Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta WIR. Mostrar todas as mensagens
Mostrar mensagens com a etiqueta WIR. Mostrar todas as mensagens

quarta-feira, 10 de dezembro de 2025

Just 0.001% hold three times the wealth of poorest half of humanity, report finds


Fewer than 60,000 people – 0.001% of the world’s population – control three times as much wealth as the entire bottom half of humanity, according to a report that argues global inequality has reached such extremes that urgent action has become essential.

The authoritative World Inequality Report 2026, based on data compiled by 200 researchers, also found that the top 10% of income-earners earn more than the other 90% combined, while the poorest half captures less than 10% of total global earnings.

Wealth – the value of people’s assets – was even more concentrated than income, or earnings from work and investments, the report found, with the richest 10% of the world’s population owning 75% of wealth and the bottom half just 2%.

In almost every region, the top 1% was wealthier than the bottom 90% combined, the report found, with wealth inequality increasing rapidly around the world.

“The result is a world in which a tiny minority commands unprecedented financial power, while billions remain excluded from even basic economic stability,” the authors, led by Ricardo Gómez-Carrera of the Paris School of Economics, wrote.

The share of global wealth held by the top 0.001% has grown from almost 4% in 1995 to more than 6%, the report said, while the wealth of multimillionaires had increased by about 8% annually since the 1990s – nearly twice the rate of the bottom 50%.

The authors, one of whom is the influential French economist Thomas Piketty, said that while inequality had “long been a defining feature of the global economy”, by 2025 it had “reached levels that demand urgent attention”.

Reducing inequality was “not only about fairness, but essential for the resilience of economies, the stability of democracies, and the viability of our planet”. They said such extreme divides are no longer sustainable for societies or ecosystems.

Produced every four years in conjunction with the United Nations Development Programme, the report draws on the biggest open-access database on global economic inequality and is widely considered to shape international public debate on the issue.

In a preface, the Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz repeated a call for an international panel comparable to the UN’s IPCC on climate change, to “track inequality worldwide and provide objective, evidence-based recommendations”.

Looking beyond strict economic inequality, it found that inequality of opportunity fuels inequality of outcomes, with education spending per child in Europe and North America, for example, more than 40 times that in sub-Saharan Africa – a gap roughly three times greater than GDP per capita.

Such disparities “entrench a geography of opportunity”, it said, adding that a 3% global tax on fewer than 100,000 centimillionaires and billionaires would raise $750bn a year – the education budget of low and middle-income countries.

Inequality was also fuelled by the global financial system, which is rigged in favour of rich countries, the report said, with advanced economies able to borrow cheaply and invest abroad at higher returns, allowing them to act as “financial rentiers”.

About 1% of global GDP flows from poorer to richer countries each year through net income transfers associated with high yields and low interest payments on rich-country liabilities, it said – almost three times the amount of global development aid.

On gender inequality, the report said a gender pay gap “persists across all regions”. Excluding unpaid work, women earn on average only 61% of what men earn per working hour. Including unpaid labour, that figure falls to just 32%, it added.

The report also highlighted the critical role played by capital ownership in the inequality of climate-changing carbon emissions. “Wealthy individuals fuel the climate crisis through their investments even more than their consumption and lifestyles,” it said.

Global data shows the poorest half of the global population accounts for only 3% of carbon emissions associated with private capital ownership, the report calculated, while the wealthiest 10% account for about 77% of emissions.

“This disparity is about vulnerability,” it said. “Those who emit the least, largely populations in low-income countries, are also those most exposed to climate shocks. Those who emit the most are more insulated against the impacts of climate change.”

The evidence shows that inequalities can be reduced, particularly by public investment in education and health and by effective taxation and redistribution programmes. It notes that in many countries, the ultra-rich escape taxation.

“Effective income tax rates climb steadily for most of the population, but then fall sharply for billionaires and centimillionaires,” the report said. Proportionately, “these elites pay less than most of the households that earn much lower incomes”.

