Making this film was harder than I thought.
It started with simple curiosity.
Since the financial crisis,
I've tried to understand how our economic system works.
economic growth - concentration of wealth - debt
But the numbers alone surprise me.
Over recent decades, economic output
has increased many times over, as has debt.
And inequality in wealth distribution has grown steadily.
So the gulf between rich and poor is widening all the time.
So is there a connection between economic output,
debt and private wealth?
What are the rules of this system?
Can I help set it up?
It's pretty much done.
We'll play with one dice.
When one of you builds a house,
that doesn't mean that the bank earns money,
it means that the other economic participants get it,
because they are effectively the ones building the house.
The house owner
takes out a loan, creates money, which then circulates.
So we're ready to start
and so we can be sure
of following through from boom to crisis
this is a short version, building one house each
so we reach saturation point.
In Monopoly, money's just 'there' given out to all
but here it seems the money only comes when we build, is that right?
Because we're brought up with the piggy-bank model,
as a child you're told, here's your pocket money,
you get some coins, put them in your piggy-bank
and you can only invest, buy a toy or whatever,
when the piggy-bank is full.
But here, you invest - then the money appears.
Money only exists when there's economic activity
I think that's a really important point.
During my research, some are interested in my questions
but others are reserved and suspicious.
Interviewees wanting to remain anonymous,
filming permission withdrawn
or filming micromanaged.
I start keeping detailed notes of my telephone conversations.
The calls in the film are spoken by actors,
sometimes on the basis of transcripts from memory.
Hello, this is Carmen Losmann.
I'm doing research for a documentary,
investigating the links between economic growth, debt
and the concentration of wealth.
Is there an engine driving these phenomena?
How does the whole thing interrelate?
To answer that,
you have to descend into the engine room of capitalism
and find out how money creation,
the capitalist production of money works.
The banks play an important part,
because they have a special privilege:
they can create money that has not yet been earned
and by doing that they set a vast dynamic in motion.
Press department, Anja Müller, hello.
Hello, can we use your bank to show
how money is produced? - Aha.
OK, right, well, you've wrong-footed me there.
And actually I think 'producing money', that's trivializing it a bit.
I mean,
it's not like a machine, moving something right to left.
It's not visible at all, as such.
So you as a bank don't produce money?
I can't say that we, I mean, money production as such,
I mean, we're not printing money in the cellar.
How is money created?
Good, if there are no more questions,
let's proceed to the vote.
Brigitt Kienzler. - Yes.
Sebastian Lehrmann. - Yes.
Thomas Bittracher. - Yes.
Max Rohwee. - Yes.
Philipp von Homajer. - Yes.
I also vote yes.
So the credit application is unanimously approved.
Thank you very much.
We'll move on to the second application...
Dear Ms Losmann,
we would gladly simulate a credit committee meeting for you.
We also offer to simulate
a credit discussion between our bank manager
and a genuine customer for the camera.
Please. - Thank you.
Nice we can have this talk today.
You made a telephone enquiry about your financing
and we were able to discuss some key data on the phone.
Getting to know our credit customers personally is also important to us.
You said the apartment...
400,000 francs.
...had a purchase price of 400,000 francs.
Yes, but I've had another look
and I've decided that I need at least to renovate the kitchen.
Yes. - And a few other minor renovations
and I think I'd need another 25,000 francs for that.
For us as a bank, it's crucial in allowing credit
that we are able to verify that you,
as debtor, will be able to repay the credit,
which in practical terms means that you can pay the interest
out of your income
as well as meeting the loan repayment terms.
So it's important
that we understand your finances
and an excellent basis for this is your tax return,
which you've provided here, and which
on the one hand shows us your income
and on the other
also documents your assets.
money creation
We now come to the loan payout,
which is a vital moment: the money leaving the bank.
The display shows us our bank system.
I enter the account number here,
the loan amount, which is 310,000 francs.
And I add the text comment
"credit disbursement".
That's the debit side of the entry,
which I now save.
Now we move on to the credit side.
Here I have to give the loan amount again,
the 310,000
and the account number on the credit side,
that's the receiving account of Ms Franzen.
