Edgework

Spring gives way to summer. Summer gives way to fall. Winter winds up the seasons and allows the cycle to start over again. It is impossible to think of one season without reference to all of them. Each season is inextricably linked to the one before it and invariably is a harbinger of the one to come. This inter-connectedness of the seasons is so thoroughly understood that to express it seems redundant, except perhaps for poetic purposes.

But my focus here is on the seasons of 2011 in particular. It began with the Arab Spring, shifted into the European Summer and then unexpectedly changed to the Occupy Movement of the fall. What makes it especially unusual is that as winter approaches none of the other three seasons appear willing to disappear. Something different is happening with the seasons this year!

Some pundits would have us believe that these three seasons are stand-alone events. But one does not even have to be very thoughtful to suspect that in some way or other all of these seasons are connected in some way or other.

Two articles that have helped me understand more clearly that, what we are witnessing in the seasons of 2011, is a global reaction to a global problem. The articles I am referring to are, “How Neo-Liberalism Created an Age of Activism,” by Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, and “The Instability of Inequality,” by Nouriel Roubini of the Stern School of Business.

In the “glorious thirty years” following World War II, western countries experienced economic growth while keeping inequality relatively low and providing for a raft of benefits for the labor force. However, the 1980s saw the onset of a new way of structuring the economies of the world. Some people call this new way of doing things “neoliberalism.” Milton Friedman of the Chicago School of economics is often credited with being the architect of “neoliberalism.”

Three pillars stand out as central to this movement: privatization of the public sector, deregulation of industry and non-interference of governments in the natural flow of wealth. Methods used to promote this doctrine are well documented in books like “Confessions of an Economic Hitman,” by John Perkins and “Shock Doctrine,” by Naomi Klein.

What was not always apparent early on in this movement was that it would be accompanied by massive corruption, unethical lobbying and an increased concentration of wealth at the top of the economic pyramid. As wealth began flowing evermore steadily toward the top one percent of societies around the world, the 99 percent began to experience increasing debt problems.

In developing countries this huge gap in wealth distribution was addressed by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank by offering loans or debt relief on the condition of further privatization, deregulation and cuts to social spending. In Europe governments took on massive debt loads to maintain an acceptable standard of living. In the West individuals filled up this wealth gap by increasing personal debt, especially by buying up houses they couldn’t afford.

I think it is fair to say that what we have seen in 2011 is a massive failure of all three of these schemes to deal with the vacuum left behind by the upward flow of wealth.  And since it is all happening at once, you might call it a “perfect storm.” Now it is possible to argue that societies around the world should have found a better way to deal with this income disparity. But in many cases their options were limited.

The real problem with regard to the global debt crisis is that most of the wealth that should have benefited the global population is now firmly in the grip of the wealthy one percent, who in most cases have not shouldered their fair share of taxation. If the wealth of the one percent were distributed more evenly in the world there would likely be no debt crisis, even if everyone at the top kept a few million dollars of pocket change.

For many years the problem was hidden behind impressive reports of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) figures around the world. For example, Tunisia – where this new way of doing business had been implemented successfully – regularly showed annual increases in their GDP. But where did the benefits of that growth end up? In the laps of the top one percent, of course.

What happened in Tunisia had literally happened around the world. So when the youth in Tunisia launched the Arab Spring, as it came to be known, they were not just protesting against their own sorry lot, they were uncovering global financial inequity that had similar faces all around the world, including in western democracies.

As spring turned to summer and Arab revolutions kept smoldering, serious social problems brought on by huge government debts began appearing in Europe. A young and restless generation had begun to understand that their futures had been sacrificed on the altar of this new world order. Everywhere they looked, they saw multi-billionaires not paying their fair share of taxes while sovereign states were going bankrupt or simply abandoning their poor.

And then fall brought with it a global expression of discontent, beginning in the United States. In the matter of a few weeks, the Occupy Movement had been ignited in more than 1600 cities around the world.

As expected, at first the media portrayed this movement as a minor irritation that would soon go away. But then governments began using riot police to clear away protestors – eerily reminiscent of tactics used at first in the Arab Spring and European Summer.

Now winter has come and it is likely that Occupiers will go home shortly to keep warm. But spring is coming soon and I expect that they will be back in greater numbers and with greater backing.

The seasons of 2011 have indeed been unprecedented in world history. Perhaps it is a sign of climate change beginning to happen.