Alaska’s Budget Deficit is Political Threat to its Basic Income

Alaska’s Budget Deficit is Political Threat to its Basic Income

Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend is the closest thing to a Basic Income that exists in the world today. It gives every U.S. Citizen who fills out a form verifying Alaska residency a check for a share of the revenue from the Alaska Permanent Fund each year. The fund and dividend—on their own—are on solid financial footing. Left alone, they can continue as long as there is a State of Alaska. But the same can’t be said for the rest of Alaska’s budget. Most of it is financed by revenue from the state’s oil exports. Oil reserves are finite, and therefore, the revenue they provide temporary; and oil exports have been gradually dropping for years. The world oil market is volatile, and prices are down right now leaving the state with a substantial budget deficit, in the order of $3.9-4.0 billion this year and yet.

Alaska Dispatch News

Alaska Dispatch News

The state has no income or sales tax, making those the obvious sources of revenue for, but Alaskans are notoriously skeptical of personal taxes. The state has budget reserves (also funded out of oil revenue), but at current deficit rates, it could spend through those in a matter of three to five years. If oil prices don’t bounce back or if oil exports continue to decline, this strategy would merely put off the day of reckoning and put the state in a worse financial position when that day comes.

With all this issues, Alaska’s $54 billion Permanent Fund is a tempting target for legislators. The constitution protects the fund’s principal, but not it’s earnings. Almost all of the fund’s earnings have been dedicated to supporting the dividend since the dividend’s inception in 1982. The dividend has been protected by its enormous popularity, but with greater financial pressure on the state budget the political balance might change and the dividend—or its future growth—could be at risk.

Several proposals have been put forward, some involving the introduction of new taxes, some involving borrowing against the state’s funds, some involving slowing the growth of the fund and dividend, and some involve lower dividends at present without necessarily slowing the rate of increase of the fund.

To read some of these proposals, go to:

Scott Goldsmith. “Alaskans, we better wise up before we burn through our savings.” Alaska Dispatch News, April 9, 2015.

Alex DeMarban, “Permanent Fund can lower deficit while checks keep coming, economist says.Alaska Dispatch News, April 23, 2015.

Alice Rogoff, “Alaska need not suffer; let’s leverage our wealth to thrive.” Alaska Dispatch News, April 11, 2015

Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, “Editorial: Time to talk new revenue: Legislature’s focus on cuts has avoided other half of funding equation.” Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, Sunday, April 12, 2015.

Alaska Business Monthly, New Bill Creates Up to $2 Billion in State Revenue While Protecting Future Permanent Fund Dividends.” Alaska Business Monthly, April 20, 2015

Picture CC Travis

US Budget under BIG

Introduction.

This budget assumes public finance all levels combined, and no change in overall tax income, which is currently 4131 billion $.

Today, no more than 8% of the population is required to produce all agricultural products, industrial products and buildings required. That is why the state needs to distribute purchasing power to 100% of the population. Jobs in the service sector will be triggered by the purchasing power (the current doctrine is that we should create jobs to generate purchasing power, but that is an instable system).

This increased efficiency has created a societal system with can create welfare and therefore has a huge common, “social”, capital. Every citizen should get a dividend from that capital. We call it the social dividend or “Basic Income Grant”; an income which we don’t need to work for, just like rich people live from their heritage. All citizens get this social dividend. Some part in cash, some part in kind. The amount in cash depends on their age (see table in the budget).

The amount in kind is given in education vouchers, healthcare vouchers and “coaching” vouchers. Citizens choose their education, healthcare and coaching service provider who gets money from the “social dividend in kind” fund, provided by the state budget.

Both education and healthcare will see drastic changes in the coming years, due to the advent of the Internet. With the number of internet service providers like Spectrum (check out Spectrum internet pricing here), Xfinity, and similar others providing affordable internet plans, users can have access to information of any kind at their fingertips. The country will witness an unprecedented increase in education and healthcare – entrepreneurs.

Every citizen will have the right to be “coached”, which will help all citizens to address problems and opportunities in their lives. This coaching system will hugely reduce criminality and improve productivity.

Since working people will get a social dividend of 500 $ per month, somebody earning 1500 $ net now would have the same total income if he/she gets a net salary of 1000 $ net. In practice, the pay check will mention BIG: 500 $ and Work income: 1000 $ instead of 1500 $ work income now. That is why the in the budget figures, the cost for public servants, but also workers in education and healthcare seems low: a part of their salary is paid, so to speak, by the BIG.

