This interview with the Chilean economist Orlando Caputo was conducted in December 2008 in Santiago de Chile and published in English at Rebelion.org in January. Despite the three months since then, I keep it in good part its relevance, especially at a time when the "masters of the world" met in London in the G20.
( Photo: Seb ) Orlando Caputo is an economist and has dedicated much of his life in the academic activity, except during the government of President Salvador Allende, in which he found himself at the head of the Chilean copper industry. At 28, he was appointed personal representative of the executive committee of Allende Codelco (National Copper Corporation) and then served as general manager of this public company.
After the military coup he was exiled to Mexico where he lived for 17 years and taught at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). In this country, he participated in the creation of the Network for the Study of World Economy (1) , which he still serves today.
His main area of study is the world economy and insists: "not inter-national ' World. "Mr. Caputo claims a different interpretation of the economic crisis," including those made by some progressive sectors. "He believes that the crisis could open new possibilities and alternatives, but noted many deficiencies among the parties and lack of political consciousness among social movements. "Capitalism has the capacity to resolve this crisis," he warns.
What is your interpretation of the current crisis?
It s 'acts in a housing crisis which has recently transformed into the global economy crisis and I think we are just beginning. This crisis, from the start, was analyzed on the basis of elements that seem very questionable. These include the fact of the qualifying financial crisis.
That seems weird because it's actually a housing crisis that brought together two areas: one real and financial sectors. But the more we talk of financial crisis, while the globalization of the world economy has meant that productive capital has become relatively independent of financial capital.
In the '80s, about 50% of profits enterprises producing goods and services were received by the financial sector. This has decreased dramatically to reach between 10 and 18%. And it goes even further, these companies have achieved higher profits if they have turned into net suppliers of the financial system.
us remember that the globalization of the world economy, supported by neoliberalism, has been established because the benefits and rates of return (2) in years 60 and 70 were low. Companies began to confront this by opening up the world by investing anywhere, requiring free trade, etc..
What does this globalization of the economy in terms of social relations of production?
It means a domination of capital over labor: labor flexibility, tertiary, etc.. The flexibility of production processes divides the world of work. What does this mean? This implies that in the world there was a decrease in wages accompanied by a direct increase in corporate profits.
The increase in profits was also due to other reasons, including that companies take ownership of natural resources. Defends neoliberalism as the primary cause, in addition to the "freedom to choose" private ownership of natural resources. Moreover, it also increases the power of capital over states.
The world is dominated by large multinational producers of goods and services rather than financial capital. This does not mean that financial capital is not important, it is very important. But capital needs to create a profit and not only play with historical earnings, the accumulation of funds, etc..
In developed countries, this relative independence is achieved in practice. In the case of Latin America, the world's financial capital and productive capital are acting jointly as denationalization, the organization of production and new businesses are created with very little capital costs and credits associated with much. And so in Latin America, so to speak, the operation is twofold.
"The world is dominated by large multinational producers of goods and services rather than financial capital"
If you look at it this way, it means the world there is an excess of capital that goes to the fund, to the financial apparatus. Companies will make every liquid capital they will not use, governments also will put their reserves, SWFs are created due to high commodity prices during a certain period, pension funds and also other types of funds are created as well.
companies no longer budget requests because they have become net providers. But this is a problem: to whom will they lend? This is where technology companies grow, the "dot com", explaining the 2001 crisis. But later, where do they invest their capital too? She had no where to lend and that is where the construction sector has played an important role not only in the U.S. but also worldwide.
Companies do not need capital because they realize their investments, expansions and mergers from equity. Of course everything is relative, of 100% they can get 15% credit. But as they find out that the development real estate, financing of large projects with great blows of credits.
That's the system that failed in the U.S. and elsewhere. This interpretation is completely different from what we can hear about it. This crisis has not only been financial, it is a crisis of globalization and neoliberalism. And the crisis has now evolved because, until the second quarter of 2008, profits for companies producing goods and services, not residential, do not diminish greatly in the United States. The real crisis can not develop if there is no significant drop in profits and rates of return. And this is taking place right now.
you consider this crisis as an opportunity to develop alternatives?
This crisis could lead to a breach of the current process of globalization and a world economy organized on the basis of regional blocs. But continuing to analyze it as a "financial crisis" is to displace the fundamental concern. That move that the most important conflict of our time is between capital and society human, represented by workers and social movements who also defend the natural resources and nature.
crisis may open possibilities but I think a lot of political shortcomings, there is no consciousness. The movement is very low but if there was a political consciousness and whether the parties position themselves, then it could emerge a process of rebellion to require new global structures, a new financial and monetary system.
In Latin America we can get to do great things: an integration process that takes into account the interests of peoples and not just companies that are diversified economies, which is not only commercial but is rather a process of global integration with its own currency, a Bank of the South, etc.. Conditions are met.
Notes:
(1) Red de Estudios de la EconomÃa Mundial ( www.redem.buap.mx ). Orlando Caputo is also a member of the Working Group on the Global Economy, Transnational Corporations and National Economy, CLACSO (Latin American Council of Social Sciences, www.clacso.org.ar ).
(2) "Las tasas de ganancias.
