New Financialization and Inequality Syllabus

This is the latest version of my “Financialization and Inequality” undergraduate course, as taught this Fall 2017 in Sociology at UC Merced:

From Occupy Wall Street to the Bernie Sanders movement, we have seen persistent anger at big banks and the U. S. financial sector over economic inequality. But is finance really to blame? And if so, what can we do about rising inequality?

To tackle these questions, this course will use economic sociology and organizational perspectives to cover the latest sociological research on financialization – a term for the increasing dependence of diverse social groups and organizations on financial markets. The first half of the course will look at how financialization has contributed to huge increases in wealth and power to financial elites. At the same time, financialization has deprived disadvantaged groups of social power and economic security. This rising inequality involved a transformation of organizational identities and strategies in different areas of social life. We will read works about how financial ideologies and resource dependencies have transformed corporations and work along with homes and daily life. We will also discuss how financialization interacts with race and gender inequalities. The second half of the course will turn to scholarship on public policies and how they can either reduce or reinforce inequalities related to financialization. Several readings will develop the insight that public policies – from health insurance and pensions to education and tax policies – are central to the organization of economic markets, including financial markets. From this perspective, financialization is an intrinsically political process that has involved major policy fights. Organizations from hedge funds and investment banks to labor unions, universities, and political parties have played major roles in these struggles as social units for both the implementation of policy and for political combat. We will even see that financial ideologies and markets have been increasingly used in social policies themselves, including student loans, mortgages, and 401K retirement plans. The readings will offer varying accounts of the prospects for public policy to reverse or mitigate inequality related to financialization.

(more…)

Financialization and Crises in Higher Education in “PS: Political Science & Politics” Symposium

I am honored to have just published a new paper, “Still Public: State Universities and America’s New Student Debt Coalitions”, as part of a symposium in the PS: Political Science & Politics.

Tobias Schulze-Cleven of Rutgers edited the symposium and did a wonderful job assembling a collection of works by young scholars under the banner of “Higher Education in the Knowledge Economy: Politics and Policies of Transformation. Looking up I saw statues of england’s kings and have a glance at this site queens looking down at me or even glaring at each other… ” You can read the full collection of articles. My contribution, “Still Public,” explains why student organizations and labor unions at public universities have formed the backbone of new coalitions to reduce the burden of student debt – even though problems from student debt like defaults tend to be lower for public university students that students at non-profit, for-profit, and community colleges.

58% of U.S. Colleges Have Interest Rate Swaps on their Books

A new report by the Roosevelt Institute has found that U. S. colleges have lost $2. 7 billion to Wall Street. The losses stem from the widespread purchase of rigged derivatives known as “interest rate swaps” in the last 10 years. All told, the report estimates that 58% of colleges currently have a swap on their books. This week, Time Magazine covered both the new report and my own research:

College losses on interest rate swaps stem in part from illegal LIBOR rigging. The oed gives the following as orwellianisms what should i write my politics paper on doublethink, newspeak, oldspeak, and unperson. Following our 2012 report, the University of California filed the largest American lawsuit to date to recover losses from LIBOR rigging, including losses associated with interest rate swaps. in a U. S. appeals court. UC originally pursued a more aggressive program of borrowing prior to 2008 on the premise that interest rate swaps were a complex but supposedly lower-risk hedge on variable rate borrowing. The 2008 market collapse and LIBOR rigging, however, radically drove up payments required from UC to the investment banks issuing the swaps. Ironically, this locked UC into paying much higher debt service costs than could have been achieved with conventional fixed rate bonds which can be refinanced when interest rates fall. The new report lays the groundwork for further research on why some colleges turned to risky and ultimately costly financial strategies such as those involving interest rate swaps. Did the rising representation of financial elites on university boards give rise to a culture of risk taking and little understood financial “innovations”? Did state funding crises make universities more open to exotic financial strategies for investments to boost tuition and commercial revenue?

These are central questions for research that Roosevelt and I are currently undertaking.

Inequality & Social Policy in the New Era of Finance

I’m teaching a course at UC Berkeley entitled “Inequality & Social Policy in the New Era of Finance” starting on Monday. The syllabus and course readings are all available here: 

Please provide attribution if you borrow any of the course materials for your own teaching or writing. Feedback and ideas are welcome. Here’s the plan:

From Occupy Wall Street to the Bernie Sanders movement, we have seen persistent anger at big banks and the U. S. financial sector over economic inequality. But is finance really to blame? And if so, what can we do about rising inequality?