Reducing inequality is a political choice made more difficult by “fragmented electorates, under-representation of workers, and the outsized influence of wealth”, it concluded. “The tools exist. The challenge is political will.”

domingo, 29 de junho de 2025

Europe’s Security Gamble: NATO’s New Budget Push


Across Europe, budgets are tightening, classrooms are overcrowded, hospitals are understaffed, and climate targets are slipping out of reach. Yet, in the midst of this so-called austerity, NATO countries are preparing to commit to something extraordinary: raising military spending to 5% of GDP. At a time when governments claim there’s “no money” for essential services, this massive shift demands scrutiny. Who benefits from this build-up? What are we sacrificing to fund it? And most importantly, is this really what security looks like in the 21st century?

Can NATO’s military build-up coexist with Europe’s climate and peace goals?
The world seems to be becoming a less safe place. According to the 2024 Global Peace Index, the world is now witnessing the highest number of armed conflicts since World War II. Regardless of the origins of the conflicts or the actors involved, the outcomes are often very similar: significant civilian casualties, large-scale displacement, and systematic violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. Just in the past year, 160,000 people died in conflict, with Ukraine accounting for 83,000 deaths and Palestine for at least 33,000 as of April 2024.

Faced with this grim reality, governments are ramping up military budgets. In 2024, global military spending surged to a record-breaking $2.7 trillion, the sharpest increase since the end of the Cold War and the tenth consecutive year of rising expenditures. European countries, particularly NATO members, are following this trend. Over the past decade, defence spending by EU NATO member states rose by 45%, from €145 billion in 2014 to an estimated €326 billion in 2024. That is about 1.9% of EU GDP, edging closer to NATO’s current 2% target, and equivalent to the entire annual GDP of several EU member states such as Finland, Portugal, or the Czech Republic.

But here’s the rub: this rapid increase is happening even as public finances are under increasing pressure. Overall, government spending in NATO EU countries grew by just 20% in real terms over the past decade, while defence budgets jumped by more than double that. Spending on health grew 34%, education just 12%, and environmental protection 10%. This highlights a growing imbalance of EU priorities.

A big chunk of this money is going straight into arms and military equipment. In 2024, EU NATO spent €90bn on military hardware, a staggering 50% increase over 2023, accounting for nearly 90% of all defence investments. But does buying more arms make us safer? That depends on what we’re buying, why, who benefits, and what kind of “security” we want. At the same time, the freshly reformed EU fiscal rules have been suspended to allow an increase in military spending, without any changes to the need to generally reduce budgets, meaning austerity still applies.

At NATO’s upcoming summit in The Hague on 24 June, there is momentum to raise the alliance’s defence spending target from 2% to an alarming 5% of GDP. This article does not aim to argue whether military defence is needed. But it encourages us to ask, how much is too much? Who’s profiting? And what does this mean for Europe’s democratic and social fabric? Because a jump to 5% won’t just tweak budgets – it will transform priorities for decades to come. This is not a technical or isolated defence issue. As budgets are redirected toward weapons and away from healthcare, education, housing, nature protection, and green transitions, we must ask: What kind of Europe are we building? If civil society does not pose the right questions, this decision risks being made behind closed doors, without a clear democratic mandate or transparent debate.

What kind of security are we talking about?
Europe needs to be able to defend itself, but one key piece is missing: a serious, independent assessment of what Europe needs to do so. Peace researchers Herbert Wulf and Christopher Steinmetz, in a report commissioned by Greenpeace, found that even without the U.S., NATO Europe far surpasses Russia in nearly all key military parameters. The idea that we are dramatically underprepared is not supported by the data. So, why the rush to build up? What threats are driving this? Are we confronting non-military threats like cyber-attacks, disinformation, or economic coercion with the same urgency as discussions around “air and missile defence” or “long-range weapons, logistics, and large land manoeuvre formations” as suggested by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte?

Framing defence needs as a percentage of GDP doesn’t help; it’s arbitrary. The proposed 5% defence target is not based on a transparent, evidence-based assessment of actual security needs. Using a percentage of GDP doesn’t reflect either the actual capabilities or military efficiency, nor differences in country size or economic performance, and non-military security needs (e.g., climate, energy, cyber resilience). It’s also proposed without public debate on the consequences for health, education, climate, or social spending.

In short, basing policy on a percentage of GDP distracts from the real work of defining what “security” means and how to achieve it holistically.