BIG BIG
Age cash vouchers total number cash dividend coaching
$ pp pm $ pp pm $ pp pm million billion $ p year billion $ p y billion $
0-17 150 300 450 75 135.0 270.0
18-25 250 300 550 41 123.0 147.6
26-67 500 300 800 169 1014.0 608.4
67 + 1000 300 1300 35 420.0 126.0
320 1692.0 1152.0 2844.0 17.8% GDP

 

Other public expenses:

public service employees
Net $ per month $ cash total total employed billion $/y
extra salary social cash compen- million budget
dividend salary sation
national administration 2450 500 2950 3450 2.5 74
local admin 2150 500 2650 3150 5 129
Army 1650 500 2150 2650 0.6 12
police + 1750 500 2250 2300 3 63
Justice 1950 500 2450 2950 0.3 7
11.4 284.4 284.4
military excluding personnel 275
Interest payments 230
Public investments and current purchases 500
Total public expenditure except loan repayments 4133.4

 

Within the BIG, a value of 1152 billion $ is paid in kind, in the form of vouchers. These vouchers go to service providers who get cash for it from the government budget. The service providers use this money to pay the extra salary over the BIG to nearly 25 million people employed by those service providers in education, health care and coaching. The demand side of these services is completely subsidised. The offer side is market driven while the government needs to define the rules.

total total net employed billion $ p y
cash compensation million budget
education 2200 500 2700 3200 8 211
healthcare 2200 500 2700 3200 13 343
coaching 2200 500 2700 3200 3.7 98
24.7 652.08
products and services relating to healthcare, education and coaching 500
cost to be covered by BIG vouchers 1152.08

Unconditional Basic Income: Obstacles and Strategies

Have you ever thought of a Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) for absolutely everyone? The 14th USBIG Congress held in conjunction with Canada BIG was just held in Manhattan, and a friend with frequent flyer miles got me there. Presenters from across the globe shared perspectives on how to equalize the obscene income gap and confront the unrelenting increase in job loss due to technology, robots, the chip.

In 2007/2008, Wall Street criminals were bailed out to the tune of trillions, while news reports began to predict no uptake in the economy till 2017. Who wasn’t aghast? Who determined such a forecast and weren’t there going to be new policies to get people back to work? Seems not. As much as we hear of declining unemployment, we know that such figures discount and dismiss the long-term unemployed. The ‘service industry’ promised us by Bill Clinton has resulted in millions of underpaid workers. The right has taken out the unions.

Last year, the Democrats in our own Minnesota legislature did not find it fit to vote sick leave a worker’s right, and came up with a minimum wage of, voila: $9.50 an hour. That’s compensation of about $20,000 a year, thousands less after deductions and next to nothing if you have to pay for day care. I made $20,000 a year in the mid 70’s as a teacher in Philadelphia. That’s approximately what I make 40 years later as a substitute teacher in ISD 709, but now with absolutely no bennies.

No wonder a Basic Income makes unprecedented political progress, and around the world. Sean Healy of Social Justice Ireland dramatized the scenario, showing a bar graph with the thinnest of lines representing the wealth of the bottom 20%, and bars and bars of wealth so high they couldn’t even fit onto the graph for the top quintile. Marshall Brain of North Carolina State and author of the 60 million hit website “How Things Work” envisioned a visit by extraterrestrial creatures who take note of: 10,000 nuclear missiles, massive poverty for billions, environmental destruction, gigatons of carbon in the air, extinction, burgeoning prisons, religious strife, war, disease, millions of dying children, mass surveillance, nations, racism/sexism/homophobia. Their conjecture: ‘humans appear to be insane. Hundreds own everything while billions starve.’ Brain isn’t sure that our species can agree on anything, so that in a few decades humans will be forced to totally yield to silicon intelligence. He sees BIG as a route out of this and to a rational existence.

Frances Fox Piven of CUNY: “welfare as we know it regulates the poor and is bent to keep people at the low rungs of society. And the US has been losing its low level programs.” (In Minnesota, ‘welfare’ stipends have not risen for 27 years, and if you’re a low-income worker, you’re denied a living wage and benefits.) “Human needs for caring for old and young cannot be met. Many work multiple jobs…we must have a political strategy and ally with groups who rally for improvements in unemployment insurance and social security. We must leave behind the old left ideas of full employment (wage slavery) and economic growth—global warming won’t permit either.”