153384301.
When the book entry is made, the credit account increases
and on the other side the receiving account of the customer increases,
so we get a balance sheet expansion
and so we have created money.
I click to save
and thus the money creation is done.
debit - credit
In making this credit payout,
we have not had to take money
from deposit customers' accounts,
to credit it to the credit customer.
We have entered a sum of money in the balance sheet
that did not exist before
thereby increasing our balance sheet total
and this balance sheet expansion has created new money
through the credit disbursement.
I was a faithful employee
of these institutions -
public like the IMF,
and later private investment banks
and I really never bothered my head about how money worked.
It never really came up in our studies either.
Money was just there, it was like any other investment object.
Then along came the financial crisis and suddenly things were happening
that people couldn't explain.
So then, at a somewhat advanced age you might say,
I tried going back to basics again
and asking myself fundamental questions:
How does a bank work?
So the first obvious question you have to ask
that the usual theories never answer is:
how does money come into the world?
Everyone behaved as if things were the same
as they were under the Gold Standard,
with a gold miner prospecting, finding the stuff in a stream
and it becomes a gold coin, and goes to the bank
which issues a trust receipt, which is then a banknote
but it issues more banknotes
than it receives real gold coins because it assumes
that its gold depositors are not all going to want
to see their gold at once, and that's fractional-reserve banking.
That's what everyone learned, including me
and we thought that's how the world worked.
But it's really only a very limited explanation
for how money is created in a gold-based system.
What really happens is:
banks use lending
to produce book money-demand deposits.
So when you, as a customer, go to your bank,
and apply for a credit,
and the loan officer
approves it, says you're creditworthy,
sign here.
The bank then goes off
and just writes the amount as a credit in your giro account.
They don't need to collect deposits first
in order to issue the credit.
And they do this again and again...
listen to them carefully, these people, bankers,
again and again they say a bank's job is
to collect deposits and issue them as credits,
professional people say this.
And it's not true.
The bank doesn't need money to issue a credit,
it produces money by issuing the credit.
And the link between entrepreneurial activity
and our monetary system
comes from this issuing of credit.
Our money, bank money,
is created by issuing credit.
For that, we need businesses taking out loans
or households that borrow.
But if they say no, I'm not going to,
I'm already in so much debt,
money production stalls.
So it was after the financial crisis.
The central banks have been desperately trying
to get things moving again,
so more loans would be issued.
So to keep the system going,
to keep the economic system and economic growth going,
new loans must constantly be issued so money is created.
Economy grows as credits are issued.
And what I'm asking myself,
you've said that money is produced by private banks
when they issue credit.
As I see it, the bank will only give money
to people who credibly demonstrate
that they're going to make a profit.
That's the idea, the business model.
So now this is my question: To what extent does this create
an inherent, systemic growth compulsion,
because in effect banks only issue loans
when an economic situation promises growth,
because that's the way to make profits?
Well, yes, they will, that's right,
but I mean no one is forced to take out a loan.
Dear Ms Losmann,
my current employer does not want to appear in this film.
All my remarks are therefore personal opinions
and do not represent the official position of my firm.
Economy grows as credits are issued.
Credits are issued as economy grows.
So up to now I've understood that credits are issued
when the economy is growing.
And economic growth means
that more goods and services are sold this year than last,
but that in turn requires more money,
so that these goods and services can be bought.
And producing this greater quantity of money
requires more credits.
So the monster is eating its own tail, isn't it?
It is paradoxical in a way.
It only works for as long as it works,
as long as the chain reaction of economic growth
and new credit continues.
And the European Central Bank has a huge influence on this,
especially in the years after the financial crisis.
It tries to ensure through its monetary policy
that the chain doesn't break down.
Carmen Losmann, hello. - Hello Ms Losmann,
I'm here with my colleague from the media department.
And so we'd just like to hear once again
how you envisage Mr Praet's role in this film,
and what subjects you're expecting him to talk about.
Well, my interview questions tell you that:
about the monetary policy of the ECB,
and the effects of that policy on the economy.