Who is benefiting from the increase in military spending?
Follow the money, and another pattern emerges: Europe isn’t just spending more – it’s spending outward. Nearly 80% of European defence procurement is imported, mostly from the United States. So, are our investments really strengthening European security and resilience, or simply boosting American military firms? And what happens when those suppliers are tied to fossil fuel lobbies, political instability, or unpredictable presidents? Let’s not forget: the U.S. military industry played a key role in Trump’s last campaign and could again. By feeding this system, are we fuelling the very instability we claim to resist?

Meanwhile, public money flows steadily into the hands of military shareholders. Where do we draw the line? What becomes of budgets meant for healthcare, education, childcare, housing, nature protection and the climate? If we see direct transfers from public pockets to company shareholders as part of the industrial-military complex, would the wealthiest rentiers not again reap profits at the expense of taxpayers? When arms companies and investment funds profit from conflict, how do we safeguard democratic oversight? Should we revisit, if not reverse, the privatisation of military industries to preempt a situation where profits depend on global unrest?

This is more than just a budget issue. It’s a structural shift that could weaken democracy, deepen inequality, and make conflict more profitable than peace.

How beneficial is militarisation for economic performance and jobs?
Not in the way some claim. Military spending may look like an economic stimulus, but evidence shows otherwise. Military expenditure often has a smaller multiplier effect compared to green and social investments. It creates fewer jobs per euro spent than health, education, or green investment. That’s because defence projects are capital-intensive, dominated by a handful of companies, and often happen outside the EU.

Compare that to investments in energy efficiency, renewables, public transport, care work, or nature restoration, which generate more employment, faster returns, and healthier communities. At a time of fiscal constraint, prioritising defence risks crowding out essential public services, deepening social inequalities, and weakening economic resilience.

And what about the climate and the environment?
Militarisation comes with a hefty environmental price tag, long before war ever breaks out. Military forces are among the world’s biggest energy users. Building and maintaining military forces consume large amounts of fossil fuels, critical minerals, and water, which places a strain on ecosystems and contributes to global emissions. Control over such materials has become a strategic priority, influencing geopolitical decisions in regions like Ukraine and the DRC. Day-to-day military readiness requires constant training, and training means consuming resources and energy, notably oil, with low levels of energy efficiency.

The global military carbon footprint is estimated at 5.5% of all greenhouse gas emissions, yet it’s mostly invisible in climate accounting frameworks. That means countries can meet climate targets on paper while quietly ramping up emissions through their armies.

There’s also the question of land. Militaries also occupy vast land and sea areas, up to 6% of the planet’s surface, including ecologically sensitive zones. Some areas may be shielded by restricted access, but many suffer heavy degradation from training, testing, and infrastructure. Pollution, habitat loss, and contamination are all common issues, with little to no public accountability.

This raises a fundamental issue: what if military “readiness” is undermining planetary stability, the very foundation of long-term peace?
A turning point

We are living through uncertain, volatile times. The threats are real, but so are the choices.

We can choose to define security broadly, not just as the absence of war but as the presence of care, fairness, resilience, and sustainability. We can build safety from the ground up — with strong communities, thriving nature, and just economies.

Or we can double down on outdated models of defence, lock in spending that benefits the few, and lose sight of the Europe we claim to defend. Civil society must not shy away from this debate.

Because in the end, security isn’t just about protecting borders; it’s about protecting what matters most.

segunda-feira, 26 de janeiro de 2009

David Korten: “Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth”



As President Barack Obama reveals more details of his $825 billion economic stimulus plan, we turn to David Korten of YES! Magazine. In his new book, Korten argues that the nation faces a monumental economic challenge that goes far beyond anything being discussed in Congress. He writes that now is an opportune moment to move forward an agenda to replace the failed money-serving institutions of our present economy with the institutions of a new economy dedicated to serving life. [includes rush transcript]

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: President Barack Obama has revealed more details of his $825 billion economic stimulus plan ahead of its introduction on the House floor this week. In his first weekly radio address as president, Obama said the plan would fund a new 3,000-mile electricity grid, computerize the nation’s health records, modernize schools, and repair and modernize the country’s mass transit system.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: To accelerate the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double our capacity to generate alternative sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, over the next three years. We’ll begin to build a new electricity grid that lay down more than 3,000 miles of transmission lines to convey this new energy from coast to coast. We’ll save taxpayers $2 billion a year by making 75 percent of federal buildings more energy efficient and save the average working family $350 on their energy bills by weatherizing 2.5 million homes.

