We need to look at other possible explanations than trade

Sir Jagdish Bhagwati in “The selfish hegemon must offer a New Deal on trade” August 20, complains that “the labour lobbies believe, without any compelling evidences, that the American wages have been stagnant because of competition from the developing countries”. But, even if he is right, since he offers no other alternative explanation for the widening gap between the returns to capitals and the returns to labour in the economy, he is actually helping to keep the focus on trade as being the culprit.

Bhagwati would serve his worthy cause better by pointing out the effects of other developments that have run in parallel to the growth of global trade. How much of the capital-labour gap could be explained by the following?

1. The discrimination implicit in risk based pricing that has allowed the financial sector to charge some groups with extremely high interest, based on some quite dubious logical reasons. Borrowers that cannot pay the high interests should not have received the loans to begin with, at least not at those high rates, and those who can serve the loans have de-facto evidenced they merited lower rates.

2. The growing tendency to use intellectual property rights of all sort and kinds to create unregulated monopolies that capture rents.

3. The increased regressiveness of taxes that results from the tendency of turning away from taxing income to taxing consumption.

Net out the effect of those three factors and you might not have anything left to blame trade with.

Indeed how will this risk-based priced consumer generation respond?

Sir Aline van Duyn is exploring vital terrain in “Hard-pressed consumers refuse to read from script” August 18 analyzing how this generation of “risk-based priced” consumers will respond.

Just for a starter there must be a world of difference between having you credit worthiness assessed in an eye to eye conversation by a lending officer and today’s having a computer read you number. At least it must be affecting the moral implications in the “to pay or not to pay”.

I suspect we will also see a growing reluctance from the high interest rate payers to remain in that group since if they can service their debt adequately at those rates they might feel they are de-facto meriting lower rates.

Risk based pricing, which is similar to placing persons that after some doubtful genetic test are presumed to be especially exposed to an illness in a separate insurance pool, could be causing much of the growing social inequality that is currently attributed by some to globalization. Risk profiling, for a discriminatory purpose, is prohibited in most spheres of our social relations, except in lending where it is very much cheered, by most.