In this age  during which what one person eats can be seen easily and immediately by the other, what the Left has been saying for decades is proved even more correct.

The IMF finally has come around to what the Left has been arguing for decades. Yes, and now for a new work by the IMF: One eats, one watches, and from that all Hell breaks loose. Can the global crisis be the outcome of the unequal income distribution that was reinforced in the period preceding the crisis? An IMF study published in late 2010 answers this question positively in general. The research emphasizes that given the cost of the crisis; it would have been wise to implement income redistribution policies before the crisis. This is exactly what the Left has been arguing for years. What is this? What does it imply? How can we expand this framework in the context of the recent developments in Egypt and Tunisia? If you wonder, please read on.

You can read the summary of the above-mentioned IMF research paper by Michael Kumhof and Romain Ranciere, published in November 2010, at www.voxeu.org. They emphasize how income distribution in the USA deteriorated before both the 1929 and the 2008 crises. According to this, the share of income held by the top 5 percent of the population increased from 24 percent in 1920 to 34 percent in 1928. Similarly, the mentioned ratio increased from 22 percent in 1983 to 34 percent in 2007. What do the low income households do then? They start to borrow more to compensate for the reduction in the income flow. In the period preceding the two crises, household debts elevated rapidly, almost doubling. The dramatic increase in household borrowing across low-income households pushed up the financial volatility of the banking system. Kumhof and Ranciere argue that it is wise to initiate budget measures that will compensate for the decrease in relative income instead of dealing with the costs witnessed after the crises.

I have five comments in response to this study. First, it is good that the IMF is looking into what caused the trouble with an open mind. Here in Turkey, we first decide our position and then we begin to address the matter. Look at the so-called analyses everywhere and decide. Second, the judgment that it is wise to initiate redistribution policies tailored to improve income distribution tears down another fortress of the economic orthodoxy.

The third point is a matter that is not addressed by the research. Why do poor people keep trying to achieve a certain standard of life through borrowing? Why do they never say to themselves, "there is no way I can pay this debt!"? At this point it is possible to move forward from homo economicus to homo sapiens.

What the Left has been saying for years is true

The only missing link is the fact that today the poor can watch the life opportunities of the time even more closely. If you can watch something, you want to reach it.

The fourth point follows from the third: people not only in the US, but also in Egypt and Tunisia, can watch closely the set of life opportunities of the time. Those in the streets are those who had been able to watch the life opportunities. Traditional mechanisms, such as the Muslim Brothers, represent those who do not watch the life opportunities. They are rather followers. I want to go deeper on the fifth point soon in association with TEPAV's research. Social globalization is the most important tool of political transformation in today's world. It is the number one mechanism for mass mobilization.

The saying "One eats, the other watches; and from that all Hell breaks loose" is truer than anytime today. In the current milieu where everyone easily can watch what the others own and how they live, what the Left has been arguing for decades proves even more correct.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 08.02.2011