So I want to say here that I have long, long— I don’t know how long we know each oth­er… Seventy-five years, a hun­dred twen­ty, I don’t know but it feels like a very long time. [laughs] Thirty, that is amaz­ing, actu­al­ly. I have always real­ly admired how you mix in a very sub­stan­tive way the tech­ni­cal aspect and then these social ques­tions. And I real­ly love the pro­gram that you have devel­oped here and the plan, so I just want­ed to say that, and your talk.

Now I want to talk, then, just for twen­ty min­utes about this sub­ject, that it is a mis­take to think that finance is about mon­ey. If it only were, that would be so sim­ple. So I liked what you said before, you know, the mon­e­tiz­ing of, and that in a way finance has iron­i­cal­ly enabled in mas­sive ways the mon­e­tiz­ing of every­thing. But it itself, if you reduce it to mon­ey you’re miss­ing the key aspect of the plot.

So I sort of want to throw out the notion that finance is a capa­bil­i­ty. And so when you look at some of the mea­sures of its val­ue today, for instance out­stand­ing deriv­a­tives, a basic measure—a quadrillion…that mon­ey does­n’t exist, you know. Global GDP is some­thing like six­ty tril­lion. There is no— Quadrillion is many many zeros. I know that in Europe you have dif­fer­ent des­ig­na­tions. It’s more zeros than you’re used to in your aver­age fig­ures that you see with lots of zeros—it’s more than a tril­lion, let’s put it that way.

So I think one first step is to dis­tin­guish between tra­di­tion­al bank­ing, which sells mon­ey it has (or it can bor­row very quick­ly, what­ev­er) and finance, which sells some­thing it does not have. And in that sell­ing what it does not have lies its cre­ativ­i­ty. It has to invent instru­ments. And secondly—and they go together—it has to invade oth­er sec­tors. Because it itself does not have what it needs to produce.

Now, of course we use mon­ey mea­sures because that’s a way in which we can get some sort of grasp on it. And of course mon­ey is made. I mean, that’s no doubt. But finance itself, real­ly, I think it’s extreme­ly impor­tant to be thought of as a capability.

Now I clear­ly am not think­ing of capa­bil­i­ty as a nec­es­sar­i­ly benign con­di­tion like Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, where capa­bil­i­ty’s always beau­ti­ful and good. You know, I think in a way capa­bil­i­ty is a vari­able, and what might be good Time 1 might not be so great Time 2. So when I say capa­bil­i­ty I mean some­thing whose valence can change rad­i­cal­ly. Big footnote.

Finance makes cap­i­tal. So if we could only gov­ern finance, it might actu­al­ly be rather inter­est­ing. We could build hous­ing for the whole world. We could have green trans­port sys­tems every­where, etc. So I am not in prin­ci­ple against mak­ing a means with­in this kind of econ­o­my that we have now. Ideally we would move to a very dif­fer­ent type of econ­o­my. But we could actu­al­ly do some good. But to a very large extent, finance has lost the capac­i­ty to gov­ern itself. So it keeps going into crises, and it keeps devel­op­ing instru­ments after instru­ments on itself.

Now, one image that I have is that finance is the steam engine of our epoch. Its present every­where, direct­ly or indi­rect­ly. Now the steam engine was in some ways a more benign inno­va­tion than this is. 

So, I just want to use this as a—this is a very well-known graph—just as an illus­tra­tion of— So, just very quick­ly, this is cred­it default swaps, one kind of instru­ment. But just look at the rate of growth. That is what I mean by capa­bil­i­ty. So, it starts under $1 tril­lion in 2001, and by 2007 it’s $62 tril­lion. Now that’s more at that point than glob­al GDP, which is $54 tril­lion at that [time]. Now think of any­thing that can have that rate of growth. That’s a scale of—you know, that orders of mag­ni­tude are jumped. Now if you then con­sid­er that right now the val­ue for this par­tic­u­lar instru­ment that we’re deal­ing over a quadrillion, then you can imag­ine the rates of growth in all kinds of instruments. 

Now, in prin­ci­ple good things could be made with all of this if you mate­ri­al­ize it, you bring it down to ground lev­el, you make some­thing out of it. But that most­ly does not hap­pen. And when you use ground-level stuff, it often is very destruc­tive. I’m sure again you are famil­iar with this. So one issue that I have focused on at great lengths is this ques­tion of when mod­est neigh­bor­hoods become part of glob­al finance. Insofar as finance needs to invade oth­er sec­tors in order to deliv­er goods to itself, it runs out of stuff. So right now we are on stu­dent loans, we are on mod­est homes, because a lot of stuff has been financialized—very high-value items have been finan­cial­ized, valu­able real estate etc.

