Debt is capitalism’s dirty little secret

Ben Funnell has a commentary over on the Financial Times that makes some very interest and thought provoking points.

We have seen a huge concentration of wealth over the years into the hands of the elite, and this has been made possible by debt, which enabled the bulk of the population to maintains its living standards while it was occurring. This is capitalism's "dirty little secret."

He points out that incomes have increased for the highest 20% of earners by 60% since 1970, but have decreased by 10% for the rest. He points out that the Walton Family, of Wal Mart fame is wealthier than the bottom 100 million people in the US put together. If that is true, we have a problem, that is certain.

He goes on to say:

"Put simply, the benefits of economic growth have gone into the pockets of plutocrats rather than the bulk of the population. So why has there been no revolution? Because there was a solution: debt. If you couldn’t earn it, you could borrow it. Cheap financing was made widely available. Financial innovations such as the asset-backed securities market aided this process, as did government-sponsored agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Regulators welcomed it all while perhaps taking insufficient account of the moral hazard problem it posed: that ever-increasing leverage meant the authorities had to keep interest rates low, otherwise the debt burden would cripple consumption. This prompted more leverage, which exacerbated the problem."

Now here comes the crash, so what do we do? The debt is no longer available to help cover the problem.

"What can be done? First, although it is not ideal, we should not be too hasty about abandoning the capitalist model. It is less bad than any other system yet invented. But we should redouble our efforts to increase productivity through innovation and creating new markets; simply squeezing lower-income workers is a bad option, which helped get us into this mess in the first place. This requires investment in education and research. Second, we have to learn to live within our means. This means spending less than we earn, perhaps doing without the BMWs, flat-screen television sets and leather sofas. Third, we should be careful in distributing the higher tax burden that we will inevitably have to bear over the coming decade. Very high marginal tax rates did not work in the 1970s and will not work now. That said, income disparity at current levels is a political time-bomb that needs to be dealt with. Finally, we should all come to terms with the fact that these are structural issues needing structural solutions; they need to be enforced over a longer time period than any one government’s term. So we need a new political consensus, one aimed at reducing overall debt levels while reducing inequality by encouraging education, entrepreneurship and investment in innovation."

So, do we need a political revolution? Both of our political parties are tied to the old paradigm. If this is the problem, neither one of them is really positioned to do the right thing. They are both bought and paid for by the special interests that have gotten us where we are.

The changes he proposes, if his premise is correct, will be difficult to implement. Every politician in DC and every bureaucrat working for the government has a vested interest in the staus quo.

This seems to be something we should research. If he is right, our democracy can't last long without changes.

The last of his recommendations, which I have boldened, should be done whether or not his entire premise is correct.

If so, who will lead the revolution?