May I just jump in here, hello, nice to talk to you.
So the interview will not last for two hours,
he hasn't that kind of time.
What we need is a clear understanding
of your purpose in this interview.
Well, the acceptance I received
did say that two hours was OK,
and I designed my questions accordingly.
If two hours is now no good,
I need to adapt my questions,
but I still don't quite know
how long you're proposing for the interview,
under the new conditions.
Well he's set aside 45 minutes in his diary
and minus a few minutes for arriving, leaving and so on,
I'd be looking at half an hour, realistically.
Dear Ms Losmann,
unfortunately filming a real meeting is not possible.
However, we would be happy to simulate a meeting for you.
book money = 90% of our total money supply
After the financial crisis, private banks
stopped issuing enough credit, jeopardising the money supply.
So the ECB intervened, launching its
'Quantitative Easing' programme, which means
the central bank buying assets from major players
in the capital markets, mainly government bonds,
using new money.
The ECB itself is creating this money, up to 80 billion a month, by the way,
in the hope that this new money will spur demand
and so stimulate new economic growth.
So why did the private banks stop issuing credits?
No one knew after the financial crisis
where growth and profits would come from.
The best thing for you here would be to throw a one.
So, may I?
We've already talked about how money appears in this system,
so the bank issues credit to me,
and in return I basically promise to pay it back
and that brings money into the world. - Yes.
So, that's the starting point.
Now I'm obliged
to take part in the system through my value-creation,
and in principle to get money from all other participants in the system
so that I can repay my credit.
Different in Monopoly,
because these banknotes just exist.
and it feels like all the bank does is dole them out.
So the money in circulation is fixed - many people think it really is -
and it's in circulation and gets used.
But that's not our system. Our system is more like this,
as Samirah has tried to show, of course a very simplified model,
but the money is really only created when we build
and it disappears on repayment.
Without new debt,
we suddenly run out of money. - Yes.
So if no one takes on new debt, we run out of money,
but where does that money go?
Our modern money in capitalism is not itself a commodity,
like seashells
or cigarettes or whatever else is used for barter.
Money consists of credit and debt at the same time.
If you pay back your individual credit,
the credit is still there,
say with the trades person
whom you've paid to renovate your house,
but at the same time you've taken money
out of the system elsewhere, earned income, for example,
to repay or liquidate your debts.
And this liquidation reduces your bank's balance sheet
and so reduces our whole money supply.
Does that make sense?
When loans are repaid,
new loans have to be issued immediately.
So enough money stays in circulation.
That, in turn, requires constant new investment opportunities
promising profit
so that new loans will be issued for them.
So new business ideas, new business models,
new value chains,
new products, new services,
new markets...
The next trillion dollars
will be earned through data.
Everyone starting to think in business models,
throughout the hierarchy, not just management,
that's very, very difficult to get into people's heads.
Dear Ms Losmann,
thank you for your interview questions
on the subject 'growth market digitalization.'
After lengthy deliberation, we have decided
not to continue our participation in your project.
With regret, we must therefore cancel the interview with Dr. Jan Mrosik.
We need 2-3 percent growth,
if the tree stops growing, it dies. And the same goes for us.
No growth from innovation -
nothing moves.
Why is growth important to us as investors?
Well, growth pays the dividends on shares
and growth pays the coupon rates,
on bonds, which companies issue to invest.
OK, but when industrial production increases,
that only creates more products, more output,
so how do the actual profits happen, the money for profits?
Where does money for profits come from?
Hello Ms Losmann,
thank you for your interest in how value gains occur.
A simulated 'performance discussion'
with one of our clients
would address appreciation of the assets concerned
and include analysis of value drivers.
Please!
Thank you.
So, Mr Schuster, great to have you here in our new offices,
nice to see you again.
We've talked on the phone several times in recent months,
but it's been a while since the last performance discussion.
I've invited you for a performance discussion.
As you know, in a performance discussion
we look back at the past,
we shed light on the present
and then we try to use the data we have
to peer into the future
and develop an investment strategy.
