The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
LET IT DIE: Rushkoff on the economy Now that the scheme we have mistaken for the real economy is collapsing under its own weight, however, it's a whole lot easier to make these arguments. And, if anything, it's even more important for us to come to grips with the fact that the system in peril is not a natural one, or even one that we should be attempting to revive and restore. The thing that is dying--the corporatized model of commerce--has not, nor has it ever been, supportive of the real economy. It wasn't meant to be. And before we start lamenting its demise or, worse, spending good money after bad to resuscitate it, we had better understand what it was for, how it nearly sucked us all dry, and why we should put it out of our misery. Chartered Corporations Back in the good ol' days--I mean as far back as the late middle ages--people just did business with each other. As traveling got easier and people got access to new resources and markets, a middle class of merchants and small businesspeople started to get wealthy. So wealthy that they threatened the power of the aristocracy. Monarchs needed to come up with a way to stabilize their own wealth before the free market unseated them. They invented the corporate charter. By granting an exclusive charter, a king could give one of his friends in the merchant class monopoly control over a region or sector. In exchange, he'd get shares in the company. So the businessperson no longer had to worry about competition--his position at the top of the business hierarchy was locked in place, by law. And the monarch never had to worry about losing his authority; businesses with crown-guaranteed charters tend to support the crown. (...) he other big innovation of the early corporate era was monopoly currency. There used to be lots of different kinds of money. Local currencies, which helped regions reinvest in their own activities, and centralized currencies, for long distance transactions. Local currencies were earned into existence. A farmer would grow a bunch of grain, bring it to the grain store, and get receipts for how much grain he had deposited. The receipts could be used as money--even by people who didn't need grain at that particular moment. Everyone knew what it was worth. The interesting thing about local, grain-based currencies was that they lost value over time. The people at the grain store had to be paid, and a certain amount of grain was lost to rain or rodents. So every year, the money would be worth less. This encouraged people to spend it rather than save it. And they did. Late Middle Ages workers were paid more for less work time than at any point in history. Women were taller in England in that era than they are today--an indication of their relative health. People did preventative maintenance on their equipment, and invested in innovation. There was so much extra money looking for productive investment, that people built cathedrals. The great cathedrals of Europe were not paid for with money from the Vatican; they were local investments, made by small towns looking for ways to share their prosperity with future generations by creating tourist attractions. Local currencies favored local transactions, and worked against the interests of large corporations working from far away. In order to secure their own position as well as that of their chartered monopolies, monarchs began to make local currencies illegal, and force locals to instead use "coin of the realm." These centralized currencies worked the opposite way. They were not earned into existence, they were lent into existence by a central bank. This meant any money issued to a person or business had to be paid back to the central bank, with interest. What does that do to an economy? It bankrupts it. Think of it this way: A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on. An economy based on an interest-bearing centralized currency must grow to survive, and this means extracting more, producing more and consuming more. Interest-bearing currency favors the redistribution of wealth from the periphery (the people) to the center (the corporations and their owners). Just sitting on money--capital--is the most assured way of increasing wealth. By the very mechanics of the system, the rich get richer on an absolute and relative basis.
Now that the scheme we have mistaken for the real economy is collapsing under its own weight, however, it's a whole lot easier to make these arguments. And, if anything, it's even more important for us to come to grips with the fact that the system in peril is not a natural one, or even one that we should be attempting to revive and restore. The thing that is dying--the corporatized model of commerce--has not, nor has it ever been, supportive of the real economy. It wasn't meant to be. And before we start lamenting its demise or, worse, spending good money after bad to resuscitate it, we had better understand what it was for, how it nearly sucked us all dry, and why we should put it out of our misery.
Chartered Corporations
Back in the good ol' days--I mean as far back as the late middle ages--people just did business with each other. As traveling got easier and people got access to new resources and markets, a middle class of merchants and small businesspeople started to get wealthy. So wealthy that they threatened the power of the aristocracy. Monarchs needed to come up with a way to stabilize their own wealth before the free market unseated them.
They invented the corporate charter. By granting an exclusive charter, a king could give one of his friends in the merchant class monopoly control over a region or sector. In exchange, he'd get shares in the company. So the businessperson no longer had to worry about competition--his position at the top of the business hierarchy was locked in place, by law. And the monarch never had to worry about losing his authority; businesses with crown-guaranteed charters tend to support the crown.
(...)
he other big innovation of the early corporate era was monopoly currency. There used to be lots of different kinds of money. Local currencies, which helped regions reinvest in their own activities, and centralized currencies, for long distance transactions. Local currencies were earned into existence. A farmer would grow a bunch of grain, bring it to the grain store, and get receipts for how much grain he had deposited. The receipts could be used as money--even by people who didn't need grain at that particular moment. Everyone knew what it was worth.
