Creditors of the World Are Not Necessarily Captive to the Debtors

In response to Martin Wolf's article in the Financial Times,  I offer the following commentary.

The conceptual framing of this argument is somewhat misleading. To begin with the phrase indicating a belief by creditors that they will inherit the earth suggests a context for concentrating wealth and power that is more benign than the underlying capitalist and human drive for dominance and control. There are enough examples in human history, and biology, be it modern or ancient, that one does not have to be much an historian to be compelled to believe that a basic survival instinct is to attempt to manage one’s environment so as to better the chances of surviving and thriving. Because of the complex web of relationships there is often some sort of mutual interdependence, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not so much.

The heart of Martin Wolf’s argument seems to suggest that the relationship between creditors and debtors is such that there is some sort of “lock” binding specific sets of creditors and debtors to one another. While perhaps the world cannot trade with Mars, specific parts of the world can rearrange their trading relationships and thier drivers of growth. For example, while no doubt the western developed world does serve an important function in sucking up the exports of China, it is also possible that through a combination of weaning itself from such heavy dependence on an export driven economy by developing its domestic aggregate demand, and shifting its trade relationships to for example Brazil, or even Russia, to meet some of its export needs it can transition from its heavy dependence its current export targets. As to being held captive because of its $3,200bn of currency reserves, it should be keep in mind that it is only held captive as long as the currency reserve exists in its current form. If these reserves begin to be exchanged for foreign equity positions representing control in strategic future resources that China needs, the current foreign reserves cease to be a control on China’s behavior, and rather serve to further concentrate power and wealth in the hands of those with capital.

Is this so different than when the Native Americans in New York sold Manhattan Island for the equivalent of $24 in baubles, or when the Soviet Union dissolved, dispersed shares of ownership of formerly state owned enterprises among the people, only to have aspiring oligarchs acquire and concentrate these assets for controlling interests in exchange for perhaps teh equivalent of a supply of vodka for a short period of time. There are innumerous other examples which can be given wherein the exchange of future earnings capacity (read indebtedness) for a more immediate gratification leads to servitude.

To suggest that because we are all on the same planet, as Martin Wolf does in his argument, the fix to the current capital imbalances are compelled by some notion of constraint by reciprocity is to have blinders hindering one’s vision as to the fuller range of feasible alternatives.