In 2016, we had a positive performance of 6.7%
on invested assets of around 300.000 Euros
making a profit of 20.000 Euros plus a few hundred.
What is particularly pleasing,
when I look at these figures and the performance contributions.
is that the performance was positive in every segment.
I can see of course, Emerging Markets were the biggest driver
of this positive development with over 10%.
Why is that?
Well, the Emerging Markets.
Growth in the Emerging Markets is still much higher
than in developed countries
and that's really the main driver
that leads us to say
that our Emerging Markets commitment was a very good thing.
On just a quick calculation, today we have a...
...a situation that we...
Worst case,
our performance would be around 7%
and best case, about 15%.
That all sounds right to me. - Thank you.
The economic condition we need
for added value to be generated or my asset value to grow
is growth.
We define growth
as worldwide production steadily increasing
and where we see effective growth in the sense of an enlarging market
is obviously in the Emerging Markets.
If you think about
India or Indonesia
with a lot of people getting money
that they can spend or want to spend on consumer goods,
buying a phone or a car
or a fridge or just a bigger place to live.
Obviously that's a huge amount of potential
and the Emerging Markets' shares of course profit from that,
because they can turn over more in their home market.
But there are also a lot of companies in Germany
like engineering firms, who are supplying products
that get bought by enterprises in those countries,
to make their own production more efficient
or just produce more.
Companies' profits increase because
they sell more products.
Because they sell more products,
but don't, relatively speaking, produce more spending.
So to sell products you need someone with the money
to buy them. - Exactly right.
So where does the money come from? From companies borrowing,
to buy materials, pay wages and salaries
putting money in circulation. - Right.
Say a company takes out a loan for a certain amount
let's say 500 Euros for simplicity's sake,
that's now in circulation.
But the company wants to earn 600 Euros, so make 100 profit.
Where does the money come from
in the economy as a whole so companies can make profits?
That's a good question.
Because that's the precondition
for assets to grow, isn't it? - Yes.
So I can imagine... it's a complex question
and I lack to some extent the technical background
to explain it well
in terms of value creation, but...
let me think about this.
Can we defer that question to later?
Yes, of course,
I'll move on to another question that I've also...
It's a good question, but insanely complicated to answer.
Where does money for profits come from?
It's an extremely interesting point that
we feel that money comes from work.
I go to work and I get money,
as if it's my work that's somehow creating the money.
We used to, well, I didn't, but
a caveman would go to the woods,
gather nuts and berries, hunt animals
and that was his income,
from 'work' in quotes.
And we still think that's how it works today,
but it doesn't.
In fact, your income
only exists because we've built houses.
That means you're actually dependent on us investing
making things, building houses, for your job to exist.
Work as much as you want,
nothing will happen if we aren't willing to invest.
And we only invest if we think we'll make a profit.
And the profit outlook depends on the growth of the money supply.
Exactly. - There's the drama.
Profit outlook depends on growth of money supply.
Our game's money supply has been shrinking,
but in the economy as a whole it has to grow permanently
and we can see in reality it's grown continuously since 1948.
Hello Ms Losmann, please submit your questions
for the interview with our BMW Chief Financial Officer
in writing in advance.
Our strategic goal, especially in our core segment, automotive,
is a margin of 8-10%.
We have not achieved that.
The margin is what's left
after subtracting expenditure from revenue.
So on revenue of 100 Euros,
we want to earn 8-10 Euros.
And as I said,
we did not achieve that strategic goal in 2018.
But even so,
compared to our competitors,
our 7.2% is a very, very good result.
Every company wants to make profits.
And I ask myself, OK, but where do those 7.2% profits come from,
that the corporate sector wants to earn extra?
I know not everyone makes 7.2%...
We fight for customers, and the customer finances the company,
by buying the product, that's the logic you mean, isn't it?
Well, yes, but also, where does the customer actually get this money?
The bottom line is,
the corporate sector wants to make profits,
to get more money out of circulation than it puts in
so looking at the whole economy I ask myself:
who takes on the debt for that?
Who takes the...
OK, let me try from the other perspective...
Is this the question 'where does economic growth come from?'