Speaker Willie Baptist (Pedagogy of the Oppressed) talked about building a new poor people’s campaign because conditions in Watts are now found in all communities. Marion Kramer and Sylvia Orduno from Detroit Welfare Rights Organization explained the hell Michigan residents are experiencing. Automation took the good paying jobs with benefits, and now Marion’s son can’t even collect unemployment when he’s laid off from what part time jobs are available. Detroit’s water plan, developed in the 90’s and based on income, was never implemented. So that the water supply for 30,000 people was recently shut off. And when water is shut off, the MI government can take your children. What Kramer called ‘the beginning of fascism in Michigan’ includes the Mackinac Plan to sell off public assets, charter schools replacing public schools, the assault on public employees, and taxation of pensions. Orduno said potentially a quarter million people risk losing their houses because unaffordable water bills are being billed to their taxes. She expressed a bond with the people of Northern Minnesota over water issues, ours due to impending sulfide mining.

Alaska was continually brought up as an example of BIG, with residents receiving yearly checks from oil revenues. Eduardo Suplicy, a former member of the Brazilian Senate, had pushed for and obtained passage of a bill that would ferret out implementation of a guaranteed income. The first stage was initiated as a stipend to the poor for enrolling their children in school. Suplicy urged us to sign a letter to Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff to resurrect the aging bill and get it off the back burner.

Recent articles on a Basic Income Guarantee have appeared in the pages of The Economist and the Washington Post and there’s a community on Reddit that is closing in on 25,000 subscribers. That’s not to mention the huge number of signatures collected for the European Citizen’s Initiative and the successful campaign for a Basic Income referendum in Switzerland.

In just the last few months, the momentum among political parties and leaders has also picked up. The Green Party worldwide has of course had Basic Income on its policy agenda for quite some time, but recently the general conference of the Liberal Party in Canada approved two motions towards a Basic Income, one in favor of a federal pilot program and one in favor of implementation. This is after the premier of the Canadian Province of Prince Edward Island, Robert Ghiz of the Liberal party, called for a pilot program for a Guaranteed Minimum Income in the form of a Negative Income Tax, and the leader of the provincial opposition party, the NDP, called for a similar Basic Income Guarantee.

Kristine Osbakken, Duluth, MN
krissosbakken@gmail.com

OPINION: Reclaiming the Women’s Liberationist Demand for a Citizen’s Income

OPINION: Reclaiming the Women’s Liberationist Demand for a Citizen’s Income

Thanks to the Green Party of England and Wales, and the Scottish Green Party, a Citizen’s Income, a.k.a. a Basic Income, is now on the political agenda for the general election on 7th May 2015 in the U.K. This has expanded British media coverage on the topic dramatically.

An ITV opinion poll focused on Green Party includes a Citizen Income as one of 8 ‘possible future Government policies’ in its questionnaire. The poll shows: Support 36%; Oppose 40%; Don’t Know 23%. The ‘Don’t Know’ rate for a Citizen Income (23%) is lower than that of the following 4 policies: ‘Deliberately trying to reduce the size of the British economy in order to reduce the consumption of natural resources’ (37%), ‘Restricting the development of new supermarkets’ (26%), ‘Restricting the building of new football stadiums’ (33%), and ‘Seeking ways of reducing the size of the human population’ (28%). This suggests that people have a clearer opinion about a Citizen’s Income than the other 4 Greens’ polices listed above, regardless of whether that opinion is positive or negative.

So far so good. The Media reports the idea, and people have opinions about it. However, except a few voices its coverage either in the Media or anywhere else seldom touches on the fact that it has long been a demand of feminist activists in the U.K. It seems that even many feminists collectively have forgotten this historical fact. So let me briefly reclaim it.

In April 1977 at the 9th National Women’s Liberation Conference held in London, a resolution which asked the whole of the British Women’s Liberation movement to endorse a Guaranteed Minimum Income was passed with majority vote. Around 2.500-3,000 women were in attendance.

The resolution was raised by women from Claimants Unions, and by ‘a Guaranteed Minimum Income’ they meant an unconditional basic income, i.e. a Citizen’s Income. They have demanded and campaigned for it since 1970.

