We got some good news Monday night: The government sold off all of its shares in AIG, the huge insurer with a hedge fund on top that went bust at the height of the 2008 financial crisis, requiring a $182 billion taxpayer bailout. With the stock sale this week, we learned that the Treasury Department came away with a profit on behalf of taxpayers of about $23 billion.
All told, the government has gotten back about 90% of the $418 billion it gave out through the much-maligned TARP program. You won’t win friends defending the TARP, but the fact is that if “worked” is taken to mean reflating the collapsing financial system—and an operative financial system is essential to a functioning economy—at a cost far below expectations, then TARP worked.
And it’s not just the financial sector. Not only has corporate profitability recovered from the hit it took in the Great Recession, it’s soaring to new highs, the most recent data show. A few quarters ago, corporate profits as a share of national income hit their highest level in over half a century.
But just because profits are soaring doesn’t mean everything’s fine.
That same data shows that the compensation share of national income, on the other hand, is at a 50-year low. Inequality is on the rise: The share of national income going to the top 1% is again increasing, after slowing during the Great Recession thanks to the turmoil on Wall Street and the temporary decline in high-end asset values. Meanwhile, the hourly wages of middle-wage workers are growing more slowly than ever in the history of that data series, which begins in the mid-1960s.
So: Did we bail out the banks and abandon the working class? And if so, what does that say about our policy bias?
On the first question, I’d answer “no.” We passed the largest stimulus in the nation’s history, we tried—haltingly, for sure—to help many of those hurt by the housing bust, we bailed out not only the white-shoe banker but the blue-collar auto-worker too (using TARP funds in both cases), and we implemented many a round of unemployment insurance, tax cuts targeted at paychecks, and safety-net programs targeting the poor (which have also been very effective).
But on the second question, there is clearly a bias, and it infects a lot of our economic policy.