Profits come to economic growth, so basically yes.
Ask it again, so I can repeat the question.
Where do profits come from, how does economic growth happen?
Economic growth...
Companies contribute very significantly
to economic growth.
It's like a, I could describe it as a kind,
like a kind of circulation.
Particularly in a technology-driven industry
like the automotive industry,
economic growth is driven
in the first place by innovation.
We invest in research and development
and produce, develop and produce thereby
products that fortunately customers like very much,
and so are prepared to pay more for those products,
than we spent making them.
I'd be interested to know how important the money supply
and its expansion are in your profit forecasts.
Do you look at factors like that?
Yes, we do look very very closely at factors like that.
You can roughly say
that every second vehicle we sell worldwide
is refinanced by the customer
through BMW Financial Services.
So is it fair to say that through your credit system,
vehicle financing, you're also creating the money for your own profits?
Well, the financial services division is also profitable...
I'm talking about in the context of the whole economy,
meaning: when you issue a vehicle loan
that is a new credit -
you're helping expand the money supply.
Which also helps your profit expectations.
It helps profit expectations because
we sell a certain share of our vehicles
on a credit basis
50% penetration
and
that's... we are a part of
the financial banking system
and so are bound by all the rules
that also apply to commercial banks.
It also has a very great deal to do with
what's called consumer sentiment.
How ready is the customer,
whether or not he has sufficient resources,
how ready is the customer to invest funds in a product
and to pay more for it
than we spent making it.
And the money supply must also increase, mustn't it?
The money supply increases...
The money supply does increase,
as national economies grow.
The money supply automatically grows then.
And the national economies grow because more is invested.
Innovated and invested.
And you need new money again for that. - Yes.
Money supply grows as economy grows.
Economy grows as money supply grows.
So if the conditions that allow companies to make profits
necessarily go in paradoxical circles,
why do companies have to make profits at all?
OK, look, people like you
who don't understand the first thing
about business economies and the economy.
When you ask me a question like that, it's like asking
why a rock falls downwards
and not upwards.
Well, for most of human history,
by that definition, rocks fell upwards,
as there was no profit-based economy.
Just a minute, let me explain
why this question is offensive.
OK, I can't wait.
What most people don't get is this:
Repayments of loans don't appear in profit and loss accounts.
If you say now, I have a profit and loss account and at the bottom it says
I have precisely zero Euros profit,
then you have no surplus money to repay your loans.
So companies have to make profits, to repay their debts?
Exactly.
So now, looking at the whole economy:
can everyone make a profit at once?
Yes, why not?
The money supply would have to increase... - No.
If everyone makes a profit, earn more on their invested capital.
I don't understand, why are you on about the money supply?
You can't put in an amount X
and expect to take out an amount X plus 0.03%.
Look, you're talking to the wrong person here,
I don't care about this at all,
because money supply management in China, the US and other countries...
Write a doctoral thesis,
and it would change nothing at all. - Oh, I see.
I do think this is an interesting issue.
I studied economic theory
no one learns how the monetary system works.
Not only do they not learn, they learn it wrong.
Because most economists just don't have anything to do with it.
We held an event at university,
long time ago, at Leipzig,
and the subject was money and we invited macroeconomists,
People who were analysing the economy as a whole.
And they said: 'That's not my subject,
we can't talk about that.' I think that says a lot.
The problem is, I had a meeting
with a professor who was also talking about monetary theory,
and then the equilibrium models
that they endlessly teach at universities
and when I pointed out to him
that the basic assumption on which all these systems
and models depend is false,
he said: 'Yes, you're right, but I'm not interested in the real world.'
Honest, at least. - Verbatim! Yes, I think I wrong-footed him,
for him to admit that he's not interested in the real world,
but that is symptomatic.
The worst thing I think is that they know,
they know that these models
they drum into their students' heads
don't work in reality.
Yes, and Norbert Häring also said
economic science serves the disguise of power.
And I think there's something in that.
Hello Ms Losmann,
just to be clear, I've switched to my private account,
because this is purely my personal opinion.
I must therefore not be quoted without further agreement.
