Business

Partly Sunny with Showers 24° London Hi 25°C / Lo 13°C

Outside View: The end of capitalism as we know it?

By Phillip Blond

The Western world is in an economic crisis similar in scale to the oil shock of 1973. What we are seeing is nothing less than the unravelling of neo-liberalism – the dominant economic and ideological model of the last 30 years.

The disintegration of Anglo-Saxon-inspired markets has come about largely because of the confluence of two tendencies of the "free market": speculation and monopoly capitalism. Contrary to received opinion, free markets – unless subject to civil regulation, asset distribution and persistent intervention – always tend to monopoly.

Similarly, there is nothing inherently efficient about free markets – they do not of themselves promote sound investment or wise management. Rather, when markets are conceived wholly in terms of price and return, and when asset wealth and the leverage that this provides becomes as concentrated as it was in the 19th century (which is a scenario we are approaching), then markets encourage nothing other than gambling masking itself as sound investment.

For example, before 1973 the ratio of investment to speculative capital was 9:1; since 1973, these proportions have reversed. So huge have the numbers, leverage and derivative instruments become that their value now far exceeds the total economic value of the planet. For instance, in 2003 the value of all derivative trading was $85 trillion, while the size of the world economy was only $49 trillion.

These ratios have risen with the latest estimates that the value of all traded paper instruments exceeds the underlying value of the assets on which they are written by 3:1. The fact that these assets may themselves be devaluing by up to 50 per cent (US housing values have declined by 25 per cent in two years) means that the overall ratio of global paper value to its leveraged base may indeed double.

This average global figure itself masks even more extreme levels of leverage. The Carlyle Group de-faulted on $16.6bn (£8.4bn) of debt last week. The private equity firm had been speculating assiduously on its AAA-rated mortgage base – by some estimates, at the end of its life, Carlyle's loan-to-value ratio and hedge exposure was at 36:1. There are, of course, many other private equity firms in a similar position.

This incalculable level of speculation is abetted by the huge concentration of wealth that has occurred since 1973. Why? Because if markets tend to monopoly then smaller groups of people control larger amounts of assets. The latest figures demonstrate this admirably: the richest 10 per cent of the UK population increased their share of the nation's marketable wealth (excluding housing) from 57 per cent in 1976 to 71 per cent in 2003. Over the same period, the speculative capital that could be deployed or inves-ted by the bottom 50 per cent of the British population fell from 12 per cent to just 1 per cent. Indeed, the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population, on current government figures, now control more than a third of all the marketable wealth – and this ignores the vast sums held in offshore tax havens.

The New Economics Foundation has shown that global growth has not aided the poor. In the 1980s, for every $100 of world growth, the poorest 20 per cent received $2.20; by 2001, they received only 60 cents. Clearly neo-liberal growth disproportionately benefits the rich and further impoverishes the poor.

Real wage increases in the top 13 countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have been below the rate of inflation since about 1970 – a situation compounded in Britain as the measure of inflation massively underestimates the real cost of living.

Thus wage earners – rather than asset owners – have faced a 35-year downward pressure on their standard of living. Indeed, the golden age for the salaried worker, as a share of GDP, was between 1945 and 1973 – and not this vaunted age of liberalisation.

The trouble is that nobody in power recognises this crisis for what it is – an asset insolvency crisis brought about by massive debt leverage. Neo-liberals are still reacting as if the emergency was one of liquidity. They are wrong. Governments should bail out not banks and speculators but the customers who now have every reason to fear for the future.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

The End of The Capitalist Model
[info]longbowrfb wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 05:29 pm (UTC)
Maybe the American Group R.E.M. is right "It's the End of the World as we know it". We have Socialism and Capitalism both fail in time maybe it is time for a Hybrid version of the two. Maybe there is a time, which we are in, that a social economic view might be appropriate. Our economic approach and practices need to shift from the well being if the few to the survival of the species. Desperate creatures do desperate things. As more and more people find themselves without work or income they will be forced to resort to measures to survive. They will revert to primeval instincts to protect themselves and their loved ones and maybe even degrade to a point of only self preservation. We all know the initial sights of this decay of social order will be the organized gathering of people to voice their problems and desire to see their government solve the problems. Once they realize that the government does not have the answers, we will see the orderly gathering turn hostile towards their government and those who are perceived to have caused the problem, the Wealthy. The Wealthy might own the earth it shall be the meek that will inherit it. All creatures have another organism that keeps their numbers in check, except man. It will be man that will be the instrument by which man destroys himself. the Wealthy might have an opportunity to overt this outcome by changing the way they are perceived and also what is considered to be acceptable practices. However it really is the power of the people, we have empowered these people by allowing them gain and maintain their power, we can and will take it away from them.
The end of capitalism is given but everyone is afraid of the solution!
[info]richardneva wrote:
Friday, 30 January 2009 at 06:58 pm (UTC)
Karl Marx predicted this moment in time for all to see the folly of capitalism. Not that it is crumbling all the frantic efforts to save it are for naught! Pouring good money after bad in bail outs is a fool's game. The managed and controlled press the servant of big money can do nothing but report about the eventual upswing in the economy once we bail them out.

The solution of course is Marxist Socialism and the folks that elected this puppet Obama think he is a socialist! That shows you how stupid the public is. They say it failed in Russia and China, but those two contries are now part of the global economy that is anchored to capitalism. They will all fail too. We are looking at a total world upheaval of capitalism and it is a wonder to behold. Only those countries that save themselves by nationalising all industry will be saved. America and all the Global idiots will be reduced to third world status still clinging to capitalism. It will be fun to watch.
Re: The end of capitalism is given but everyone is afraid of the solution!
[info]johnbon44 wrote:
Thursday, 5 March 2009 at 04:40 am (UTC)
I'm actually a bit scared abut it all. There is such a strong potential for the rise of nationalism and fascism. Take a look at Russia in its post-capitalist Putin era and the way citezens have freely given away their liberties. And even here in Britain we are seeing the rise of nationalism with the BNP becoming a solution for many working class poor people who feel totally alienated by a government that does not listen and give help but creates a tax credit system designed to confuse them from claiming at all. Look at what happened after the Great Depression! The majority of countries set up relief programs, and most underwent some sort of political upheaval, pushing them to the left or right. However, in some states, the desperate citizens turned toward nationalist demagogues - the most famous being Adolf Hitler - setting the stage for World War II in 1939.

The ruling class thought that Global Capitalism was supposed to control everyone through passive consumption but it's being eating itself for years. Even the cultural distinction between modernism and the masses has been eroded: the meaningless schizophrenia of postmodernism?? Capitalism can't give direction and meaning to everyone; neither can the state. Most importantly capitalism and the state cannot interact in equilibrium. Is it maybe time individuals took responsibility and started looking after themselves and each other and not looking for a benevolent leader?!
[info]gravoting wrote:
Thursday, 16 April 2009 at 09:36 am (UTC)
Capitalism is not dead at all, jesus, how sensationalist can you possibly be! Hmmm, when I think about it, these people could really do with exerting themselves a little more. I think thats the underlying theme of this news article, these people need to act on advice and learn about leadership and how they can improve their own skills.
[info]franchise999 wrote:
Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC)
Great article - the Internet is such a great medium and resource and I thank you for taking the time out to write, it is always a pleasure to read.

Matthew Anderson
UK Business Franchises afvice and franchise resources.