Who were these women? Why did they demand a Citizen’s Income? Julia Mainwaring, one of those who spoke for the resolution at the conference, recalls that it ‘came to us from personal experience, [from experiences of] all of us.’ She was born and grew up in a small mining village in Wales, where almost all of the adults in the village were unemployed. She moved to Birmingham and with several other people she founded the first ‘Claimants Union’ in 1968. They defined it as ‘trade union of assistance claimants’. Within a year more than 150 people had joined this union, and in a few years around 90 Claimants Unions were formed in many cities and towns across the U.K. Mainwaring herself moved to London. Until the early 1970s, council housing in London, provided either by the GLC or by the local borough, didn’t allow the name of legally married women to be entered into a rent book which could only be held in the husband’s name. Mainwaring challenged this in court and won her case. (Photo 1 shows a recent picture of Mainwaring with a photo of her on the day she won the case.)

Not only Mainwaring, but also many of the women in Claimants Unions came from a Working Class background and many were single mothers. They were regularly harassed by welfare officers, referred to as ‘sex snoopers’, who spied on them and conducted spot checks late at night. If a claimants woman had any sexual relationship with a man, it was assumed they should be supported by him. Sometimes just friendship for example, a male neighbour coming into the house to help fix a tap or a bulb would be assumed to be a partner/boyfriend; the next week her benefit would be suspended. The women didn’t take this personally, rather they detected the structural and institutionalised sexism behind. In order to end this, they formulated the idea of a Citizen’s Income, where no means test was involved so that no spies and no humiliation were needed.

The same sexism still continues, if its brutality has slightly decreased since 1970s. If you don’t detect anything wrong after watching this govermental video; you share the same sexist assumption with DWP that if a woman accommodates her boyfriend and irons his cloths, she must be financially supported by him.

So it seems to me the Claimants Union women’s struggle against institutionalised sexism and their feminist rationale for a Citizen’s Income is still relevant to contemporary progressive politics in the U.K. However, strangely enough, both the literature on feminism and on a citizen’s income in this country have been silent about this feminist struggle and its demand. Why has this feminist demand which was officially and democratically endorsed as one of demands of the British Women’s Liberation movement erased from the collective memory of British feminists?

I restrict myself by not speculating about the reason here. Instead let me briefly juxtapose claimants women’s own voices with the representations of them in a Women’s Liberation poster and Spare Rib articles. Issue no. 4 of Spare Rib (1972) showed a photo of claimants in protest along with text which explained the detail of the protest (The left of Photo 2). The same photo was reused for a poster for International Women’s Day in 1973, but its detail had been edited (The right of Photo 2); Men were deleted. A slogan on the placard carried by a woman was changed from “End Cohabitation Rule” to “Equal Pay” and some other demands. The name of organisation on the placard was changed from “Claimants Union” to “Women’s Liberation Workshop.” I imagine there was no sinister motive for this editing. (But it would misguide a younger generation of feminist historians.)

Many claimants women joined the protest in London at the International Women’s Day 1973. Lyn Boyd and Rosemary Robson, both from Newcastle Claimants Union were arrested when they and others took action to protest against the government’s plan to abolish Family Allowance and to replace it by Tax Credit. (Photo 3: Robson on the left; Boyd on the right. ) Family Allowance was paid to women, but Tax Credit was supposed to be paid to men. The claimants women thought a Citizen’s Income was a necessary condition for the financial independence of women (which was the ‘fifth demand’ of the British Women’s Liberation Movement) and defending and expanding Family Allowance was a first step toward it.

Boyd was born in a mining community in North Durham. She described Claimants Union activity as empowering themselves ‘to be knowledgeable enough to stand up for yourself and fight for your rights on a basis of equals not “cap in hand”.’ Through her involvement with the Claimants Union, she joined the Women’s Liberation Movement. Boyd, Robson and other claimants women hitchhiked to the Women’s Liberation conferences in London and elsewhere. Boyd recalls that they had sought ‘a better way of living and cooperating – the claimants union and women’s rights movementis a manifestation of that way of being’.

Five years later, Issue no. 58 of Spare Rib (1977) reported that a resolution demanding a “Guaranteed Minimum Income” was passed at a National Women’s Liberation Conference. Strangely, while the article didn’t tell readers anything about what a “Guaranteed Minimum Income” is, who raised the resolution and why they did so, but instead, it reported who was against it and the reasons for their opposition.

