The Transformation The Financial Crisis Can Trigger

“It will have to change in order to stay the same.”
- Daniel Greenstein


In the century between 1690 and 1790, political innovations triggered the financial innovations that gave birth to capitalism. More democratic governments gave birth to modern financial markets.

In this century, financial innovations can trigger business innovations that will give birth to a new entrepreneurial economy. Financial innovations can help to fund a period of entrepreneurship that will transform corporations.

I am going to state this as simply as I can:
The reason for the financial crisis has far less to do with financial markets than with the capacity of corporations and communities for entrepreneurship. Financial markets did their job – they created money, credit and a host of financial products. The problem is that this money went to bidding up the price of what already exists (e.g., stocks and real estate) rather than financing the creation of something new (e.g., new business ventures and the infrastructure for new transportation and energy technologies).

A series of bubbles have burst. First in stocks in 2000. Then in real estate in 2005. Again in stocks this year. Too much money was chasing too few possibilities. There are actually more mutual funds than stocks. Huge sums of money was seeking higher returns, bidding up the price of financial products and trying to enhance returns through leverage.

Too little of it – as a percentage – went into the creation of something new, went into infrastructure like public works or the creation of alternative fuels, or new businesses or new products.

The corporate world did not adapt to these innovations in financial markets – remaining a relatively staid place where little innovation is expected to occur (at least within corporations), particularly innovations that would demand the sums of money generated by the recent spate of innovations in financial markets.

This has a parallel from about 1690. First the Dutch and then the English made innovations in politics that triggered innovations in finance. The Dutch and British were the first to adopt constitutional monarchies and first to invent modern stock and bond markets. It is no coincidence that these two went together.

Constitutional monarchies – the political innovation of the Dutch and English - made kings and queens subordinate to laws and a constitution. Monarchs could no longer just tell their subjects to give them money – to simply tax them. Under this new form of government, Parliament had power to resist. When the king said, “Pay me a million in taxes,” Parliament could say, “Why don’t we loan you the money instead and you can pay us back. We’ll buy bonds that pay interest.”

Figuring out how to finance this prompted the emergence of modern bankers and bond markets. Innovations in politics – the constitutional monarchy and Parliament – triggered innovations in finance – the birth of bond markets and the gradual popularization of investing. This was huge because it laid the foundation for the birth of capitalism.

What is the parallel for today?

Innovations in financial markets have created our predicament today. We’ve leveraged our way onto a precipice and governments are now trying to talk credit markets down off the ledge before they jump.

As easy as it is to dismiss this “excess” in financial markets as proof of greed and madness, these financial innovations have created a huge capacity for credit and expansion. The problem is not that we’ve created more money, more capacity for financing. The problem is that we’ve used that money to bid up the price of existing things – stocks and homes – rather than to create something new. More specifically, we failed to apply this new credit and expansion to the creation of new ventures.

The innovations in finance can turn out to be as wonderful as the innovations in politics were hundreds of years ago. To properly work, though, we’ll need to see innovations in business, a transformation of the corporation.

Right now, corporations are set up to – for the most part – be founded by entrepreneurs and then run by employees. In order to properly use the money financial markets are capable of producing, the corporation will have to become much more entrepreneurial – a place where a growing percentage of employees behave more like entrepreneurs.

Transforming the corporation into an entrepreneurial place is going to turn corporations into net users of cash rather than net producers. Properly done, turning corporate employees within the corporation into entrepreneurs will require lots and lots of cash: perhaps as much as the recent spate of financial innovations has generated.

We are facing a great moment in history. Going back to the Great Depression, however, will suggest only some needed regulations. It will not suggest the innovations that are most likely to take us into an economy as different from this information age as capitalism was from the agricultural economy.

The ability to create money and credit ought not to be considered a bad thing. And if we can again use innovations in one major institution (finance this time instead of politics) to trigger innovations in another (business instead of finance), we can move towards a new economy.

The idea is not to perfect the old world with these innovations. Rather, the idea is to create a new one. This has always been the theme of progress. There is no reason to believe that the way of change has changed for our own time.

