World needs healthy capitalism

October 29, 2012

Last week I gave a speech on “healthy capitalism” at Oxford University. Before doing so, I tried the idea out on an academic friend of mine. He scoffed at it. For him, “healthy capitalism” was an oxymoron. Five years after the start of the world’s worst financial crisis in decades, it is easy to mock capitalism. The system ran amok – leading to debt, unemployment and shrinking economies.

But that’s precisely why the world needs healthy capitalism. Health involves vigour, well-being and resilience. Capitalism – with its basis in free enterprise and private property – can have all those qualities provided warped incentives are corrected and the culture of greed is tempered. State socialism certainly cannot. The practical alternative is to reform capitalism not throw it away.

But how should it be reformed? After the tribulations of recent years, the conventional wisdom is that the problem has been too much freedom. That, though, is a misdiagnosis. Most of the diseases that have become apparent during the crisis have been caused by a distortion of free enterprise rather than too much freedom.

Sickness number one was Alan Greenspan’s habit of lowering interest rates at the first sign of trouble during the pre-crunch era. Investors dubbed this the “Greenspan put”. The theory was that, since the U.S. Federal Reserve would always ride to the rescue, it made sense to take high risks. Fear was numbed and greed left untrammelled. The natural balance of a healthy organism was distorted.

Central bankers do have a role in mitigating the extremes of the economic cycle. But it is vital that, in doing so, they don’t just stoke up more trouble. They need to have the expertise to recognise bubbles and the courage to prick them – an idea which has, thankfully, gained currency in the post-Greenspan era.

The second malady was caused by an excessive willingness to bail out bankrupt banks. In a well-functioning free market, investors would bear the consequences of poor decisions. If a bank teetered on the brink, shareholders would be wiped out and bondholders would suffer. But, with the exception of Lehman Brothers and a few much smaller cases, bondholders were bailed out instead of being bailed in.

This was understandable given the fear of knock-on effects. But a healthy body sees old cells dying and new ones being born. A well-functioning financial system also has to allow for death and renewal. Propping up zombie banks debilitates the whole economy. Meanwhile, the message that foolish risk-taking won’t be punished encourages more folly. This is why reforms in the pipeline to allow banks to be wound down without causing the entire system to collapse are so important.

The third illness is caused by the heads-I-win-tails-you-lose bets that financiers and traders were able to enjoy during the upswing. If everything went well, they made a fortune; if everything collapsed, taxpayers picked up the pieces. Not surprisingly, they spun the roulette wheel.

Such privatisation of gains and socialisation of losses is not healthy capitalism. It is a caricature of the free market. Again, various attempts are being made to ensure that people bear the responsibility for their actions even if the consequences aren’t apparent for several years. Doing so won’t just mean the right people pay when things blow up; it should reduce the chance of things blowing up in the first place.

The fourth disease is caused by distortions in the tax system. The most egregious is the ability of companies in most of the world to deduct interest costs before calculating the profit on which they have to pay tax. Payments to shareholders, by contrast, are typically not tax-deductible. This skewed playing field incentivises companies to leverage themselves up to the gills. That happened during the bubble particularly with banks, private equity groups and real estate businesses – all of which then got into trouble.

Healthy systems are balanced. The tax-deductibility of interest unbalances the economy. There are various ways of curing the disease – for example, by closing the tax loophole and making compensating cuts in corporate tax rates so that business overall doesn’t pay more. Sadly, only a few countries have started to address this problem.

Most definitions of health talk about mental as well as physical well-being. One can make a similar point for capitalism: values matters as well as structure. The past 30 years have seen the rise of the “greed is good” culture, as epitomised by Gordon Gekko in the film Wall Street.

Greed is a natural emotion which has some healthy aspects. It cannot and should not be removed from economic body. But it does need to be balanced by other motivations. The most important of these is the concept of service. Businesses need to be asking the whole time: how are we adding value to our customers and society at large?

Most successful companies do this. But many financial institutions failed to think through whether their products were socially valuable. Merely relying on the theory that the market’s invisible hand will reconcile private greed with the greater good isn’t enough, when we know how often capitalism is rigged.