Concerning your question:
increasing profits and increasing economic growth
require a continuous expansion in debt.
This is the notorious 'elephant in the room'
about which nobody talks.
The key player in capitalism is the debtor,
who makes others' profits and asset growth possible.
How does profit come about? Where does money for profits come from?
The key player is the debtor.
Who assumes the debts?
I'll go through the state of play again, to keep us up to speed.
Dag now only has 300€ left,
he's been paying rent the whole time
and has no income source because nobody's building anymore.
So jobs are scarce because there's no investment.
But we saw at the beginning, when private enterprise was investing,
he was earning well and had assets
and those assets were based on private enterprise debts,
you were all investing because you were expecting profit.
And as private enterprise invests less,
from a certain phase in the economy when the market's saturated,
wages fall or jobs are lost
and then the state has to come in and invest
financing jobs in certain areas
or increasing or creating welfare systems,
through which money then flows
to those no longer financed by private enterprise,
but this money flows via the welfare system
ultimately into the pockets of owners,
property owners and others,
who are thus able to keep making income that they couldn't otherwise make.
Otherwise he'd really be sleeping under a bridge
not paying any more rent.
But because he's paying rent, financed by the state,
he's enabling income for private individuals.
So some private profits
are financed by government debt.
Seen in this light, by my definition, the state is a source of profit.
debt - e.g. government debt
Right, so let me officially welcome you
to the presentation of the eighth
Global Wealth Report, which we have compiled.
Trends this year have again been very positive,
with gross monetary assets
rising by 7.1% globally.
The industrialized nations
have again accelerated their asset growth somewhat,
but less so than the emerging economies.
Now comes something else quite interesting.
Global trends in debt,
I mean preparedness to take on debt,
has again increased markedly.
We still aren't seeing anything excessive
at least not on a global scale,
but I think we can say that
a debt cycle has turned.
Do you see a connection between government debt
and the increase of private assets,
I mean, when I think of
Australia, New Zealand, Japan and many other countries,
I seem to see a correlation
between levels of government debt and private wealth.
That's a very complex issue.
The ability to build up monetary assets
naturally depends on government policy
and for sure in Germany there are some restrictions,
in the sense that the burden of tax
and social security contributions is very, very high.
You're talking about tax relief,
but I mean overall economic balance.
In the total global balance,
the total of all debit must equal the total of all credit.
That means that, if one sector of the economy
shows real net monetary assets,
then there must be net liabilities somewhere.
All countries where large private wealth has been amassed,
also have high public debts.
Yes, it's a difficult situation
to manage, that's true.
A buildup of assets is always mirrored
in a buildup of debts
in other sectors of the economy,
that's entirely correct.
In some Asian countries, for example,
private households' increasing assets
are reflected in an explosion of business debt.
In many European countries, rising monetary assets
are above all, or reflect increasing public debt.
The state makes more debts
as private households build assets.
And how does this process work, when states take on debt,
how does it happen, technically speaking?
States issue, or create new government bonds
and sell these to what are called accredited banks.
To buy the bonds, these banks in turn create new money.
So every new issue of government bonds
increases the money supply, and that's desirable, deliberate.
The state only intervenes as debtor
because private households or enterprises
are not taking out enough loans, but
are accumulating money as private assets.
To prevent the money supply shrinking,
the state injects money with new debt.
So what then happens to the government IOUs,
I mean the new government bonds?
Well, the banks sell the government bonds on
as securities on the capital market,
so public debt becomes an investment
for accumulated assets.
PIMCO Investment company -
largest active fund manager of corporate and government bonds
Dear Ms Losmann,
You may film in the room before the conference.
However, we cannot now agree to filming during the conference itself.
You may by all means, however
film the gentlemen from outside our transparent conference room.
Furthermore, our Head of Portfolio Management,
Andrew Bosomworth, is available for an interview.
So the basic building blocks of capital markets
are shares and bonds.
Pimco mainly manages bonds.
Large companies and state actors
have access to the capital markets.
That means they as borrowers can obtain money here
through the capital markets, in the form of bonds.