What do Mainwaring, Boyd, Robson and the other women in the Claimants Unions think are the reasons for the collective amnesia in feminism and in progressive politics more generally? And how did their thoughts and actions relate to feminism more generally speaking? Some of their voices are recorded in the following article: ‘A Feminist Way to Unconditional Basic Income: Claimants Unions and Women’s Liberation Movements in 1970s Britain’, Basic Income Studies, 9(1-2), 2014, pp.1-24. An earlier and longer version of it can be read here.

A Citizen’s Income is needed to end one of institutionalised forms of sexism today. That I have learnt from these women.

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Review of “Debt: The First 5,000 Years,” by David Graeber

Debt: The First 5,000 Years, by David Graeber (New York: Melville House, 2011). Review by Brent Ranalli

Most histories of money are histories of coins, tokens. But coins come and go with empires. Money has much deeper roots in the forms of obligation that bind together even the simplest societies. It takes an anthropologist to write a truly universal economic history, and that is what David Graeber has accomplished with Debt: The First 5,000 Years. With its wide scope, Debt offers valuable perspective on contemporary issues. The problem of economic insecurity that makes Basic Income so urgent today is not a unique feature of modernity or capitalism (though modern technological advances make possible for the first time a universal Basic Income as a solution), but has been with us since the development of money per se-that is, financial credit, or debt-at the dawn of civilization. The number of people that get into debt today because of money issues and not being able to earn enough to live, is astounding. Luckily there is help out there, such as advice from Debt Consolidation USA, reading books like Debt, etc. to help people get back on their feet if they have had to take a financial blow. They may advise you on the best strategies to removing yourself from such a stressful situation with tools that are available to you, such as life settlements. If you are over the age of 65 you can sell your life insurance policy for a little extra cash and subsequently pay off any debts you may have. There are other ideas too, this is to name but one. The important thing is for people, who have got too far into debt that they find themselves in a situation where debt collectors are at their door, is to ensure that they are aware of the debt collection state laws so that nothing bad happens during the process so that it is all above board.

The book is divided into two parts. The first is analytical, and the second is synthetic. Graeber begins by demolishing conventional myths of economic history, starting with the notion that before money and markets were invented, barter was the normal mode of exchange. In fact, as anthropologists have tried to explain to economists for over a century, barter is almost unheard of in traditional societies. Within communities, food, clothing, tools, and other everyday items might simply be distributed freely from one person to another in accordance with a strong sharing ethos, or distributed from a communally managed stock, or exchanged in a tit-for-tat fashion (so-called “gift economies”), or exchanged as debits and credits in a “virtual” currency that never actually changes hands. Many so-called “primitive currencies,” high-status items like cattle or hand-woven cloth, change hands primarily for purposes of rearranging human relationships (e.g., sealing a marriage contract or compensating the family of a murdered individual). Barter, when it does occur in traditional societies, tends to crop up on the margins of economic life, when people trade with strangers and potential or actual enemies. The modern triumph of money and markets can be seen to represent, in a way, the remaking of society as a collection of strangers or potential enemies a la Hobbes.

Similarly, Graeber turns on its head the conventional notion that the state and the market stand in opposition. In the grand scheme of history, markets (where strangers meet to buy and sell) have been handmaidens of the state, especially the war-making state that needs to provision armies. Only in rare circumstances (e.g, medieval Islam) have markets been sustainable without being substantially propped up by the state for enforcement of contracts, etc.

Meetings of strangers (at the interstices of traditional societies, and in the ancient and modern marketplace) always hold the potential for violence, and one of the themes of the book is the actual violence and constant threat of violence that went into making the seemingly polite modern bourgeois economic order: from the degradation and dispossession of women, whose exchange holds together traditional patriarchal societies, to debt-peonage and debt-slavery, to the war-making that created a demand for markets that could satisfy the appetites of soldiers carrying state-minted coins and war booty, to the extraordinarily harsh laws of early modern England (for example) that criminalized traditional credit-based modes of exchange.