Business people and financiers should never forget that capitalism rests on the consent of the people. As years of economic gloom gnaw away at that support, the challenge is to show that capitalism can be healthy. That requires changes in both structures and mindset.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

For Capitalism to succeed one needs to allow FAILURE to happen. This is why Darwinian evolution was (and is) such a powerful concept – those that are the strongest and who can adapt to their environment flourish while others don’t and fail.

What we have now is not capitalism – it is a perverted form of capitalism where we don’t allow privileged failure and prevent the business cycle from taking its normal course. Central bankers and governments continue to prop up zombie banks (and via the latter zombie borrowers) with low interest rates, central bank liquidity, government guarantees, capital injections + transfers of dud assets from these zombie entities effectively onto the backs of taxpayers.

Propping up these zombies is very detrimental to the real economy – as in the Japans experience these zombie entities (zombie banks and their zombie customers) perpetuate excess capacity in the system and suck pricing power and cash flow from other solvent players in the economy – this prevents the system from naturally cleaning itself out quickly and regaining resilience.

Losses, rather than being taken quickly by those who created them, are being socialised on society via central bankers and governments. These kind of incentives will further encourage financial sector participants to behave like spoiled children who think that if they create a mess they can run off without any responsibility whilst leaving somebody else with the task/costs of cleaning up after them.

If governments and central bankers really want to encourage GROWTH, then they should dispense with the perverted behaviours they have been encouraging, allow zombies to fail and they will find that the system will naturally heal itself much more quickly than under the policies they are currently pursuing – this would be REAL CAPITALISM.

Posted by Maunsell | Report as abusive

Problem of current crisis is that not some single bank or company failed, problem is that “Too big to fail” is a real description of numerous financial institutions. So failure of any of these institutions not CLEARS the minefield but sets chain-reaction of explosions – with most of world’s economics buried under the rubble.And then traditionally will 4 horsemen ride out…

Article don’t mention that in free unrestricted capitalism there’s no cap on how large/monopolistic company can get – if you became monopolist, it’s just means you’re better and more efficient than any competitor. And of course you’re once again is too big to fail…or else. So there’s cognitive dissonance – when “invisible hand of market” is unattainable so busyness should be a service to society and in same time “free market” speech.
Changing of attitude is good and proper…of course it’s also something all the civilizations before failed to do before some substance hit the fan. And of course change of attitude is something that requires “dura lex sed lex” first – with spirit of law even more important than letter of it…which can be huge problem as it’s in direct opposition of current “trickster” attitude.

Posted by chyron | Report as abusive

This article is spot-on.

Capitalism has morphed into “gaming”, meaning that it has been employed by some to obtain a desired outcome regardless of the “rules”. Many of those rules, however, were not written.

For instance, for the longest time on Wall Street there prevailed the “Prudent Prudent_man_rule Man Rule” (see here). The rule was devised in the 19th century and sets a standard of moral conduct as regards capital investments.

The waywardness of financial management was well-known before the 20th century and has always existed. Humanity has taken too long a time to put some solid rules to capital investments and enforce them.

Particularly weak is the enforcement part. But worse yet is the incentive to take shortcuts in that the American Tax Code has evolved to motivate less than honest but not illegal financial maneuvering.

If deal-gaming can result in a profit of hundreds of millions of dollars a year, why should anyone respect “rules” whilst lawyers tell them that a manipulation is not expressly illegal?

Posted by deLafayette | Report as abusive

Capitalism needs to develop a conscience. To do this is needs to be face-to-face and preferably localised around a community. If you borrow money from faceless people you start careing less about risking other peoples money. Banks should facilitate direct lending and not be an intermediary.

Posted by BidnisMan | Report as abusive

Pugh didn’t find your first four quests yr after since coping with offseason neck expensive costly technique, Also he was quoted saying he will be at 100 p. C truth he to be able to work on becoming much better to meet how much national football league level of contest. Pugh little arm holes(Even if really by about a millimeter, Reese announced) Are in addition, flagged, However, Reese wanted to say that the individual searched pictures and can even not realise that is issues..

Posted by fifa 15 coins xbox | Report as abusive