America’s Deficit Attention Disorder
The political debate in the United States and Europe has focused attention on public financial deficits and how best to resolve them. Tragically, the debate largely ignores the deficits that most endanger our future.
In the United States, as Republican deficit hawks tell the story, “America is broke. We must cut government spending on social programs we cannot afford. And we must lower taxes on Wall Street job creators so they can invest to get the economy growing, create new jobs, increase total tax revenues, and eliminate the deficit.”
Democrats respond, “Yes, we’re pretty broke, but the answer is to raise taxes on Wall Street looters to pay for government spending that primes the economic pump by putting people to work building critical infrastructure and performing essential public services. This puts money in people’s pockets to spend on private sector goods and services and is our best hope to grow the economy.”
Democrats have the better side of the argument, but both sides have it wrong on two key points.
- First, both focus on growing GDP, ignoring the reality that under the regime of Wall Street rule, the benefits of GDP growth over the past several decades have gone almost exclusively to the 1 percent—with dire consequences for democracy and the health of the social and natural capital on which true prosperity depends.
- Second, both focus on financial deficits, which can be resolved with relative ease if we are truly serious about it; and ignore far more dangerous and difficult-to-resolve social and environmental deficits. I call it a case of deficit attention disorder.
To achieve the ideal of a world that secures health and prosperity for all people for generations to come, we must reframe the public debate about the choices we face as a nation and as a species. We must measure economic performance against the outcomes we really want, give life priority over money, and recognize that money is a means, not an end.
What We Borrow from Each Other
To realistically address the nature of the public financial deficits at the center of the current political debate, it is crucial to understand the nature of money and debt. Money is just a number, a system of accounting useful in facilitating economic exchange. A deficit occurs when expenditures exceed income. If, as a result, financial liabilities come to exceed financial assets, we go into debt. It is all basic accounting.
The key point, which the deficit debates rarely address, is that one person or entity’s financial debt is another person or entity’s financial asset. We can only borrow money from each other. The idea that we borrow money from the future is an illusion.
From a societal perspective, total debts and assets are always in balance. Consequently, if we say that one person or entity has excessive financial debt, we in effect say that another has excessive financial assets. Reducing the aggregate financial debt of debtors necessarily requires reducing the aggregate financial assets of the creditors.
In theory, we could instantly wipe away all financial debts through a universal forgiveness, a modern equivalent of the ancient institution of the Jubilee. The ancients recognized the significance of such action to restore the balance essential to the healthy function of the human community.
The deficit-hawks recoil in horror and assure us that we can reduce government debt while leaving the financial assets of the rich untouched. It makes perfect sense in the fantasy world of pure finance in which profits and the financial assets of the rich grow perpetually even as growing inequality and wasteful material consumption deplete the social capital of community and the natural capital of Earth’s biosphere.
A viable human future, however, must be based on living world realities rather than financial world fantasies.
What We Steal from Future Generations
Any normally intelligent 12-year-old is fully capable of understanding the distinction between a living forest or fishery and a system of financial accounts that exists only as electronic traces on a computer hard drive. Unfortunately, this simple distinction seems to be beyond the comprehension of the economists, pundits, and politicians who frame the public debate on economic policy. By referring to financial assets as “capital” and treating them as if they had some intrinsic worth beyond their value as a token of exchange, they sustain the deception that Wall Street is creating wealth rather than manipulating the financial system to accumulate accounting claims against wealth it had no part in creating.
Real capital assets have productive value in their own right and cannot be created with a computer key stroke. The most essential forms of real capital are social capital (the bonds of trust and caring essential to healthy community function) and biosystem capital (the living systems essential to Earth’s capacity to support life). We are depleting both with reckless abandon.
- Social capital is the foundation of our human capacity to innovate, produce, engage in cooperative problem solving, manage Earth’s available natural wealth to meet the needs of all, and live together in peace and shared prosperity. Social capital is depleted as individualistic greed becomes the prevailing moral standard and the governing institutions of society deprive all but a privileged minority of access to a secure and dignified means of living. Once it is depleted, social capital can take generations to restore.
- Biosystem capital provides a continuing supply of breathable air, drinkable water, soils to grow our food, forests to produce our timber, oceans teeming with fish, grassland that feed our livestock, sun, wind, and geothermal to provide our energy, climate stability, and much else essential to human survival, health, and happiness. It is depleted when soils are degraded, oceans are overfished, rivers and lakes are polluted, forests cut down, aquifers contaminated and depleted, and climate stabilization systems disrupted. These natural systems can take thousands, even millions of years to restore. Species extinction is forever.