And here the bril­liance, if you want… And here I’m think­ing more like you know the famous lit­tle book The Technical Problem? Brilliant minds put to work on a tech­ni­cal prob­lem. That might have dev­as­tat­ing con­se­quences. But they’re bril­liant minds work­ing on…a tech­ni­cal prob­lem. So the chal­lenge in this par­tic­u­lar instru­ment, sub­prime mort­gage by the way is also spread­ing to Europe. You know we all have a lot of fore­clo­sures in Europe also. The chal­lenge was to delink—and this hap­pens reg­u­lar­ly; this is a very good exam­ple because we’re deal­ing with a very con­crete thing—a mod­est lit­tle house that can gen­er­ate for the high-level circuit—investment circuit—an asset-backed secu­ri­ty. Actual mate­r­i­al good at a time when almost every­thing has lost an actu­al mate­r­i­al asset.

The chal­lenge, then, since that is such a low-value lit­tle thingy, was to delink. To delink the con­tract that could be used in com­pli­cat­ed ways and com­pli­cat­ed instru­ments for the high-level invest­ment sec­tor. To delink that from the actu­al val­ue of the house. And this made it dan­ger­ous for the peo­ple who were involved. Because whether they paid or did­n’t pay, whether they could or could not pay those mort­gages, it did­n’t matter. 

So I don’t know if peo­ple are fol­low­ing me at this point, right. But it took like fif­teen or six­teen steps, and I like to say the math of this kind of instrument-making, very com­plex etc., is not the math of micro­eco­nom­ics. Microeconomics func­tions in a closed space. This is the math of physi­cists, those who try to track what can­not be known. So math becomes a very pow­er­ful instru­ment to cre­ate some pos­si­bil­i­ty. And that is what finance is—a pos­si­bil­i­ty. Very often it goes wrong, very often it goes very well.

Now, the result of this very short bru­tal his­to­ry— This is anoth­er thing, an accel­er­a­tion. And that is enabled by dig­i­tal tech­nol­o­gy, by inter­con­nect­ed mar­kets which make it on the one hand unpre­dictable, on the oth­er hand cre­ate extra­or­di­nary mul­ti­pli­er effects. So you stand back and if you want­ed to give a dif­fer­ent term, you would say finance is trans­ac­tiv­i­ty, accel­er­at­ed trans­ac­tiv­i­ty that goes in mul­ti­ple direc­tions and has mul­ti­ple inter­sec­tions. Transaction, trans­ac­tion, trans­ac­tion, con­nec­tion, connection. 

Am I speak­ing too fast? Okay, fine. Because I have an accent in English but that might help, actu­al­ly. The Brits tend to mum­ble. I don’t know if there are any Brits here in the room, but I can’t under­stand them, either. But anyhow.

So here get a sense— Now, this is the United States. It’s a very large coun­try; too big, in my book. It should real­ly be divid­ed into sev­er­al coun­tries. And so these num­bers are actu­al­ly a lit­tle lit­tle part of the of all the house­holds. But in them­selves, it is quite a sto­ry, you know. On that scale, those mod­est hous­es etc. So, fore­clo­sure is not nec­es­sar­i­ly that you’re out of your house. But accord­ing to our cen­tral bank, called the Fed usu­al­ly, we have right now 9.2 mil­lion peo­ple in this his­to­ry of about six years have been thrown out of their homes. That’s an amaz­ing­ly, sort of…you know, that’s pro­duc­tion, I would say.

Now, we have over thir­teen mil­lion fore­clo­sures. The worst years are 2013, 2014; it sort of drib­bles to an end in 2015 because those con­tracts were issued like say, you don’t have to pay any­thing for five years because what they paid or did­n’t pay, the val­ue of the house, the val­ue of the mort­gage, none of that mat­ters. And that again I repeat is the brilliance.

Now, here we have…I have in my new lit­tle book that I have gen­tly called Expulsions that deals with some of this and much else— I looked at the Europe 27. And so the high­est fore­clo­sure lev­els— And these are just num­bers, and the num­bers are much small­er than in the United States, but the pop­u­la­tions— So Hungary has now a mil­lion house­holds plus that are basi­cal­ly in fore­clo­sure and must be thrown out. But also Germany. I like to men­tion that. And the Netherlands, see there at the bot­tom, that is among the low­est. But these economies which still are so much more humane, if you want, than the American econ­o­my, they also have this bru­tal mode that is expelling at the bot­tom cre­at­ing an invis­i­ble zone tru­ly of expul­sions, peo­ple who are expelled. It’s not sim­ply a ques­tion of exclu­sion and more inequal­i­ty. It is deep­er. So here you have some of these num­bers. I want to move on.