To lower healthcare cost, cut medical errors and improve care, we’ll computerize the nation’s health records in five years, saving billions of dollars in healthcare costs and countless lives. And we’ll protect health insurance for more than eight million Americans who are in danger of losing their coverage during this economic downturn.

To ensure our children can compete and succeed in this new economy, we’ll renovate and modernize 10,000 schools, building state-of-the-art classrooms, libraries and labs to improve learning for over five million students. We’ll invest more in Pell Grants to make college affordable for seven million more students, provide a $2,500 college tax credit to four million students, and triple the number of fellowships in science to help spur the next generation of innovation.

Finally, we will rebuild and retrofit America to meet the demands of the twenty-first century. That means repairing and modernizing thousands of miles of America’s roadways and providing new mass transit options for millions of Americans. It means protecting America by securing ninety major ports and creating a better communications network for local law enforcement and public safety officials in the event of an emergency. And it means expanding broadband access to millions of Americans, so business can compete on a level playing field, wherever they’re located.

I know that some are skeptical about the size and scale of this recovery plan. I understand that skepticism, which is why this recovery plan must and will include unprecedented measures that will allow the American people to hold my administration accountable for these results. We won’t just throw money at our problems; we’ll invest in what works.

AMY GOODMAN: President Obama in his first weekly presidential radio address.
Meanwhile, the Obama administration could be planning on spending even more money to bail out the nation’s banks. Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation, Vice President Joe Biden said Treasury Secretary nominee Timothy Geithner will soon report on whether he thinks banks need more bailout money. Speculation is growing that the Obama administration may decide to nationalize two of the nation’s largest banks: Citigroup and Bank of America. Earlier this month, the Bush Treasury Department announced an additional $118 billion infusion for Bank of America. Citigroup recently announced it suffered an $8 billion net loss in the fourth quarter.

For more on the economy, I want to turn now to David Korten, co-founder of Positive Futures Network and publisher of the magazine YES!. He is also a former professor at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Business and the author of several books, including When Corporations Rule the World and The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. His newest book is just out, called Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth. In it, David Korten argues the nation faces a monumental economic challenge that goes far beyond anything being discussed in Congress. He writes that now is an opportune moment to move forward an agenda to replace the failed money-serving institutions of our present economy with the institutions of a new economy dedicated to serving life.

Juan Gonzalez and I spoke to David Korten on Friday about the nation’s economic crisis and how it should be addressed.

DAVID KORTEN: Well, it really starts with being clear that we have a failed economic system. And we’ve seen very dramatically the consequences of the financial failure. But what we’re not talking about is the connection to the environmental failure, the destruction of earth’s living systems, and the social failure of an economic system that by its very design, particularly as manifest on Wall Street, is designed to increase inequality. You know, having worked in international development for many years, I’m very familiar with the argument that the way to deal with poverty is, through economic growth, to bring up the bottom. But, of course, what we see — and we’ve seen this for decades — is that, in fact, economic growth tends to raise the top and depress the bottom.
Now, part of it’s coming to terms with the fact that we live on a finite planet. We’ve got finite resources. And the question is, what are our economic priorities? How do we allocate those resources? And it requires a fundamentally different approach to the economy: evaluating economic performance by the things that we really want, in terms of human and natural well-being, rather than a system that is purely designed to increase financial returns to the already very wealthy.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Your book’s subtitle, From a Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth — what is phantom wealth?

DAVID KORTEN: Yeah. This is part of understanding the current Wall Street system, which is built around an illusion, the illusion that money is wealth, which then translates into the idea that people who are creating — or who are making money are in fact creating wealth. And what Wall Street has become extremely expert at is creating money out of nothing through financial bubbles, through pyramiding lending to create fictitious assets that become collateral for more bank lending, and then combining that with the predatory aspects of usurious lending and deceptive lending and the use of credit cards as a substitute for a living wage — all the games that Wall Street is playing. And it’s actually based on a philosophy that says we don’t need to produce anything as a country, if we can — you know, if we can do all this financial innovation that allows us to create financial assets without producing anything of real value. I mean, it’s absolutely insane. And yet, it is the — it’s been the foundation of our economic policy in this country for decades now.