To tackle these questions, this course will use an organizational perspective to cover the latest sociological research on financialization – a term for the increasing participation of widespread social groups and organizations in financial markets. The first half of the course will look at how financialization has provided huge increases in wealth and power to financial elites. On the other hand, financialization has deprived disadvantaged groups of social power and economic security. This rising inequality involved a transformation of organizational identities and strategies in different areas of social life. We will read works about how financial ideologies and resource dependencies have transformed corporations and work along with homes and daily life. It is not a wistful longing, but a happy look back at a past memory, for instance when looking at old pictures from buy essay online childhood. We will also discuss how financialization interacts with race and gender inequalities. This part of the course concludes by looking at how financialization contributes to financial crises and the individualization of economic risks for Americans during such crises. The second half of the course will turn to scholarship on social policies and how they can either reduce or reinforce inequalities related to financialization. Several readings will develop the insight that social policies – from health insurance and pensions to education and tax policies – are central to the organization of economic markets, including financial markets. From this perspective, financialization is an intrinsically political process that has involved major policy fights. Organizations from hedge funds and investment banks to labor unions, universities, and political parties have played major roles in these struggles as social units for both the implementation of policy and for political combat. We will even see that financial ideologies and markets have been increasingly used in social policies themselves, including student loans, mortgages, and 401K retirement plans. The readings will offer varying accounts of the prospects for social policy to reverse or mitigate inequality related to financialization.

How Hedge Funds Loot College Endowments

Hedge funds are for for paying more than $1 billion each to the top 10 hedge fund executives in 2015 despite mixed performance. This reminds me that I’m overdue to review a about how hedge funds loot college endowments for private profit. Hedge Clippers is a coalition that includes the New York affiliates of the AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, Citizen Action, SEIU, and others. The report finds that hedge funds charged more than $2. 5 billion in fees in 2015 for managing about $100 billion of the $500 billion in total U. S. college endowment assets. The report further details how hedge fund performance in managing endowment investments faired no better than major indices for overall market performance. I particularly like that report details how the highest allocations of endowment assets to hedge fund investments is at public and less elite non-profit schools. This suggests that schools with larger and more diverse enrollments may particularly lose scarce resources to hedge funds. Barnard, Trinity, and Smith colleges all allocated more than 60 percent of endowment assets to hedge fund investments. The University of Maryland system allocated more than 50 percent of assets to hedge fund investments. Artikel lesen elektronische musik der begriff elektronische musik wird für eine vielzahl verschiedener musikrichtungen dieser Beitrag gebraucht… Michigan State, Oklahoma State, SUNY Stoneybrook, University of Illinois, and UCLA all allocated more than 40 percent of assets to hedge fund investments. The report also nicely shows conflicts of interest whereby hedge fund managers contribute to universities that then retain their firms to manage endowment investments. In the process, hedge fund managers can be added to university governing boards. As we show in “”, the increasing presence and power of financiers on university governing boards contributes to a financialization of governance. Decisions on how many students to enroll and how much to spend on instruction are then made on the basis of how to maximize returns from university resource allocations rather than on the basis of educational or social goals. Overall, the report adds financial intermediary costs as an important dimension for how financialization distributes costs and returns unevenly. We outline this framework for thinking about financialization in “”. In the case of higher education, increased resources from endowment investment returns are highly concentrated at the wealthiest private colleges. Most students and colleges, however, were burdened by increasing financing costs. This occurred as state funding cuts pushed state and community colleges to rely increasingly on tuition revenue financed by student loans. Equity investors meanwhile extracted massive profits from for-profit colleges. All told, these financing costs increased from $21 billion in 2003 to $48 billion in 2012 (in 2012 constant dollars — equivalent to an increase from 5% to 9% of all higher education spending). In contrast, annual college operations funding from endowments rose from just $16 billion to $20 billion during that period (essentially flat as a share of all higher education spending). Because of Hedge Clippers, we now have the solid estimate of $2. 5 billion dollars in hedge fund fees for as an additional financing cost for endowments. If hedge fund fees were comparable in 2012, that means that higher education financing costs actually topped $50 billion or nearly 10 percent of all higher education spending. Recent scholarship and journalism on financialization and higher education inequality, however, is aiding a series of new initiatives to steer endowment resources toward funding improvement and expansions of public colleges and universities. State and federal lawmakers have proposed to help fund public education. has a particularly strong chance to set a powerful precedent. We have already seen the pendulum begin to swing back against student loans with a raft of Obama administration administrative actions to reduce interest costs and crack-down on for-profit colleges. The tide may also soon turn for endowments and the hedge funds which pillage them.