The interesting thing about local, grain-based currencies was that they lost value over time. The people at the grain store had to be paid, and a certain amount of grain was lost to rain or rodents. So every year, the money would be worth less. This encouraged people to spend it rather than save it. And they did. Late Middle Ages workers were paid more for less work time than at any point in history. Women were taller in England in that era than they are today--an indication of their relative health. People did preventative maintenance on their equipment, and invested in innovation. There was so much extra money looking for productive investment, that people built cathedrals. The great cathedrals of Europe were not paid for with money from the Vatican; they were local investments, made by small towns looking for ways to share their prosperity with future generations by creating tourist attractions.
Local currencies favored local transactions, and worked against the interests of large corporations working from far away. In order to secure their own position as well as that of their chartered monopolies, monarchs began to make local currencies illegal, and force locals to instead use "coin of the realm." These centralized currencies worked the opposite way. They were not earned into existence, they were lent into existence by a central bank. This meant any money issued to a person or business had to be paid back to the central bank, with interest.
What does that do to an economy? It bankrupts it. Think of it this way: A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on.
An economy based on an interest-bearing centralized currency must grow to survive, and this means extracting more, producing more and consuming more. Interest-bearing currency favors the redistribution of wealth from the periphery (the people) to the center (the corporations and their owners). Just sitting on money--capital--is the most assured way of increasing wealth. By the very mechanics of the system, the rich get richer on an absolute and relative basis.
The one I see is simple, and actually happening already - the Corporation reinventing itself, and evolving into something non-toxic.
ie a Peer to Peer market economy, operating "Not for Loss", with returns to stakeholders but not to redundant rentiers "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
Rushkoff:
A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from? Some other business that has borrowed 1000 from the bank. For one business to pay back what it owes, another must go bankrupt. That, or borrow yet another 1000, and so on.
a little simplistic?
One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.
Wealth is created by symbiosis - the pooling and sharing of skills and raw materials.
Wealth is destroyed by expropriation - which is the extraction of personal benefit from the collective pool.
There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic. I think this is what Chris is hinting at - if the concept of collective benefit is built into the financial system and all of its structures, expropriation becomes much more obvious, and more expensive.
Currently what we have is a system which pretends to be symbiotic to a limited extent but is actually based almost entirely on expropriation of collective benefit for a very small minority.
And it's not just that this is morally questionable - it's also fundamentally, systemically, non-functional and unsustainable. It can't be made to work for more than a few decades before it collapses spectacularly.
a little simplistic? One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation.
It's not just simplistic: it's plain wrong.
It assumes that credit is necessarily money, whereas the truth is that credit is a necessary part of a monetary relationship but credit neither needs to be nor should it be monetised, IMHO.
It ignores the fact that - contrary to the anthropocentric assumption of conventional economics and Marx alike - Capital may also be "productive", in that it has a "use value" with a value in exchange (eg a Kilo Watt Hour or a Square Metre Year). There is a strand of heterodox economics Binary Economics based upon this "Binary" assumption, and I understand that the US policy of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) owes its origins to the "Binary" thinking of Louis Kelso.
The Social Credit movement was based upon Colonel C H Douglas' view of money as a credit object, and his
Social Credit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A + B theorem
In my view there is a qualitative difference between
(a) Static credit - tied up in secured Debt and Equity; and
(b) Dynamic credit - aka time to pay;
and that the equations of monetary flow must incorporate this distinction if they are to reflect reality. "The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson
One of the concepts that's absent from current economic theory is the difference between synergy/symbiosis and expropriation... There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic.
There's no reason why a loan can't be symbiotic.
Some loans will be synergetic. But the question is, what proportion? The amount of credit extended recently is staggering - but all for non-synergetic "investments" into bubles. There can't possibly be so much synergy gain to match the ridiculus amount of credit.
Absence of synergetic considerations in economic theories is indeed interesting. Synergies are abound in the natural world - almost compulsively. The role of government should be seen primarily as synergetic - i.e., capturing large common wins. But common interest is politically dead, and the government is unabatedly promoted as a free-rider helper. The libertarian understanding of "There is no free lunch" appears to mean "There is no synergy through governing" (but they appear to believe in a "synergy" of making money out of thin air through credit extension).
The brief history of government as "for the people" is finished and is being erased. The only "legal" cooperation is corporation - it feels like no one else is allowed to take care of own interests in a coordinated matter, or do any good to others. The rhetorical mix-up of what is a cooperator, or a free-rider, or a rentier is amazingly Orwellian in this world.
The amount of credit extended recently is staggering - but all for non-synergetic "investments" into bubles.
A business borrows 1000 dollars from the bank to get started. In ten years, say, it is supposed to pay back 2000 to the bank. Where does the other 1000 come from?
from renewable resources?
well husbanded, good farmland can render....how much?
i think it's symptomatic of mental illness to assume that wealth only springs at the mercy of credit shuffling.
i understand natural renewable resources are nonlinear in growth so credit can smooth out bumper/bust cycles, like savings can too, but this accent on finance while ignoring where root wealth is stored and produced is like making the icing into the whole cake, isn't it?
maybe a message from this is to distrust any scheme that scheme that aims to profit more than a 'conservative' 4% or so. (what nature can back up, iow.) 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 287 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments
by Oui - Nov 522 comments
by Oui - Nov 321 comments