AMY GOODMAN: You have spent your life focusing on issues of sustainability. You talk about excess consumption. What is the model that you could see right now? What is the model that we have right now? And what is the one you want to see built?

DAVID KORTEN: Yeah, well, the amazing thing is that our system is built on driving increased consumption, but particularly it is driving the most destructive and wasteful forms of consumption, of course, starting with war, moving on to automobile dependence, and which is not just about the energy issue, but it’s about the fragmentation of society, as we move out into the suburbs. It’s about the breakdown of the family, as we put more and more stress on the family. So you have to have two or more people in the household working more than one job each just to keep the household together, which means the children are without caretakers and so forth.
You begin to put this all together, you say, well, if we began to really organize our economic activities around the things that really matter, we’d be looking at things — well, how do we organize our economy so that it actually builds human relationships, so it supports families, so it creates an environment in which our children can grow up both physically and psychologically healthy? And we begin to say, well, first of all, it would be a good idea to end war. And, of course, most of our wars are about competition for resources to maintain our wasteful lifestyle. So let’s really get serious about world peace. Then we’ve got to start reducing our dependence on automobiles and recognize that rather than reemploying autoworkers in making automobiles, we should be employing them in building bicycles, building public transportation and so forth, all the things we need. Instead of investing massively in advertising, you know, redirect those creative communications resources to education. You begin to see, in almost every aspect of our economy, the opportunity to redirect resources in ways that actually increase our well-being — they’re not about sacrifice, ultimately — and bringing ourselves into balance with one another and with earth.

AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with David Korten.

JUAN GONZALEZ: You talk about this as a much more holistic and fundamental approach to the crisis we’re facing right now, but a few days ago, in his inaugural speech, President Obama, in the only reference he made really to the market, he said something to the effect that government — without the watchful eye of government, the market can sometimes spin out of control, but that basically reaffirming our markets and our system as the best to offer for the world. Your sense of his response, given the nature of the crisis you think we face right now?

DAVID KORTEN: Well, it’s always hard to tell exactly what that translates into, but I think the bottom line of what he’s saying is that for a market to function efficiently in the service of society, it has to operate within a framework of rules. And it’s interesting. You know, by my understanding of real market economics, that’s a fundamental part of market efficiency. Now, of course, what we’ve been driven by is an economic ideology that claims to be a market theory, but in fact is anti-market, because what happens, if you try to operate a market without rules, you get this consolidation of power, the disconnect of financial power from the real economy of real people and real goods and services, and you develop a totally extractive economy.
You know, theoretically in economics, economists talk about markets as a range, from the purely competitive market, which — you know, the kind of model would be the farmers’ market, like down here at Union Square, where I used to live; at the other end is the purely monopolistic or monopoly market, which has none of the beneficial features of the perfect competition. But they say, well, because the perfect competition works really well, you know, the market economy is the way to go.
I mean, basically, we need to realize we’ve been told that there are only two economic models. One is the capitalist model, and the other is the communist or socialist model. One, the capitalists own everything, and the other, the government runs everything. The real alternative is, in fact, a real market economy that looks a whole lot more like what Adam Smith had in mind, which is — which looks more like a farmers’ market. And I think — you know, we talk about Wall Street and Main Street, and really the solution is to rebuild a new economy based on Main Street, which means local businesses and people who are rooted in their community and working within a framework of community values and a set of public rules that enforce basic conditions of market efficiency.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Isn’t part of the problem — is, here you talk about the — even in the classical style of capitalism, we’ve seen a huge turn away. For instance, so much of our financial system now is in derivatives and credit default swaps and all of these unregulated and almost unknown —-

DAVID KORTEN: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: —- aspects of the financial system, and then the rise in recent years of all of these private equity firms. At least in the classic corporation, there are shareholders, and there are boards of directors, and you have filings with the SEC, and you have some sort of transparency. But now, with these private equity firms dominating so much of investment and with all of these off-the-books financial systems, you really have a system that no one even knows how deep the problem is.

