www-us.org

Chapter 74: The Zombie Economy

The private jet ascended smoothly into the dark, quiet stratosphere, a silent capsule of luxury leaving the noise of New York City far below. Inside, the mood was electric. Julian’s speech at the financial conference had been a declaration of war, and the team was buzzing with the adrenaline of the battle.

“You didn’t just win the debate, Julian,” Anya Sharma said, her eyes alight with intellectual fire. “You shattered their entire paradigm. They had no answer for the core argument.”

Marcus Thorne, who had spent the entire speech looking like a man expecting a lightning strike, finally allowed himself a small, relieved smile. “I’ll admit, the political risk was astronomical. But the payoff was huge. The message is cutting through. ‘The Great Subsidy.’ It’s powerful.”

Julian, who had been staring out the window at the blanket of clouds, turned to face them. “Thank you,” he said, his tone quiet, almost dismissive of their praise. “But the speech only covered half the problem.”

Marcus and Anya exchanged a confused look.

“The asset inflation, the wealth inequality—that is the visible, acute symptom of the disease,” Julian explained. “It is the raging fever. But there is a second, quieter, and far more dangerous symptom. It is the invisible cancer that is eating away at the productive capacity of our entire economy. It is the sickness of stagnation.”

He leaned forward, his demeanor shifting back to that of the professor, the systems analyst. “The interest rate is not just the price of money,” he began. “It is the single most important price signal in a capitalist economy. It is the gatekeeper of investment. A high, honest interest rate, set by the real savings of the people, is a stern and disciplined gatekeeper. It forces investors to be creative, to be efficient, to seek out only the best, most innovative, and most genuinely profitable ideas, because the cost of borrowing is high, and the penalty for failure is real.”

“But,” he continued, his voice hardening, “a subsidized, artificially low interest rate is a drunk and lazy gatekeeper. It waves everyone through. It tells the owners of capital that they don't need a great idea; a mediocre idea will do. It whispers that the return on their investment only has to be slightly higher than the near-zero cost of the money they borrowed. And this, this destruction of discipline, is what creates a zombie economy.”

He then detailed the symptoms of this invisible sickness, his words painting a grim picture of a society slowly decaying from within.

“You see it in our corporate culture,” he said. “Companies buy other companies not because they have a brilliant vision for creating new value, but simply because they can borrow the money cheaply and they see some marginal, paper-thin efficiency gain. It is an economy of sterile consolidation, not of vibrant creation.”

“You see it in our housing market,” he continued. “The wealthy don’t just buy homes to live in. They buy up dozens, hundreds of properties, not to rent them out, not to improve them, but simply to use them as a passive, inflation-proof store of value. A house, which should be a home, a place of life, becomes a dead asset, a gold bar with a roof.”

He then delivered the final, devastating proof. “If you want to see the endgame of this philosophy, look at Japan. After their spectacular rise in the post-war era, they embraced this cheap money policy more than anyone. And what has been the result? Thirty years of economic stagnation. A landscape littered with ‘zombie companies’ that are effectively bankrupt but are kept alive on a perpetual drip-feed of cheap debt. This prevents the healthy and necessary process of creative destruction. It prevents new, more innovative companies from taking their place. It is a slow, comfortable, and managed economic death.”

He paused, letting the grim diagnosis settle in. Then he delivered the final, most controversial, and most frightening part of his argument.

“And this is where the sickness becomes truly dangerous for our future,” he said. “Let’s talk about automation. We all believe in progress. We all believe in the power of technology. But automation that is funded by honest capital, that is undertaken because a new machine genuinely and massively creates more value than the human labor it replaces—that is progress.”

He looked from Anya to Marcus, his eyes cold and clear. “But automation that is funded by subsidized, near-free money, that is undertaken by a corporation simply to displace expensive human workers because the capital cost of the robot is artificially low—that is not progress. That is a form of social destruction. It creates mass unemployment and social instability, not because of a great leap in innovation, but because of a fundamental flaw in our monetary system. We are, in effect, subsidizing the elimination of our own jobs.”

The cabin of the jet was silent, the only sound the faint hum of the engines. Marcus and Anya stared at him. He had just taken his already radical critique of the Federal Reserve and had elevated it to a new, terrifying, and profoundly important level. He was no longer just arguing that the system was unfair. He was arguing that it was a slow-acting poison that was destroying the very dynamism and innovative spirit of the American economy.

The Discourse, 74; The Sickness of Stagnation

Section 74.1: The Austrian School Critique of Malinvestment

The core argument of this section is a direct application of a key concept from the Austrian School of economics, most famously associated with economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The theory of malinvestment posits that when a central bank artificially lowers interest rates, it sends a false price signal to entrepreneurs and investors.

The interest rate is not just the price of money; it is a crucial piece of information about the real availability of saved resources in an economy. An artificially low rate makes it seem like there are more real savings available for long-term projects than there actually are. This encourages businesses to undertake investments that are not economically sound and would not have been undertaken if they had to pay the "honest," market-based cost of capital. Corbin's argument is that a society saturated with cheap credit will inevitably become a society saturated with bad, unproductive, and ultimately wealth-destroying investments.

Section 74.2: The "Zombie Economy" and Creative Destruction

The concept of the "zombie economy," exemplified by Japan's "lost decades," is a direct consequence of this malinvestment. A "zombie company" is a firm that is insolvent but is kept alive by a constant drip-feed of cheap credit from banks.

This is a profound critique of the stated goal of low-interest-rate policy. While the policy is supposed to "stimulate" the economy, Corbin argues it does the opposite. It prevents the healthy and necessary process of creative destruction. In a functional capitalist economy, inefficient and unproductive firms are supposed to fail. This failure is essential, as it frees up capital and labor to be reallocated to new, more innovative, and more productive enterprises. By preventing this process, the cheap money policy turns the economy into a stagnant swamp, keeping old, dying companies on life support and preventing new, healthy ones from growing.

Section 74.3: The Luddite Fallacy and the Automation Argument

Corbin's final argument about automation is his most sophisticated and counter-cultural. The fear of technology destroying jobs is as old as the industrial revolution, and economists often dismiss it as the "Luddite fallacy," arguing that while technology destroys some jobs, it always creates new, better ones.

Corbin's argument is much more nuanced. He is not against automation; he is against economically irrational automation. He is making the case that the "money supply subsidy" creates a perverse incentive for companies to invest in automation even when it is not genuinely productive. If capital (a robot) is artificially cheap, and labor is expensive, a company might choose to buy the robot to replace the worker, even if the robot is only marginally more productive.

This is a profound critique. He is arguing that the current system is incentivizing a form of social destruction. The mass unemployment that could result is not the price of "progress" in this scenario. It is the price of a flawed monetary policy. The solution, in his view, is not to ban the robots, but to fix the money, which will ensure that automation is only deployed when it represents a true, massive leap in productivity that benefits society as a whole.