consequent increases in competition, changes in tax rates, reduced unionisation, and increase in immigration, played a part in widening income inequality. The most important reason, however, was the gap between the supply and demand of skilled workers arising out of deficiencies in education.^[8] While politicians understood this, they realised it would be hard to improve the quality of education in a short span of time. Growing inequality also led to greater polarity in the political establishment, reducing the possibility of politicians across party lines coming together on matters of taxation and redistribution. And therefore succeeding administrations resorted to easing access to credit, specifically in the form of housing credit.^[9]

Political pressure to broaden access to housing credit and home ownership distorted lending in the financial sector, with both government-sponsored agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as banks directing money into low-income housing. As the housing agencies bought subprime mortgage-backed securities in large quantities, these created perverse incentives for brokers to originate loans without investigating borrowers’ creditworthiness. Initially these issues were masked by rising house prices and low default rates. As house prices kept rising between 1999 and 2007, households borrowed against existing home equity.^[10] Eventually, when prices stopped rising, a large number of borrowers were forced to default. This led to a collapse in the subprime market which in turn precipitated the wider financial crash.^[5]

Trade imbalances

Late-developing economies, especially those that became independent after World War II, pursued a policy of export-led growth. Typically, national savings were directed through a state-controlled financial system to a small set of favoured firms. Governments protected their domestic market from foreign imports through erecting entry barriers in the form of high tariffs and import restrictions.^[11] They also provided incentives to domestic firms for being export-oriented, while doling out tax breaks and subsidies to support their development.^[12][13] Low household demand, historical government policies, and vested domestic interests kept traditional exporters strongly dependent on exports, and reliant on international demand for growth. The surpluses put out by these countries in the global goods market were absorbed by developing countries. In the process, these developing countries ran trade deficits, their spending financed by foreign-debt.^[14]

Following the financial crises of the 1990s, these countries sought to generate trade surpluses rather than simply being export oriented. This allowed them to also build foreign-exchange reserves. In order to invest these reserves, the exporters needed a country whose spending outstripped domestic production, along with a strong financial system that was both capable of attracting inflows as well as ensuring the safety of these investments. A large part of these reserves came to be invested in the United States.^[15]

The clash of systems

With limited financial information in the public domain, the financial systems of late-developing economies relied on long-term business relationships. This made them substantially different from financial systems in developed economies, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, where transparency and easy enforceability of contracts have led to the formation of arm's length systems.^[16] This incompatibility made it extremely risky for late-developing economies to borrow from abroad to support investment and growth. Following the crises of the 1990s, these countries abandoned investment projects and debt-fuelled expansion. From being net importers, they became net exporters of both goods and capital. Following the dot-com crash, when investments by industrial-country firms collapsed, it was left to the United States to stimulate growth.^[17]