Now, debt. You men­tioned it. Debt is the lit­tle bridge that helps finance invade just about any sec­tor. And what I want­ed to point out—you don’t have to look at every­thing, but just let’s take Hungary. And by the way the title of this table ratio of house­hold cred­it to per­son­al dis­pos­able income.” Credit sounds real­ly pret­ty. Credit is debt. They call it cred­it, but it’s debt. So what we’re look­ing at here is anoth­er very short bru­tal his­to­ry 2000 to 2005. And a lot of the 2000s marked sort of I would say this shift into a tru­ly bru­tal deploy­ment of this capa­bil­i­ty. Enormous com­plex­i­ty pro­duc­ing sim­ple bru­tal­i­ties. I find that con­trast sort of very compelling.

So look at Hungary. Starts 11%, so rea­son­able. Look. At that time the United States was already a 104%. Always num­ber one and well over a hun­dred, right. Now by 2005, that house­hold debt is almost 40%. By then the United States is 132%. Look at Spain, also. Now look at Germany. I love this moment. Seventy, sev­en­ty, sev­en­ty, sev­en­ty. Absolutely they did­n’t budge. How they did that I don’t know.

Now, I then I ask myself, because I think it mat­ters, once you look at debt as a crit­i­cal instru­men­tal­i­ty, as a bridge, it’s not just about the debt itself. Who owns this debt? And so you go scram­bling in the IMF papers, etc. This is IMF data, basi­cal­ly. And you see that, in the case back to Hungary, for instance, 40% of that debt is foreign-owned. Foreign banks. Now, if a lit­tle bank owns your debt, chances are that what­ev­er you pay, the inter­est what­ev­er it might be, that recir­cu­lates. But if a for­eign bank owns it, who knows where it goes? And that is of course the sto­ry also in the United States, where up to 70% of con­sumer debt is owned by five big banks. That is absolute­ly not nec­es­sary. The sys­tem has destroyed over ten thou­sand small banks in the last fif­teen years. That’s also an achieve­ment, you know. These are mas­sive destruc­tions all over the place. Capability; you can­not think finance in terms of mon­ey. It is sort of to me a different…

Now, at the same time—I don’t want to dwell on this—there is this new invent­ed hous­ing mar­ket. What I want to cap­ture here is some­thing very spe­cif­ic. These are min­i­mum prices. And those are the main nation­al­i­ties, etc. I just want to run through it as you can see…mixes: Dubai a very dif­fer­ent set of nation­al­i­ties, etc.

I love this one. In Shanghai, the main buy­ers are Hong Kong, Taiwan, US, Canadian, Korean, like the world is buy­ing in Shanghai. In Hong Kong, much more expen­sive mar­ket, the main buy­ers are main­land Chinese. I don’t know, I love that. I don’t know if peo­ple get it but anyhow.

So the actu­al de fac­to price on all of this is a hun­dred mil­lion. It’s just like a flat— The Honda is like the basic ten pounds or the ten this—it’s a hun­dred mil­lion. In New York and in any of these places. None of those build­ings is worth that mon­ey, none of them. And we’re talk­ing most­ly actu­al­ly apart­ment buildings. 

But we’re also talk­ing a lot of cities like London and Paris, a lot of build­ings. And so what I see here, this is not about hous­ing. This is about a land grab, an urban land grab like you have a land grab in the Global South. And how do you buy urban land? You buy it in the form of build­ings. And so if you jux­ta­pose that—I think I have a slide lat­er on on the Global South land grabs—2006 to 2010, short bru­tal his­to­ry, 220 mil­lion hectares of land— And we’re only [counting]—this is the glob­al net­work Land Matrix get­ting all the data, etc. And these are only prop­er­ties that are over two hun­dred hectares. The small­er is not counted.

So you have this— Some of you may know this, but I’m real­ly very inter­est­ed in the cat­e­go­ry ter­ri­to­ry.” This is not to do with finance now for a sec­ond here. And I think of ter­ri­to­ry as this com­plex mak­ing of log­ics of pow­er and log­ics of claim-making, etc. So this urban land grab and this rur­al land grab in the Global South, to me it’s very sig­nif­i­cant. It real­ly down­grades a com­plex con­di­tion that we make col­lec­tive­ly and that can­not be flat­tened into just land or ter­rain. Flattening it into just a sim­ple com­mod­i­ty that we call land. Anyhow, it is a bit of anoth­er story.