The Financialization of U.S. Higher Education

With the 2016 Presidential election bringing renewed attention to rising college costs, UC Berkeley researchers have just released a groundbreaking study on broad and growing financial inequalities in U. S. higher education. Entitled “The Financialization of U. S. Higher Education”, it’s available. Published in Socio-Economic Review, the study uses a unique new database an innovative theoretical framework for analyzing how non-profits, state agencies, and households have increasingly assumed multiple new roles in relationship to financial markets. On the one hand, 1) endowments provided highly concentrated net increases net resources for a small number of elite private universities during the first decade of the 21st century. On the other hand, colleges and students experienced broad increases in net financing costs from: 2) institutional borrowing by public and non-profit colleges, 3) operating margins at for-profit colleges for equity investors, and 4) interest payments on student loans. Estimated annual funding from endowment investments grew from $16 billion in 2003 to $20 billion in 2012. Meanwhile financing costs grew from $21 billion in 2003 to $48 billion in 2012, or from 5 to 9% of the total higher education spending. paper writing. Some other key findings include:
* Estimated annual funding for college operations from endowment investments also grew from $16 billion in 2003 to $20 billion in 2012, but growth was highly concentrated at the wealthiest colleges. * Overall, interest for state and non-profit colleges’ institutional borrowing nearly doubled from $6 billion to $11 billion. * For-profit colleges with capital form equity markets quintupled their annual operating profit margins from $1 billion to $5 billion before collapsing in 2011 amid federal and state regulatory crackdowns. * Despite large increases in financing costs for state, non-profit, and for-profit colleges, spending on interest for student loans increased much more — from $13 billion to $34 billion. The vast majority of student loan interest growth was for federal student loans. * While increasing student loan borrowing drove rising interest costs across most of the higher education system, the lowest levels of average borrowing by freshmen were at the wealthiest private colleges where average borrowing actually declined from from $1601 per student (not borrower) in 2003 to $1082 in 2012. Here’s a figure from the paper showing the growing inequality in funding per student from endowments:

On the other hand, student loan borrowing actually decreased at the wealthiest private schools while increasing everywhere else:

The findings, however, were not all bad news. The researchers noted that public backlash and the regulatory crackdown by the Obama administration of for-profit colleges have substantially cut the profits of equity investors from for-profit colleges. Members of the research team are also at work on a new study regarding how students and their allies have built successful new political coalitions to make public colleges more affordable and reduce the costs of student loans. These efforts by activists created the climate for dueling proposals from Presidential candidates Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton for free or debt-free college.

A Call for Submissions on Student Debt

In collaboration with Debt and Society, the Berkeley Journal of Sociology (BJS) is seeking submissions about student debt. Submissions will be considered for the 2015 print edition of BJS as well as an online series that will launch in September, 2015. In addition to short essays (less than 3,500 words), we are also seeking photo essays, illustrations, reviews, and critical replies to published content. Submissions must be received by June 1st, 2015 and should be emailed to bothcharlie. eaton@berkeley. edu and submissions@berkeleyjournal. org. Full BJS submission guidelines can be found. The goals of the series are described further here: (more…)

Affluent Private Universities Are Tax Shelters For The Rich … And The Rest Of Us Are Picking Up The Tab

 

This comic originally appeared in Capital & Main.  Data and research were provided by Charlie Eaton of UC Berkeley’s Department of Sociology and DebtandSociety.org.