The Swinging Pendulum of Social Evolution

The Rothschild brothers didn’t seem like elites when they began their career. Mayer Rothschild began his life living in a Frankfurt ghetto, forced to leave the sidewalk when even a young child ordered him to “Step aside, Jew!” He had the vision to send four of his five sons to the most important cities in Europe.

Mayer's son Nathan Rothschild was in London when the English began their war against Napoleon. This war was incredibly expensive. Coordinating efforts with his brothers, Nathan was able to raise huge sums of money for the British by selling war bonds throughout Europe – primarily through his brothers in Frankfurt, Paris, Vienna, and Naples. Nathan not only raised money for the British – he made the Rothschild brothers rich and famous. By the time of his death in 1836, he might have had more liquid wealth than anyone in the world. Because they helped to invent modern financial markets, the Rothschild brothers rose from the German ghetto to become elites with power enough to dictate terms to kings.

The Rothschild brothers and others like JP Morgan helped to pioneer modern financial markets and then, in the next century, philosophers like Keynes, policy-makers like FDR, and business visionaries like Charlie Merrill and Dee Hock “democratized” financial markets, creating access to credit and investment markets for the people. Alan Greenspan or Ben Bernanke is supposed to manage interest rates and reserve rates so as to do what is best for the general economy and the average person – not just a few powerful bankers. Access to financial markets is now considered a right.

Martin Luther, John Calvin, Huldrych Zwingli, and John Knox were among the revolutionaries who wrested control of the church away from the elites and helped to put it into the hands of the people.

Later, Louis XIV and Henry VIII help to pioneer the nation-state and then, centuries later, revolutionaries like Jefferson and Franklin wrested control away from the elites and into the hands of the people.

The swings between power held by the elites and the people seem to me inevitable. The elites pioneer and prosper. They are the social inventors who create the great institutions like church, state, and corporation. But once those inventions have become an integral part of the social fabric, along come revolutionaries who turn control of these inventions over from the elites to the people.

Next up for Western Civilization? Wresting control away from the CEOs, the last of the monarchs, and putting power into the hands of the investors, employees, and communities whose fate is so inexorably tied up in the actions of the corporation.

Am I a populist or an elitist? A Republican who wants the people’s interest represented by a trusted group of elites or a Democrat who wants the people to directly represent their own interests? At this point in history, I’m a populist, a Democrat ready to see the power of the powerful corporation dispersed.

4 Revolutions and the Rise of the Individual Over the Institution

A pattern of revolutions has brought us out of the Dark Ages and into the modern world. This pattern has been repeated three times. During your lifetime, it will repeat for a fourth time. This will be the next great revolution.

If I were to ask you to name some technological inventions that helped us to become modern, you could probably name quite a few – things like the printing press, the steam engine, the automobile and the computer. But if I were to ask you what social inventions helped us to become modern, you might pause. We are less inclined to think of things like schools and universities, banks and corporations as inventions and yet they are. Our social institutions and customs are at least as different from what they had in medieval times as is our technology.

When a technology inventor comes up with a radically new product, they call it an innovation. When a social inventor like Martin Luther or Thomas Jefferson comes up with a radically new institution, they call it revolution. Such revolutions have created our modern world. A fourth is about to transform it once again.

The First Revolution - the Church
In 1300, you could be burned at the stake for a number of offenses. If your neighbor's donkey had died or crop had failed, he might bring an accusation against you for being a witch. If you spoke out against the church, questioning its doctrine. Or if you simply owned a copy of the Bible in your own language. All of these, and more, were capital offenses.

In the early 1500s, Martin Luther became the most visible agitator for a change to the church. He didn’t like the idea of church authorities substituting for his conscience or interpretation of the Bible. He may have articulated the first revolution when he said, “We are all priests.”

It took quite some time, and a tragic amount of bloodshed, but the individual in the West finally gained the freedom to choose how – or even whether – to worship. The power that once was held by the church – by the elites within the church – was now held by the individual. This church revolution was the first great transformation of the West. To appreciate how different this made us, consider the fact that in many Muslim countries today it is a capital offense to renounce one’s Muslim faith. Think about how different life is here in the West for this reason alone.