And we at Pimco study
the economic viability, financial soundness and profitability,
what are the potential returns on particular bonds.
And decide on that basis,
and a bond is bought or sold.
Now, you want your money back plus a return,
what makes that possible?
In the whole economy?
From our point of view as investor,
economic growth is important,
because borrowers' ability
to repay their debts is related to economic growth.
And if a state has growth and tax revenues,
it's better placed to repay government bonds,
meaning debts plus interest, when they mature.
How large are the assets you manage here?
And roughly how high are the returns
you achieve with those assets?
The total asset volume we manage
is USD 1.5 billion,
so in Euros
just under 1.5 billion.
Sorry, not billion...
trillion.
Total managed assets: USD 1.88 trillion (as of August 2019)
sample calculation: at a return of 5% per annum
So government debt has a twofold effect, doesn't it?
First, it increases the money supply
so the private economy can keep making a profit,
I mean take more money than it spends.
Secondly, those saved profits can be reinvested
in government bonds,
generating more returns.
Yes, that's a fair summary.
And now with European countries already having high debts,
some overindebted,
the European Central Bank steps in anyway
to do this, acting as debtor of last resort.
There simply has to be enough money in circulation,
but that gets harder, the bigger the sums are
that are going out again as returns on assets.
Then there's distribution:
if money goes not to who needs things,
but to those whose needs are met,
it may not circulate at all.
But economics tends not to see that.
Economics sees the overall situation
and that misses something, you're right,
and sadly the distribution problem is rarely discussed
because of the envy debate.
They always call it the envy debate.
And when people say households aren't in debt,
they have accumulated assets, net assets,
they're ignoring the fact that most of these net assets
belong only to a small fraction of households
and many of them very much are in debt.
And that's a big problem,
because statistics often uses the arithmetic mean.
'The mean is the burial shroud of statistics',
Right. - Flattens everything.
But we love using the mean,
because it seems so insightful at first,
and actually... - The average.
The average, taking an average,
but the unequal distribution doesn't show up in that at all.
Correct. - And it gets worse and worse,
the more unequal the distribution is.
So you have to see the extremes,
the poorest and the richest, to know.
Who is profiting from this? Who is creaming off these profits,
well, it's usually just the top 10 percent.
But assets arise that aren't just sitting there,
but also have economic and political influence,
so it isn't an accounting trick to say
percentage-wise the assets of the rich grow more slowly,
but over the long term,
50 years ahead, that doesn't alter the fact
that the rich
are much richer and getting ever richer.
That's true. Yes.
Small growth rates on large assets
bring considerable growth
many times bigger than large growth rates on small assets.
That's true of asset growth within countries, and also between countries:
the absolute differences increase.
If private assets are growing like that, growing ever more,
what does that mean for the other side of the coin, debt?
So if states take on debt
or businesses to invest
or households to build houses,
that debt creates
more economic activity and more growth.
On the face of it, that's good,
which is why central banks
try to stimulate this kind of debt
somehow in their policies.
But it can come back and bite you.
The financial backers might rethink, might say:
Well, what growth do they need,
and then calculate scenarios, that tend not to work out all that favourably
and then at some point the financial markets
and capital markets will lose confidence in these economies.
Then there'll be no more credit - on the contrary,
because overindebted countries
are cut off completely from the credit tap
and it all goes to rack and ruin very quickly.
So on the one hand, private wealth can grow
because states take on debt
and on the other, capital providers cut off money to states
if they take on too much debt.
How can this make sense?
Well, because it's long been believed
that states should borrow on the so-called capital market.
But that makes states depend on private capital providers,
and effectively obliges them to promote economic growth
to raise their tax revenues or privatise public assets
if their debts get too high.
That brings us to where we are today:
many projects can no longer be funded
simply because they don't offer the returns
private capital providers expect.
This might affect the fight against high unemployment,
or make funding education, social care, infrastructure,
not least the shift
towards an ecologically sustainable economy
impossible to fund because not profitable.
So democratic governments can no longer decide freely
what to finance,
they can only present their budgets with proposals
for what they'd like to finance
for the private capital providers to approve.