Highered_vert

Now speaking english became a paper writers at paper-writer.org badge of patriotism as well, a way to prove that you were not a spy

Sucker punched by the invisible hand

Apologies are in order for the long gap since we’ve posted new content here at Debt & Society. All we can say is that our founding contributors have been distracted by research, scholarly publishing, and the vagaries of the academic job market. Fortunately, the academic drudgery of our founders is starting to yield a bounty of new findings on the causes, consequences, and meanings of debt and financialization for society. We’ll be featuring a number of the best recent and forthcoming studies from them in the coming weeks. Zwischen den einzelbestandteilen des komplexes hausarbeit schreiben muster https://hausarbeit-agentur.com und dem komplex stellt sich in der lösung immer ein dissoziationsgleichgewicht ein, das durch die dissoziationskonstante kdissoziationbeschrieben wird? We’re excited to start this off here with an article by Neil Fligstein and our very own, Jacob Habinek, that appeared in the final 2014 issue of Socio-Economic Review. explains why the 2008 U. S. home mortgage crisis caused financial havoc in so many foreign and multi-national banks. Fligstein and Habinek show that large banks throughout the industrialized world followed the same strategy as U. S. banks in using asset-backed commercial paper to leverage massive investments in mortgage backed securities. As a result, banks suffered tremendous losses and liquidity crises when mortgage defaults took off. “Sucker Punched” argues that both national deregulation and differences between banks within each nation matter for explaining the crisis. They show that most of the banks which over-invested in mortgage-backed securities (MBS) were from countries that had deregulated their banking systems to allow more extreme debt leveraging. But, they also show that some banks from deregulated countries did not enter this market. So to fully explain why some banks overlooked the risks of MBS investing, we need to understand how major banks can assume different identities, roles, and strategies within the same global markets. To read how Fligstein and Habinek think this works, check out the article at Socio-Economic Review.

The Stiglitz Code: How Taxing Capital Can Counter Inequality

This piece was originally published on May 28 and is republished with permission from the Roosevelt Institute’s .

Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that tax reform is the key to addressing inequality in a new  released today. to listen to Stiglitz describe the key arguments of the paper. to read his recent congressional testimony on why inequality matters and what can be done about it. The American economy is at a crossroads. One of the questions that will determine which path we take is whether and how the government can use taxes to meet social needs. In recent years there have been countless calls to overhaul the tax code, but few have offered a robust set of objectives framed around providing and supporting public goods. The vision of active and effective government in support of the economic common good that President Franklin D. Roosevelt advanced through the New Deal is fading from sight. That changes with today’s release of  by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow and Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz. In this transformative new white paper, the Nobel-winning economist who foresaw the economic crisis and the rise of the Occupy movement sets out to reshape the debate around the role of taxation in our society. The ideas proposed in the paper are premised on core economic principles – taxing bads, encouraging goods – on which the vast majority of economists agree. The policy toolkit Stiglitz describes applies across the entire economic landscape. With growing wealth inequality and the political power of the top 1 percent in the spotlight thanks to the success of Thomas Piketty’s bestseller Capital in the 21st Century, Stiglitz calls for taxing capital as if it were regular income and boosting inheritance taxes. He overhauls corporate taxation for the age of globalization and international tax havens, bringing money back to where it was made. He also proposes taxes on negative externalities to ensure that those whose actions do harm, whether in the form of environmental pollution or a financial crisis, pay the price. The specifics are cogent and compelling. Stiglitz’s truly innovative idea is that we can raise tax revenue while also creating a better, more equal and just economy that works for all – the kind of economy that FDR believed in and fought for. Stiglitz makes the case that tax policy can and should counter some of the country’s biggest challenges: runaway inequality, the threat of climate change, and a business sector warped by bad incentives. This will not be easy. The transition to a smarter, better tax code would require careful implementation. Tax expenditures would need to be replaced with a better mechanism to ensure that homeowners build equity and that the tax code doesn’t just subsidize the rich. The financial sector, too, would be subject to new taxes that, according to Stiglitz, “would not only raise substantial revenues, but also encourage that sector to better serve the needs of society. ” Lobbyists would be out in force to resist and undermine these policy changes, as they have done with the new regulations imposed by Dodd-Frank. But in an era when the debate over taxation is still dominated by austerity economics and a slash-and-burn approach, Stiglitz lays out a tax policy that would grow the economy. And instead of treating taxation as value-neutral or a necessary evil, he tells us that it can be a means to address important problems. This represents a fundamental and long-overdue shift in our public dialogue about the economy. The American people deserve a tax code that works for them. With this paper, we have the blueprint to create it. Felicia Wong is the President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute. British politics read more about america a narrative history by tindall and shi notes chapter 5 comments pages 1 2 3 next college-homework-help.org last need help. Follow her on Twitter. .