Credit systems preceded the use of coined money in the ancient civilizations of Eurasia. But regardless of whether money is tangible or virtual, the normal, predictable course of events in every society that employs money is for money to be lent (often at interest–an ancient Mesopotamian innovation), and for some or most debtors to become trapped in debt. And the normal endgame of debt in the ancient world was for the debtor’s family members, and in extremis the debtor himself, to be reduced to slavery. In both the ancient and modern worlds, Graeber chillingly demonstrates, enslavement (and other forms of compulsion–peonage, indentured servitude, wage slavery) and trade in slaves has been intimately bound up with debt. Time and again, debt has been the siphon that sucks victims into the system of exploitation, and also the motor that drives the exploiters–both the grand masters (monarchs, conquistadors) and the petty functionaries–to take the desperate step of destroying others’ lives.

The story of civilization is in large part the story of how different societies have coped with the perennial debt trap that afflicts all societies that employ money. Mesopotamian kings offered periodic amnesties, erasing personal debts and freeing slaves to return to their families. The ancient Israelites adopted the practice and formalized it in the custom of Jubilees. Some groups prohibited the charging of interest, or set conventional bounds (that interest should not exceed five percent, or that the total interest charged should not exceed the value of the principal). The ancient Greeks and Romans met their debt and slavery crises by programs of imperial expansion that generated viable new economic opportunities for younger sons and filled the public coffers with booty and tribute–money that could be directed to the poorer classes of citizens to prevent them from falling into the debt trap, via direct payment (like the stipends Greek democracies paid their citizens for jury service, a sort of BI for the demos) or subsidies (like the Roman breads and circuses). Through custom or law, some societies took the more radical steps of abandoning or outlawing slavery and/or establishing bankruptcy protections for debtors.

Graeber detects a general pattern in the (Eurasian) history of monetary practices and debt-coping strategies, and the second half of the book is devoted to explicating that pattern–essentially, retelling the traditional story of civilization through the lens of money, debt, and slavery. The earliest Mesopotamian civilizations were pioneers of the use of money (credit money), and early victims of the debt trap, which their leaders periodically reset with general amnesties. Desperate debtors not infrequently took matters into their own hands as well, and fled with family and flocks to the outlying hills to join the fearsome “habiru” (a word that meant outlaw, fugitive, mercenary). Periodic waves of these groups descended to prey on and take control of civilized urban Mesopotamia, as their presumed counterparts the Hebrews to their West descended in strength upon Egyptian Canaan.

The “axial age” is a recognized watershed in Eurasian history. There was simultaneously in China, India, and the Mediterranean world a flowering of empire and cultural creativity. Graeber convincingly links these political and cultural developments to the (still mysteriously simultaneous and independent) invention of coined money. With the invention of coin and the establishment of markets, ancient states could raise, feed, and field massive armies, and engage in wars of conquest on scales previously unknown. The use of coin facilitated anonymous economic transactions, and deepened and widened the debt trap (except for the lucky subsidized few in the successful imperial powers like Athens and Rome, at least while those empires continued to expand). Expansive war also meant taking large numbers of captives, and these too became slaves. Slavery became an enormous and intrusive social institution, part of the fabric of everyday life.

As coined money entered public consciousness, intimating that everything could be weighed and measured, materialist philosophies arose in all the great ancient civilizations. And idealistic and humanistic philosophies and religious movements arose in defiant protest, these latter being the great philosophies and religions for which we remember the axial age–Greek philosophy against the sophists, Indian Buddhism against Vedic ritualism, Chinese Confucianism against legalism.

Graeber traces the contours of a gradual and staggered transition from the axial age to the “middle ages.” The general story is that the axial empires run out of steam and collapse, coin is replaced by credit (often still denominated in old imperial currencies), pre-market forms of traditional exchange (trust-based, community-based) re-emerge into prominence, social and/or state safeguards are developed to minimize or eliminate the debt trap, and the institution of slavery is abandoned. The story varies from region to region though, providing some interesting contrasts and highlighting the ingenious variety of different societies’ solutions to common problems. In China, for example, the axial imperial system never collapsed–it merely adapted, and used state power in various ways to marginalize the merchant class and protect the poor–or be overthrown by a new regime pledged to do a better job. In India, the state more or less shriveled away, and rural society governed itself via custom and caste–again, the money-managing merchant class being put in its place among the lower orders. In Islam, a thorough and unprecedented separation was achieved between church and state. Merchants took a leading role in religion, and collectively abandoned the practice of usury on religious grounds. As the merchant class was effectively governed by a religious code of honor, no intervention by the state was necessary to enforce contracts. Rather than meddling in economics or religion, then, the state in the Islamic world devoted itself to continued imperial conquest–and continued to capture and employ slaves, paradoxically arming them and employing them as soldiers for further conquest (a practice that religious leaders condoned, since captured enemies–unlike debtors–could legitimately be regarded as having forfeited life and liberty, and using foreign slaves as soldiers eliminated the messy business of Muslims bearing arms against Muslims). In Europe, markets, money and state shriveled nearly away and traditional modes of exchange blossomed. The Church (at least at first) took a hard line against usury; popular sentiment militated against the institution of slavery.