This creates a very urgent political issue:
shouldn't we, as a democratic society, decide for ourselves
what expenditure we find sensible
and then have the state create the money for that?
Why should we as states not have the same privilege
as profit-orientated private banks?
Wouldn't public debt just keep rising?
Well, if we assume that private wealth just keeps on growing,
we need profits and for that we need debts.
And someone has to take on those debts.
If it's not the state, because capital providers prefer to break even,
so state spending falls,
then private households have to step in and assume the debt,
e.g. paying for children's schooling that's no longer state-funded,
or higher rents because public housing is privatised.
Wouldn't it be better for us, the state, to take on these debts directly,
and make ourselves independent of the capital providers?
But where does it all go from here?
If more profit and economic growth
come only at the price of more debt?
Why can't we just stop growing?
The dilemma is, there's only investment -
economic activity only happens - if whoever has money to put in
expects returns.
So they hope to take out more than they put in.
For me, the dilemma is
that this idea of
'profit is the essential driver of economic activity'
has become so fixed in our heads that we take it for granted.
Now there was a short period in history
when real profit could be made,
because there were two monetary systems, but now it's only possible
through the chain-letter system,
where someone has to have the debt -
to take out a loan
without expecting to repay it, so that others can accumulate assets.
This sustains the illusion of perpetual exploitation of nature
and transformation of nature... you can still feel that today.
So it's 'this creates value',
they always says 'this creates value',
I'm making use of something, we have a lot more glasses today,
not needing them all, using up more and more nature,
in buildings, more and more concrete, we're even short of sand,
one of the most abundant
natural resources and we're short of it,
using more and more so we feel we're getting richer
but that misses how we're impoverished by the loss of nature.
So we still have that illusion even today, in my opinion.
And that's the link between capitalism and ecocrisis. - Exactly.
At the heart of capitalism is continuous increase of capital.
More and more capital needs a growing money supply.
Which requires constant new investment opportunities.
And here is the fundamental problem.
Only profit-oriented projects attract investment and reinvestment.
Simple example: You want to buy a patch of woodland.
If you just want to leave it alone, you won't get any financing.
You can only get financing if you're going to develop it.
At the very least, cut some of it down and turn the timber into money.
And as long as there are still forests, this logic of profit seems OK.
But at some point, alas, it reaches its limit.
At the moment, it's a kind of race.
What's going to collapse first?
Our ecosystem - the Earth - or capitalism,
which has generated unprecedented tension between assets and debts.
So you say in the end, debt will be so high that it can't go on.
Could you perhaps describe where we are, in which phase,
and what will happen when it can't go on?
If we compare
these economic cycles with a football match,
then I think we're definitely in the second half.
Not the last quarter yet,
but...
debt levels,
in public and private sectors,
have risen in many countries in recent decades.
And...
how long it can go on,
ultimately depends on economic growth.
If we don't have any,
like in the 1930s,
that could cause too many failures.
Isn't that circular reasoning?
Can there be any economic growth without new debt?
Or, to put it another way: aren't today's profits tomorrow's debts?
The...
Yes.
Today's profits are tomorrow's debts.
Today's debts are tomorrow's profits.
Anyone who really looks knows it's not working.
It's held together by a belief system.
People are stuck in the system wishing for it somehow to work.
It doesn't need to be logical, just to keep working.
So I'm a physicist
and for me it started with the question: 'infinite growth on a finite planet?'
An impossibility. Bound to cause problems.
Actually we want an ecological economy,
so actually, consumption should if possible tend to decline.
But a fall in demand, in consumption, would bring crisis in today's system.
What we have is simply an unstable system.
Where the state has to intervene to stop the whole thing capsizing.
But if you know that the system is inherently unstable,
intervening like that is just like ventilating a patient you know is dead.
And so we ask ourselves, 'How long can this continue?'
And above all at the cost of rising inequality of distribution.
We might ask ourselves why it's like this.
But we lack understanding and alternatives.
As you say. How long can it go on? We have to think of alternatives.
Do you really want to close the program? Close program - Stay in program
Research: Alternatives