So I just want­ed to show you, just to just to nail it down, a few curves; they all go up. They all go up. And what you see here bob­bing, this is cor­po­rate prof­its after tax. I’m tak­ing the United States 1940s to 2010s. And it sort of bobs around around—it’s not at zero by the way, it’s just a bit above zero—but this is in bil­lions. And then it starts to go up, and look at 2000 it goes sharply up, then comes the cri­sis. A cri­sis that lasts for about two hours, you know—I exag­ger­ate, more like two years. And then it goes up even fur­ther. Now, finance is out of the cri­sis. We are all still stuck in it—or not not all of us but many of us.

Here’s anoth­er one, cor­po­rate assets; Same kind of curve. So in this lit­tle book— I love these sim­ple lines, a line that tells a tale. Because it has such a sharp change, you know. So you have a lot of these curves that go up, and they start all to go up in the 1980s and sharply real­ly in the end of the 1990s, etc. In this case it’s cor­po­rate assets.

Now, at the same time, coun­tries includ­ing Germany—I point [out] Germany because Germany’s sort of trot­ted out like they knew how to avoid the what­ev­er. All our gov­ern­ments are get­ting poor­er. Most of these gov­ern­ments, func­tion­ing lib­er­al states, could not engage today in the kind of vast infra­struc­ture rebuild­ing, etc. that they did in much of the 20th cen­tu­ry. They real­ly have become poor­er. And at the same time you see these oth­er curves going up. 

Now here is anoth­er curve. This is wealth, and every­thing you see that of course the ratio of 1% wealth to medi­an wealth, that always was a big gap, etc. But look at the curve in 2007, etc. Whoop, it goes up like that.

Here is anoth­er ver­sion of that, share of total wealth gain. What gains is from 80% up, basi­cal­ly. And the rest is los­ing. These are short, bru­tal his­to­ries that can­not be reduced to this finan­cial cri­sis bit. I think that in a way one way of putting it is that we’re deal­ing with an emer­gent epoch that begins to devel­op in cer­tain parts in the 80s, etc. And that it has a dif­fer­ent DNA. Now, if you think of our DNA, what are we, 88% the same as cer­tain mon­keys, right? We humans. But that lit­tle 2% actu­al­ly makes a lot of dif­fer­ence. So a lot of this stuff is absolute­ly the same as it was maybe in some cas­es even two hun­dred years ago. But at the same time there is a lit­tle thing that real­ly mat­ters and that gets you on sort of, if you want, the oth­er side of the curve. And so I’m very inter­est­ed in these curves.

Now, anoth­er quick ele­ment that I want­ed to—because this is anoth­er way in which finance has inno­vat­ed and is a capa­bil­i­ty. So, there is an agree­ment in the inter­state sys­tem, which is one ver­sion of what we might call the world,” with its rules and laws. And that is that you do not take sovereign—sovereign is the state in the lan­guage of inter­na­tion­al law; it does­n’t have to be a queen. So, you do not take a sovereign—a state—to court to demand it…you just don’t do it—in a domes­tic court.

Well, the vul­ture funds—who are now proud to call them­selves vul­ture funds”—in oth­er words they will extract val­ue from lit­tle pick­ings like lit­tle mod­est homes—they did. And here is just an exam­ple, just to show again this notion of finance as capa­bil­i­ty. These finan­cial firms, very aggres­sive, very inno­v­a­tive, altered the posi­tion of the state and sued them in civ­il court.

And this Elliot Fund is one of the first to be so aggres­sive and go to states. In October 1995, a New York vul­ture fund bought $28.7 mil­lion of Panama debt for a dis­count­ed price of $17 mil­lion. Why? Because the banks who owned that debt thought they would nev­er get the mon­ey back, since you don’t go and sue a state. 

Then they brought suit in a US court—in a domes­tic court—against the Panama gov­ern­ment for full pay­ment of the debt, plus inter­est. And they got the court to approve—an absolute prece­dent; we had nev­er seen that—and forced [Panama] to pay $57 mil­lion. Now, they did that—I have a full list—with coun­try after coun­try after coun­try. They actu­al­ly man­aged to repo­si­tion the state and to use the debt vec­tor of banks who are part of the big inter­na­tion­al sys­tem who would not sue a bank, bring it into anoth­er finan­cial cir­cuit, and go claim the money.

Now, I know I have to end here, so I’m going to skip all of these won­der­ful things. […] So… Bye bye. Thank you very much.

Further Reference

Overview post at the Institute of Network Cultures site about the con­fer­ence pan­el this pre­sen­ta­tion was part of.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.