The Second Revolution - the State
The second great transformation involved the revolution of the state. We learn about this great and amazing story in our American history classes. Jefferson penned the words, “All men are created equal.” Again, the revolution was not immediate. After we won our independence from the British, for example, only white, landowning men could vote. But the idea of power to define policy – to define the laws and budgets that so influence our quality of life – the idea that this should be power ultimately held by the people is an idea that has spread. In just the last century, the number of democracies has increased from about 13 to 67.

It is not, ultimately, the aristocrats who decide on the politicians and policy that defines our society. Rather, it is the polity. As with the Protestant Revolution, Democratic Revolution dispersed power outwards from elites to the common person.

The Third Revolution - the Bank
The third great transformation involved a revolution of the bank – a transformation of capitalism.

Before this, the third transformation, it was common for a 9 year-old child to work 12 hour days in factories and for young women to not only work 12 hour days but to be, effectively, prisoners on a factory compound, able to leave only on Sunday’s. The power over lives that had earlier been held by popes and kings was now wielded by robber barons. Money and credit was scarce – to get a loan you would be subject to great scrutiny and bankers would decide whether or not the purchase you wanted was appropriate.

By 2000, capitalism had transformed in so many ways. As with the church and state before it, the power of the bank had been dispersed outwards to common people. The great management guru Peter Drucker was one of the few to note that by the end of the 20th century it was labor - people like us – who through their 401(k) plans and pension plans now owned the majority of the country’s equity.

The battle between capital and labor that played out through the actions of robber barons, unions, and in more dramatic relief through the policies of communists and fascists, was over. The battle had not been won. It had been dissolved. Labor had become the capitalist. Not only did workers have rights, but the average person with a credit card could now decide for himself whether or not to take a loan. Bankers did not decide whether you should buy the new refrigerator. You made that decision. Freedom of religion and the right to vote were followed by access to credit upon our choosing – not the banks. What would the banker of 1900 think about our literally tearing up requests for us to TAKE OUT loans? What would he think about us throwing away advertisements that guaranteed us credit?

Three revolutions have brought us into the modern world. But the church, state, and bank are no longer the dominant institution. In today's world, it is the corporation that has that role. My prediction is that the elites within corporations are going to find their power dispersed out, just as happened to the elites in the church, state, and bank before them. The CEO now making hundreds of times what the average worker makes is following in the footsteps of the Renaissance popes, the Enlightenment-era monarchs, and the powerful capitalist whose world was depicted in Dickens’s novels.

You live in a remarkable time. For one thing, all three past revolutions played out over a century or more. This next revolution will take place within decades. I will go into more detail in later posts, but the fourth revolution has already begun. For now, I will simply say that the Internet has dispersed information outwards to average employees. Increasingly, power, decision-making, and autonomy will be dispersed with it.

We know that a country is poorly developed if its head ruler makes more money than anyone else within the country. When the top salary goes to the top political leader, we rightly suspect a dictatorship or political abuse. it is different in developed nations. Within the U.S., for instance, President Bush’s’ $400,000 annual salary might put him among the top 1 million for income. People in the United States are free to make as much as they can, and many make more than our political leader. By contrast, it is the rare company where any employee makes more than the CEO. Imagine how incensed CEOs would be if the government was to define their annual goals and their maximum salaries – and yet that is just what these CEOs typically do to their employees.

This will change. Power will be dispersed outwards to employees from the corporate elites. Senior management will increasingly play a role that looks more like that of a venture capitalist, and employees will take on a role more like that of entrepreneurs, effectively using the corporation as an incubator for starting new ventures that translate into shared equity. As with the past revolutions, this transformation of the dominant institution will involve sweeping changes and myriad smaller social inventions. And like the past revolutions, it will be defined by the rise of the individual over the institution - an increase in individual autonomy that has repeatedly defined the West.

Martin Luther said, “We are all priests.” Perhaps the cry of this century will be, “We are all entrepreneurs.”