Around 1450, the pendulum swung the other way again. There was a new era of imperial conquest, of war-oriented cash economies, of mining and minting, and of slavery, centered in Europe. As sophisticated credit instruments imported from Islam were married to a metals-based cash economy, yawning new debt traps opened up, ensnaring people of all station, from kings and magnates to common soldiers and traders, while tearing apart other societies on multiple continents. There was at the same time a new cultural Renaissance in Europe, with a surge of materialism and an attendant backlash of more humane philosophies and religious movements.

Graeber perceives, or anticipates, a shift in our own day back in the other direction, away from imperial war, cash, and markets, back in the direction of stability, community, safeguards against the debt trap, and new and traditional forms of trust-based credit. He is light on predictions, and contents himself with arguing that our contemporary global financial system is in a likely terminal crisis (which, for the sake of convenience at least, he dates from Nixon’s 1971 decision to make the dollar a free-floating currency).

The book is an extraordinary feat of synthesis, and most of it is convincing and well-argued. I take issue with only a small handful of points. The weakest point, it seems to me, is Graeber’s conviction that capitalism is necessarily doomed. He makes a strong case that capitalism is by no means the end of history, that it is morally flawed, and that the financial sector in particular is careening out of control in a manner that could destabilize the whole. But his confident and repeated assertion that capitalism with free wage labor is impossible, that under capitalism the world’s population could never, even in principle, achieve middle class living standards, appears to be special pleading. In world history, the institution of the market had its origins in war and violence, but today (as Graeber himself acknowledges) it has left those roots behind and become tame and bourgeois. Capitalism too is historically rooted in brutal exploitation. But could not capitalism too eventually become as tame, hasn’t it already made extraordinary progress in that direction since the days of Dickens and Marx? If every last Chinese peasant finds a job with a dental and retirement plan, it would seem to signify not the demise of capitalism, only that consumers will pay incrementally more for Chinese products. Graeber’s pronouncements about the imminent demise of capitalism are particularly ironic, coming as they do practically in the same breath as his observations that for centuries economists and industrialists have been expecting the system to collapse and it has not done so.

Graeber has essentially acknowledged in post-publication interviews that the collapse of the ~1945-1975 “deal” that gave U.S. and European workers a modest share of the economic pie was not a matter of structural limits: rather, it was a matter of what concessions those at the top of the pyramid were willing to make. Those at the top might have made other choices, and one might argue that they were foolish not to continue investing in expanding the pool of middle-class consumers. They still might make better choices, or their hand might be forced, without anything that resembles an end to the current economic order. Establishment of a Basic Income Guarantee is one scenario that would facilitate transition to the less exploitive economy Graeber envisions while leaving the current system of finance and production intact.

Graeber’s analysis of debt and slavery helps us to make sense of the economic crisis we find ourselves in. Politically and morally we moderns find slavery abhorrent, and as a global society we have succeeded in legally abolishing it. But the logic of debt continues to push many participants in today’s economy close to the edge of slavery and sometimes over the edge; the legal and moral and political consensus starts to buckle. Globally we see a flourishing traffic in poverty-induced sex slavery and illicit organ harvesting. In the U.S., we see the political class weakening bankruptcy protections while consumer debt and student debt soar to crisis levels. And the poorest and most vulnerable in the U.S. are liable to be sucked into a burgeoning prison industrial complex whose work programs constitute de facto slavery. We do appear, as Graeber suggests, to be living in a period of transition; it remains to be seen whether the moral and legal sanctions against slavery will hold up under stress, and whether the debt burden that contributes to the stress can be moderated or eliminated in a timely fashion by policies like Basic Income.

Credit photo: CC Steve Rhodes