DAVID KORTEN: That’s absolutely right. And, you know, the values have morphed further and further away from any kind of connection to or commitment to a larger public interest. And, of course, underlying this is also this immoral philosophy that says if we each simply pursue our individual financial benefit, that this maximizes the benefit for the society. Now that is about as corrupt a theory as one could imagine. We are seeing the consequences of it.
And one of the things we have to break out of is to recognize that that is a — it’s pragmatically flawed, it is morally flawed, that there is a community interest, and it beholds every one of us in every aspect of our life to recognize not only our personal interest, but also the collective interest, which means we’ve got to create a totally different economy around different institutions and different values.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, as people listen to you, David Korten, they might be saying this is really pie in the sky. But it sounds like you’re redefining it as apple pie in the sky, right? As patriotic.

DAVID KORTEN: It is patriotic. It’s democratic.

AMY GOODMAN: You’re saying that Wall Street can’t be fixed. How do we replace it? Lay out how the environment fits into this and exactly what you mean when you say, you know, families should be able to do things more together. How do people survive? Why is Main Street more real than Wall Street?

DAVID KORTEN: Well, because Wall Street is totally in the business of creating phantom wealth. You know, it goes back to one of the fundamentals that I realized when I was working in international development and I began to wonder, “Why is it that the more developed the country gets, there’s more and more people living in poverty?” And it comes down to a very simple recognition. All the decisions that we make and official aid agencies are based on, what will maximize the returns to money, which means to people who already have money. And people who don’t have any money basically don’t fit into the equation. And that’s the way our whole economy, the whole Wall Street picture, is defined.
So, you know, part of the shift is recognizing, again, that the whole concept of economic growth is flawed in terms of how we measure it, because in fact what economic growth really measures is the cost of producing whatever level of human well-being, health and well-being, we have achieved. So, in an economy that works, we would start assessing economic performance against indicators of the health of our children, of our families, of our communities, the health of our natural systems, and we would look at GDP as a measure of the cost of that attainment, so we would be trying to minimize GDP rather than maximize it, as we organize economies that are really about — they’re about building community. They are about providing people with meaningful jobs that give us a sense of personal meaning in our lives.

AMY GOODMAN:Give us an example.

DAVID KORTEN: Well, I mean, one of the interesting examples is the data that shows that people who shop in a farmers’ market have ten times the number of conversations of people who shop in a supermarket. And, you know, I know that from when I lived here in New York on Union Square and I did most of my grocery shopping at the farmers’ market. And, yeah, you meet people, and you talk, and you meet your neighbors, and you get acquainted with the farmer that grows your produce and so forth. And this is all about building relationships. And, you know, we have so monetized the economy, and a part of that process is monetizing relationships. And it diminishes our very humanity.

JUAN GONZALEZ:I’d like to ask you to put this more in the perspective of our global economy. Clearly, one of the great economic trends of the past fifty years is that the industrial heartland of America has moved from the Midwest to China —

DAVID KORTEN:Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: to India, to the developing world. And much of the production of the West is now in countries where the labor standards under which that production is made is far inferior to where it was made when it was here, in western Europe or in the United States.

DAVID KORTEN:Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ:That’s, it seems to me, at this point, an almost irreversible trend. How will that affect the future of American society in twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years?