According to the World Wildlife Federation’s 2012 Living Planet Report, at the current rate of consumption, “it is taking 1.5 years for the Earth to fully regenerate the renewable resources that people are using in a single year. Instead of living off the interest, we are eating into our natural capital.” This is a path to never-never land. Unlike with financial deficits, simple debt forgiveness is not an option.
When we deplete Earth’s bio-capacity—its capacity to support life in its many varied forms—we are not borrowing from the future; we are stealing from the future. Even though it is the most serious of all human-caused deficits, it rarely receives mention in current political debates.
When we assess economic performance by growth in GDP and stock price indices, we in effect manage the economy to make the most money for people who have the most money. This leads us to the fanciful belief that as a society we are getting richer. In fact, we are impoverishing both current and future generations by creating an unconscionable concentration of economic power, depriving billions of people of a secure and dignified means of living, and destroying the social and biosystem capital on which our real well-being depends.
With proper care and respect, biosystem capital can provide essential services in perpetuity. The reckless devastation of productive lands and waters for a quick profit, a few temporary jobs, and a one-time energy fix from Earth’s non-renewable fossil energy resources represent truly stupid and morally reprehensible deficit spending. Evident current examples include tar sand oil extraction, deep sea oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas, and mountaintop removal coal mining The fact that we thereby deepen human dependence on finite nonrenewable fossil energy reserves and accelerate climate disruption make such actions all the more stupid and immoral.
Financial system logic, which rests on the illusion that money is wealth, tells us we are making intelligent choices. Living systems logic tells us our current choices are insane and a crime against future human generations and creation itself.
From Built-to-Loot to Built-to-Serve
The economy of a just and sustainable society needs a proper system of money creation and allocation that:
- Supports the health and productive function of social and biosystem capital and allocates the sustainable generative output of both to optimize the long-term health and well-being of all; and
- Rewards individuals with financial credits in proportion to their actual productive contribution to living system health and prosperity.
The current U.S. money system does exactly the opposite. It celebrates and rewards the destruction of living capital to grow the financial assets of Wall Street looters at the expense of Main Street producers—thus concentrating economic and political power in the hands of those most likely to abuse it for a purely individualist short-term gain.
Wall Street operates as a criminal syndicate devoted to the theft of that to which it has no rightful claim. It then bribes politicians to shield the looters from taxes on their ill-gotten gains and to eliminate social programs that cushion the blow to those they have deprived of a secure and meaningful means of livelihood. This brings us back to the real source and consequence of excess financial debt.
Masters and Debt Slaves
In the big picture, the Wall Street 1 percent has divided society into a looter class that controls access to money and a producer class forced into perpetual debt slavery—an ancient institution that for millennia has allowed the few to rule the many [See inset: “Wall Street and the Ultimate Tyranny”] .The immense burden imposed on the 99 percent by public debt, consumer debt, mortgage debt, and student debt is an outcome of a Wall Street assault on justice and democracy.
The resulting desperation and loss of social trust account for the many current symptoms of social disintegration and decline in ethical standards. These include growth in family breakdown, suicide, forced migration, physical violence, crime, drug use, and prison populations.
Equality as a Crucial Variable
I grew up in America during a time when we took pride in being a middle-class society without extremes of wealth and poverty. In part, we were living an illusion. Large concentrations of private wealth were intact and systemic discrimination excluded large segments of the population—particularly people of color—from participation in the general prosperity. The underlying concept that the good society is an equitable society, however, was and still is valid. And from the 1950s to the 1970s the middle class expanded.
Complete equality is neither possible nor desirable. Modest inequality creates essential incentives for productive contribution to the well-being of the community. Extreme inequality, as exemplified by current U.S. society, is both a source and an indicator of serious institutional failure and social pathology.
British epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson has compiled an impressive body of research that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that economic and social inequality is detrimental to human physical and mental health and happiness—even for the very rich. Relatively equal societies are healthier on virtually every indicator of individual and social health and well-being.
