This article examines distributional disparities within nations. There are six main conclusions. First, about 80 per cent of the world's population now lives in regions whose median country has a Gini close to 40. Second, as outliers are now only located among middle‐income and rich countries, the ‘upwards’ side of the ‘Inverted‐U’ between inequality and income per capita has evaporated (and with it the hypothesis that posits that ‘things have to get worse before they can get better’). Third, among middle‐income countries, Latin America and mineral‐rich Southern Africa are uniquely unequal, while Eastern Europe follows a distributional path similar to the Nordic countries. Fourth, among rich countries there is a large (and growing) distributional diversity. Fifth, within a global trend of rising inequality, there are two opposite forces at work. One is ‘centrifugal’ and leads to an increased diversity in the shares of the top 10 per cent and bottom 40 per cent. The other is ‘centripetal’ and leads to a growing uniformity in the income‐share appropriated by deciles 5 to 9. Therefore, half of the world's population (the middle and upper‐middle classes) have acquired strong ‘property rights’ over half of their respective national incomes; the other half of this income, however, is increasingly up for grabs between the very rich and the poor. And sixth, globalization is thus creating a distributional scenario in which what really matters is the income‐share of the rich (because the rest ‘follows’).

Starting from the perspective of heterodox Keynesian-Minskyian-Kindlebergian financial economics, this paper begins by highlighting a number of mechanisms that contributed to the current financial crisis. These include excess liquidity, income polarisation, conflicts between financial and productive capital, lack of intelligent regulation, asymmetric information, principal-agent dilemmas and bounded rationalities. However, the paper then proceeds to argue that perhaps more than ever the 'macroeconomics' that led to this crisis only makes analytical sense if examined within the framework of the political settlements and distributional outcomes in which it had operated. Taking the perspective of critical social theories the paper concludes that, ultimately, the current financial crisis is the outcome of something much more systemic, namely an attempt to use neo-liberalism (or, in US terms, neo-conservatism) as a new technology of power to help transform capitalism into a rentiers' delight. And in particular, into a system without much 'compulsion' on big business; i.e., one that imposes only minimal pressures on big agents to engage in competitive struggles in the real economy (while inflicting exactly the opposite fate on workers and small firms). A key component in the effectiveness of this new technology of power was its ability to transform the state into a major facilitator of the ever-increasing rent-seeking practices of oligopolistic capital. The architects of this experiment include some capitalist groups (in particular rentiers from the financial sector as well as capitalists from the 'mature' and most polluting industries of the preceding techno-economic paradigm), some political groups, as well as intellectual networks with their allies -including most economists and the 'new' left. Although rentiers did succeed in their attempt to get rid of practically all fetters on their greed, in the end the crisis materialised when 'markets' took their inevitable revenge on the rentiers by calling their (blatant) bluff.

Latin America's economic performance since the beginning of neo-liberal reforms has been poor; this not only contrasts with its own performance pre-1980, but also with what has happened in Asia since 1980. I shall argue that the weakness of the region's new paradigm is rooted as much in its intrinsic flaws as in the particular way it has been implemented. Latin America's economic reforms were undertaken primarily as a result of the perceived economic weaknesses of the region -i.e., there was an attitude of 'throwing in the towel' vis-à-vis the previous state-led import substituting industrialisation strategy, because most politicians and economists interpreted the 1982 debt crisis as conclusive evidence that it had led the region into a cul-de-sac. As Hirschman has argued, policymaking has a strong component of 'path-dependency'; as a result, people often stick with policies after they have achieved their aims, and those policies have become counterproductive. This leads to such frustration and disappointment with existing policies and institutions that is not uncommon to experience a 'rebound effect'. An extreme example of this phenomenon is post-1982 Latin America, where the core of the discourse of the economic reforms that followed ended up simply emphasising the need to reverse as many aspects of the previous development (and political) strategies as possible. This helps to explain the peculiar set of priorities, the rigidity and the messianic attitude with which the reforms were implemented in Latin America, as well as their poor outcome. Something very different happened in Asia, where economic reforms were often intended (rightly or wrongly) as a more targeted and pragmatic mechanism to overcome specific economic and financial constraints. Instead of implementing reforms as a mechanism to reverse existing industrialisation strategies, in Asia they were put into practice in order to continue and strengthen ambitious processes of industrialisation.

No abstract