DAVID KORTEN:Well, in some ways, it is a very reversible trend, because we have been supporting that purely by living off of consumer credit extended by the rest of the world, and the rest of the world is beginning to finally wake up to the fact that the US dollar is not worth as much as we all thought it was, because our own economy is increasingly built on — you know, and this has been an explicit policy — the growth of the financial sector is a percentage of our total economy, so we built an economy that assumes that we can live by simply creating money out of nothing, advertising to sell goods and services produced in China, security services to maintain order in the face of breakdown, health services to make up for the fact that we’re eating crummy non-nutritious food and ingesting all sorts of toxins from the environment, and toxic waste cleanup. Now, this is not the foundation for much of an economy. The rest of the world is at some point going to stop sending us their goods and their food, because they’re going to realize that they’re much better off to eat that food themselves and to produce shoes for their own children rather than shipping to us. So either we get cracking on rebuilding our economy and our capacity to produce, or we’re going to end up in a pretty desperate strait in the not-too-distant future.
And, of course, while we’re doing this, we need to rebuild all that around a model that is environmentally sustainable, which means our total consumption of material goods has to drop significantly. But if you put it in the context of, well, if we get rid of our military-industrial complex; if we begin to roll back our suburbs, to begin to reform ourselves into more compact communities so that we eliminate our automobile dependence; if we start putting more of our energy into education and into primary healthcare and all the things that are essential to a good society; we begin to rebuild the relationships of community, people begin to find satisfaction in their jobs because they’re really producing goods and services that help their neighbors, and they feel like they’re contributing to their community.
Now, you know, the amount of adjustment that we have to make in order for all this to happen is huge, and that cannot be downplayed. You know, we’ve done work in fifty years to create this monstrosity of an economy that runs on a fossil fuel subsidy that’s being withdrawn and that is based on this premise that if we just make more money out of nothing, we are more prosperous. So this is kind of a wake-up call. We’ve been living in a trance.

AMY GOODMAN:David Korten, Inauguration Day, Wall Street experienced one of its greatest dives down. Very interesting. As one said, Wall Street jeered, while Washington cheered.

DAVID KORTEN:As the world cheered.

AMY GOODMAN:As the world cheered. You had, by the closing bell, the Dow Jones Industrial Average down 322 points, below 8,000. S&P 500 Index dropped forty-five points, more than five percent. It rarely goes below one percent. How is the Dow Jones related to real life? When it goes up, is that good for America? Is that good for the world? When it goes down, is that bad?

DAVID KORTEN:Well, the interesting thing is, when it goes up, what it really means is that rich people are getting richer than the rest of us, or they’re getting richer faster. And it’s actually bad. Now, you know, if you really accepted it in the context of the way we’re supposed to think about it, that is generating more and more resources for productive activity. But in fact, most of the Wall Street funding is focused on funding speculation. And, of course, most of the trading, at least 90 percent of the trading, probably more like 95 percent of the trading, that goes on on Wall Street has nothing to do with funding real businesses; it’s just exchanging pieces of paper. So, you know, when the market goes up quickly, that’s a financial bubble. It has absolutely nothing to do with anything related to real wealth. I mean, this is part of the insanity of it, that we have come to believe that a financial bubble is actually creating wealth, where it does absolutely nothing except create additional financial credits. And yet, the business commentators are always talking about, we created so much — so much wealth was created in the market today, or so much wealth was destroyed. That’s the phantom wealth.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And what part of some of your prescriptions for a way out of this economic quagmire do you believe that the team that Barack Obama is assembled — Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner and these others — will be able or even willing to try to address?

DAVID KORTEN: Well, certainly, Summers is one of the ultimate neoliberal, free market ideologues.

AMY GOODMAN: What does that mean?

DAVID KORTEN: It means he has been a promoter of the idea of unregulated markets. He was — by my understanding, he was actively involved in the dismantling of Glass-Steagall, so that you could consolidate the depository banks with the investment banks with the brokerages and so forth, which then get us into banks creating money by lending it essentially to themselves. That’s where the system really starts spinning out of control.
You know, Timothy Geithner was head of the New York Federal Reserve, which really is considered to be the lead Federal Reserve organization all during the time that they were going through the processes of deregulating the financial markets and even the Federal Reserve, pouring trillions of dollars that go way beyond the bailout of the Treasury Department.
So it’s hard for me to see that these folks have a framework consistent with where we need to move and that they have a recognition that Wall Street, as we know it, basically needs to be allowed to fail. And, in fact, we should be putting in regulations not only to make it — not to make it work, but to stop the speculation. And if you stop the speculation, if you stop the usury, the excessive interest charges and so forth, Wall Street will in fact collapse. Now, I was fascinated. I hadn’t heard this yet, but you mentioned that the government is starting to actually talk about takeover of some of the big banks. Now that, if they do it right, is potentially a right step.

AMY GOODMAN: Krugman has said nationalize the banks.