In highly unequal societies, the very rich are prone to seek affirmation of their personal worth through extravagant displays of excess. They easily lose sight of the true sources of human happiness, sacrifice authentic relationships, and deny their responsibility to the larger society—at the expense of their essential humanity. At the other extreme, the desperate are prone to manipulation by political demagogues who offer simplistic analyses and self-serving solutions that in the end further deepen their misery. Governing institutions lose legitimacy. Democracy becomes a charade. Moral standards decline. Civic responsibility gives way to extreme individualism and disregard for the rights and well-being of others.
To achieve true prosperity, we must create economies grounded in a living systems logic that recognizes three fundamental truths:
- The economy’s only valid purpose is to serve life.
- Equality is foundational to healthy human communities and a healthy human relationship to Earth’s biosphere.
- Money is a means, not an end.
A New Political Narrative and Agenda
Runaway public deficits are but one symptom of a profound system failure. They can easily be resolved by taxing the unearned spoils of the Wall Street looters, eliminating corporate subsidies and tax havens, and cutting military expenditures on pointless wars that undermine our security.
Joblessness can easily be eliminated by putting the unemployed and underemployed to work meeting a vast range of unmet human needs from rebuilding and greening our physical infrastructure to providing essential human services, eliminating dependence on fossil fuels, and converting to systems of local organic food production. If the primary constraint is money, the Federal Reserve can be directed to create it and channel it to priority projects through a national infrastructure bank—a move that avoids enriching the bankers and does not create more debt.
In addition, we must:
- Break up concentrations of unaccountable power.
- Shift the economic priority from making money to serving life by replacing financial indicators with living wealth indicators as the basis for evaluating economic performance.
- Eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty to create a true middle-class society.
- Build a culture of mutual trust and caring.
- Create a system of economic incentives that reward those who do productive work and penalize predatory financial speculation.
- Restructure the global economy into a planetary system of networked bioregional economies that share information and technology and organize to live within their respective environmental means.
Within a political debate defined by the logic of living systems, such measures are simple common sense. Within a political debate defined by conventional financial logic, however, they are easily dismissed as dangerous and illogical threats to progress and prosperity.
So long as money frames the debate, money is the winner and life is the loser. To score a political victory for life, the debate must be reframed around a narrative based on an understanding of the true sources of human well-being and happiness and a shift from money to life as the defining value.
A promising new frame is emerging from controversies surrounding the recent United Nation’s Rio+20 environmental conference. Wall Street interests argued that the best way to save Earth’s biosystems is to put a price on them and sell them to wealthy global investors to manage for a private return. Rather than concede the underlying frame to Wall Street and debate the price and terms of the sale, indigenous leaders and environmental groups drew on the ancient wisdom of indigenous peoples to challenge the underlying frame. They declared that as the source of life, Earth’s living systems are sacred and beyond price. They issued a global call to recognize the rights of nature.
Thus framed, the Rio+20 debate highlights a foundational and inherent conflict between the rights of nature, human rights, property rights, and corporate rights.
In current practice, based on the same financial logic that leads us to treat financial deficits as more important than social and environmental deficits, we give corporate rights precedence over the property rights of individuals. We give property rights precedence over the human rights of those without property. And we give human rights precedence over the rights of nature.
We will continue to pay a terrible price for so long as we allow the deeply flawed logic of pure finance to define our values and frame the political debate.
There is no magic bullet quick fix. We must reframe the debate by bringing life values and living systems logic to the fore and turning the prevailing rights hierarchy on its head. The rights of nature must come first, because without nature, humans do not exist. As living beings, our rights are derivative of and ultimately subordinate to the rights of Earth’s living systems.
Human rights come, in turn, before property rights, because property rights are a human creation. They have no existence without humans and no purpose other than to serve the human and natural interest. Corporations are a form of property and any rights we may choose to grant to them are derivative of individual property rights and therefore properly subordinate to them.
The step to a prosperous human future requires that we acknowledge life, not money, as our defining value, accept our responsibilities to and for one another and nature, and bring to the fore of the debate the social and bio-system deficits that are the true threat to the human future.
Replacing cultures and institutions that value money more than life with cultures and institutions that value life more than money is a daunting challenge. Fortunately, it is also an invigorating and hopeful challenge because it reconnects us with our true nature as living beings and offers a win-win alternative to the no-win status quo.
David Korten wrote this article for YES! Magazine, a national, nonprofit media organization that fuses powerful ideas and practical actions. David is the author of Agenda for a New Economy, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, and the international best seller When Corporations Rule the World. He is board chair of YES! Magazine, co-chair of the New Economy Working Group, a founding board member of the Business Alliance for Local Living Economies, president of the Living Economies Forum, and a member of the Club of Rome. He holds MBA and PhD degrees from the Stanford University Graduate School of Business and served on the faculty of the Harvard Business School.
CONNECT













11 comments on "America’s Deficit Attention Disorder"
August 18, 2012 1:44pm
The "Wall St 1 percent" has not divided the society. Fractional-reserve money systems themselves divide society. They take from Producers and give to owners of Fractional-Reserve Money Creation Machines! And, this happens with or without a Central Bank or Reserve Bank whatever that is. EVERY dollar in circulation is a debt. No dollar floats around out there and becomes an asset for a 1% person or anybody else unless somebody borrowed it into existence first. This point needs to be made clear and not obscured. That somebody is either an individual, a business, a corporate person, or a government!
Since the 1% have been withdrawing money from circulation here since the late 1990s, and putting them offshore into trading casinos that are not taxable, there is no way to recoup enough of those dollars every year to pay interest and repay principle. Since businesses have stopped borrowing and investing here since it is far easier to gamble in the global asset arbitrage casino than to build real productive businesses here, the US government is left holding the bag. One major reason for that is low marginal tax rates take away the incentive to reinvest profits in a business, and instead take them out as income. The pain is gone. Once they are offshore, there are no more taxes period!
Effectively QE took those downgraded Treasuries off the hands of the 1% and piled them up in that "reserve bank", creating an avalanche of potential new money expansion. That potential money expansion is a very dangerous Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads. Meanwhile, the 1% got their cash for Treasuries so they can move even more offshore.
The nature of money systems themselves drive all these human behaviors that result in inequality and sucking money away from social assets. Those loans that created all the money have to be repaid. Those loans require interest every year above and beyond the amount in circulation from principle. Therein lies the mystery here of "human behavior" or "human nature" that pushes people closest to this Beast toward greed and pillaging the natural environment.
We all have a lot of very simple concepts to learn before we are going to fix this mess. Blaming a group of Wall St 1 percent as if they have some kind of agency and free choice in these matters just covers for the real system issues.
August 13, 2012 12:21pm
If the issue between creditors and debtors is wiped out so quickly, then the only reason this is persisting is the security state brought about by an Old Guard. I am not about modernism. I do, however, think that time does not go backward and it takes time for the commonwealth to deal with the meaning of apprehending global concerns from Darwinian controls.
One example of an Old Guard having maintained this relationship between creditors and debtors is how simple AI is used to occupy niches such as following the money, thus laundering it for the drug cartels. Where is Indira Singh? Another niche AI occupies, and learns (for not leaving it) is preventing subways from crashing in Japan. It is used, also, for developing oil and gas fields, fairly complex, but allowing people to move to higher ground where they will be forced to go over time, anyway, if we don't learn, or learn-to-learn as Gregory Bateson's psychology teaches us.
We belong to something larger. No longer should we have to wait to get there.
August 14, 2012 9:10am
Isn't it sad that 90 to 95 percent of the "uninterested and ill-informed" regularly stay at home? A republic by the people and for the people implies that the people will play a role in their future, that they have an obligation to themselves and to each other to actively participate in and strengthen the republic they have chosen through the voting booth. A republic that does not have active participation of its citizens (as a majority of eligible participants) can hardly be called a"republic." Active participation (at the voting booth) is a small price to pay for freedom. There is no freedom without that participation. Without that participation we end up with what we have presently: oligarchy (supreme power restricted to few). A 5 to 10 percent voter turnout is equal to an oligarchy, pure and simple (no further evaluation needed. We cannot for any extended period of time have both a "republic" and an "oligarchy." We aspire to a republic, but our actions indicate a clear choice of oligarchy, in all of its forms. If one does not exercise his right and privilege to vote on the decisions of the elected persons, he/she sacrifices their aspirations for a republic ruled by the people. The use of licenses and permits is a traditional way of influencing the participation of the citizens in the benefits of society. The simple requirement for proof of that participation with a voting card hardly infringes on the "rights" of the citizen or its participation in a "republic" form of government. In my humble opinion, it is impracticable to have a republic, an oligarchy, a dictatorship, a theocracy, etc. all at the same time and claim that the freedom to have all is in the best interests of the citizens, because this gives them the freedom to do what the want and what they they don't want, with absolutely no restrictions. It isn't working now, it ain't worked in the past history, and it is not likely to work in the future. You need only to read or listen to the world news and current global developments. Except for valid reasons demonstrating clearly that it is impossible for you to vote, every citizen of voting age should feel obligated to vote at every election affecting them in any way. Proof of having voted in the last election would be a simple way of getting voters to the voting booth. Proof of having voted in the last election would be a requirement for obtaining any type of license, permit, degree or recognition. d. j. sekin
August 13, 2012 12:21pm
If the issue between creditors and debtors is wiped out so quickly, then the only reason this is persisting is the security state brought about by an Old Guard. I am not about modernism. I do, however, think that time does not go backward and it takes time for the commonwealth to deal with the meaning of apprehending global concerns from Darwinian controls.