DAVID KORTEN: Yeah. Now, my sense of what we really need to do is nationalize the depository banks, let the hedge funds and private equity funds fail, but not with the idea that the government will permanently run the banking system as nationalized banks, but that they go through a transition of spinning those banks off into community banks, in a sense restoring the unitary banking system that we had some decades ago, where the banks were organized and functioned as local financial institutions, where people could deposit their savings, and the banks could make loans to people that were buying a house or running a business, which is the way the system should be structured.
Now, the other piece that we need to deal with is the whole question of how we create money, which is not very much publicly discussed. But moving from the current system, where we essentially rely on banks to create money by lending it into existence, which creates all kinds of financial instability, and it also means that, in a sense, every economic transaction, we’re paying rent to the bank for the money, when it’s quite possible for government to spend the money into existence, as it is needed, to build a much more stable money supply. And that means that — you know, that lowers taxes.
You know, in terms of the Obama stimulus package, people talk, “Where does that money come from?” And it’s very likely, if we do it in the traditional way, we’ll either borrow it from the banks, which means the banks will create it out of nothing and we will be paying interest on it, or if we borrow it abroad, it may be banks in China or Japan creating the money, which then we pay interest on. And it makes a whole lot more sense to develop a whole new orderly system by which the money is essentially issued by the federal government, and then we don’t owe anybody anything.

AMY GOODMAN: What if the banks are nationalized? The taxpayers have to take on the bad debt, the bad assets, and then they reprivatize them when they get healthy.

DAVID KORTEN: Well, that’s an interesting question. I think there’s good reason to say, “Don’t take on the bad debts.” You know? Let them go into bankruptcy, and then take over the assets to restructure. Now, this gets us into a huge additional problem, in that in the creation of phantom wealth — and, of course, many of these derivatives and so forth were ultimately sold off to pension funds or to university endowments or, you know, local municipality trust funds or whatever. You begin to look at that, and what you realize is that the total financial claims that were built up through that process far exceed any real wealth of the planet, which means that they are fictitious. You know, they can never be realized. We’ve been treating money as a storehouse of value. What it really is, it can be a storehouse of expectations.
But those of us who have — we may have comfortable retirement accounts. It’s not clear how we’re going to be able to redeem that, because there’s not enough wealth in the society, real wealth of real people doing real things, to maintain us at the level of our expectations. So all of this needs to be reworked out in this process of restructuring the financial system, and it’s not going to be easy or comfortable.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Because when you talk about letting some of these big institutions go bankrupt, as you say, you’re talking about pension funds of labor unions, government investments as well, universities.

DAVID KORTEN: Yes.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Everybody got involved in getting into the markets, and now everyone, to one degree or another, will pay from the unraveling of these markets.

DAVID KORTEN: Yeah. And part of the really insidious nature of it is the way the money managers are running the system. They’re creating all of these fictitious transactions as a justification for collecting fees from the system, such as you know, that some of the highest compensated hedge fund managers were taking home more than a billion dollars a year in compensation. Now, that’s where we need to do some serious taxation to recover that money. I mean, that’s pure theft. What they were really doing was raiding the equity of these funds, which was supposed to be the cushion against risk. And so, again, I mean, this is a form of fraud that cannot be allowed to endure.

AMY GOODMAN: David Korten, what does the end of empire mean?

DAVID KORTEN: The end of empire, this puts it all in a historical context, and it very much relates to democracy. 5,000 years ago, as a species, we moved away from more community-oriented forms of organization, and we began to organize ourselves by dominator hierarchy. I refer to that period of move — the move to empire. And it was not just about one nation dominating another, but it was about a dominator hierarchy at all levels of society, from the relationships among nations to relationships within families, relationships between gender, between races and so forth.
Now, we have gone through some democratizing processes, but the fact is, we are still in that era of empire, of organization of society by dominator hierarchy. And whereas the rulers used to be kings and emperors, they are now corporate CEOs and hedge fund managers. And the system has morphed into where the real rule in society — put aside all our elections, democracy and so forth, the real rule has been by Wall Street institutions through the system of money, as money is a system of power.

AMY GOODMAN: David Korten, author of Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real Wealth: Why Wall Street Can’t Be Fixed and How to [Replace] It.