One example of an Old Guard having maintained this relationship between creditors and debtors is how simple AI is used to occupy niches such as following the money, thus laundering it for the drug cartels. Where is Indira Singh? Another niche AI occupies, and learns (for not leaving it) is preventing subways from crashing in Japan. It is used, also, for developing oil and gas fields, fairly complex, but allowing people to move to higher ground where they will be forced to go over time, anyway, if we don't learn, or learn-to-learn as Gregory Bateson's psychology teaches us.
We belong to something larger. No longer should we have to wait to get there.
August 12, 2012 6:05am
What an excellent article.
I'm sure Limbaugh and Fox "News" would think David is an advocate of socialism. Well, I think they are assholes and I'm right.
WA
August 11, 2012 1:27pm
This is a really good article, I read it carefully. I agree that we are plundering the environment for temporary gains, cut down a tree to get an iPod is a rough equation. Such as bio-mass burning for energy, throw the forest in a furnace to power an automobile factory. The article sugests a new way to look at macro-economics and I'm thinking about it. 'Course, what the article misses is who's really in charge in America? Los Angeles showbusiness-TV is. Once you flash on that, you can understand America's warped financial philosophy, the current Republican financial philosopy serves to protect the millions of dollars that every furry little actor in Hollywood has gotten for themselves, reaping obscene profits from their movies and television. So, Hollywood creates a philosophy that it has sold to most of the nation while the people are in a suggestible, semi-hypnotic, drunken condition, the condition that the pleasurable entertainment and character of motion images induces. What this means is that the radical right is really motivated by VALUES, not simply money. They are talked into those values by clever propaganda campaigns which are mounted by Los Angeles with a view to protecting their own wealth and power. The wealth of Wall Street is merely "collateral damage" that Hollywood tolerates criticism of, so long as that criticism doesn't overflow into criticising Hollywood and it's wealth also!
August 13, 2012 9:38am
I agree that television and film have us in a continuous stupor. I and some others I know have quit cable and have no access to it, but I still watch two movies a week with Netflix. I'm distant enough from it to see what's happening but not completely free of it. Without cable, however, I am free of the constant consumer push of commercials.
What would happen in a world without constant passive entertainment? People would think, write, recognize their need for each other and the natural world. Our virtual lives make it easy to deny what we are doing to the earth and forget our total dependence on nature.
August 11, 2012 12:41pm
Thanks, David, for a very good article.
Thought-provoking.
August 11, 2012 12:37pm
This is an excellent framing of what the discourse could be, however as jelitez42 has pointed out, it is also splendid irony. I wonder, since corporations are now people, if there isn't a legal argument based on some of the ideas presented here. The author mentions corporations as "property" but how about people who contribute nothing except more money for their pockets. Wish I were a lawyer. Perhaps someone can take these ideas in hand and shape something new. It's better than nothing.
August 11, 2012 11:43am
What splendid irony,
'The step to a prosperous human future requires that we acknowledge life, not money, as our defining value, accept our responsibilities to and for one another and nature, and bring to the fore of the debate the social and bio-system deficits that are the true threat to the human future.'
The political party that claims Life as its core value (GOP) is the political party that is instituting policies that are hell bent on destroying life and this country.
August 12, 2012 4:00pm
Bravo. Well said. If only we could get this kind of information through to those who rely on Fox News and their kind for "news." If they only had this kind of information available to them, they would at least have the chance to choose between one or the other. When they receive only that which is biased towards the rich, many will of course come to believe it no matter how detrimental to them. Restore the fairness doctrine and force Fox News to present truth. Or penalize lies, I suppose.