|
"The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the
community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it..." -
George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (1934)
INVESTMENT BANKERS have a lot to answer in summer 2008. Not least letting
idiot ideas about government, markets and your liberty run amok during this,
a US election year.
"Instead of an increasingly risk-prone, privatized, profit-driven economic
model overseen by a largely unaccountable and speculation-obsessed elite, we
need an economy that is run and regulated in the interests of ordinary people," urge
two financial hacks here in London.
Larry Elliott and Dan Atkinson, business editors of the left-wing Guardian and
the right-wing Mail on Sunday respectively, this week published their
third tome together, The Gods That Failed.
Subtitled How Blind Faith in Markets Has Cost Us Our Future, the book
presents a common enough thesis for our age. So common, in fact, five "new & used" copies
are already up for sale on Amazon
UK...
"The management of the monetary system has been entrusted in blind faith and
absolute confidence to bankers and financiers. Their management has ended in
more disastrous failure...
"Necessity now compels us to abandon banker management and to resort to national
administration of public credit and national regulation and supervision of
the monetary system."
Not actually Elliott and Atkinson writing in 2008, but The Conquest of
Poverty by Gerald Grattan McGeer - one-time mayor of Vancouver, Canada
- written at the depths of the last Great Depression.
"Responsible government must now destroy banker rule," McGeer wrote in 1933, "or
banker mismanagement of public credit will destroy responsible government and
the civilization that brought it into being."
Put another way - but with no less melodrama - "the market, like a spoilt
child, needs protection from itself," says Larry Elliott in his Guardian blog.
The cost of protecting the market (a.k.a. people) from itself (i.e. themselves)?
McGeer's proposals got so diluted that the political party he helped launch,
Social Credit, actually won power in Alberta in 1935 - and went on to win the
next eight elections to 1971 from there! But in its earlier, angrier form,
the idea of "social credit" found fans in technocrats like Frederick Soddy,
the Nobel-prize winning radio chemist and author of Money Versus Man (London,
1931) as well as Oswald Mosley (the failed British fascist) and Ezra Pound
- the American poet jailed for 20 years after making radio broadcasts on behalf
of Mussolini during the war.
"You are threatened," Pound boomed to the British - as if they were listening
- from Rome in 1943. "Usury has gnawed into England since the days of Elizabeth
[the First]. First it was mortgages, mortgages on earls' estates; usury against
the feudal nobility. Then there were attacks on the common land, filchings
of village common pasture. Then there developed a usury system, an international
usury system, from Cromwell's time, ever increasing..."
Long before then, however, the British had rediscovered the advantages of
unfettered speculation and credit money. The "Great Conversion" of Britain's
national debt in 1931 had cut the interest on £2 billion (then $12bn)
from 5% to 3.5%. Ditching the Gold Standard - and putting the nation's faith
in the new floating exchange rate - helped jig things along, too.
"Cheap money, and the effect of the world slump in reducing investment opportunities
abroad, led to a housing boom and investment in new industries," reports Glyn
Davies in his History of Money, "helping Britain to make a relatively
early recovery from the Depression" just in time for the more socially-minded
Axis powers to start World War II.
Fast forward to the second Great Crash of the 21st century, and protecting
the market from itself is already looking costly in terms of today's money.
Defending the derivatives market from Bear Stearns put the Federal Reserve
on the hook for $29 billion; protecting Northern Rock's creditors and depositors
from their own due diligence hung up the UK taxpayer for a further $118bn.
Good job we've got newspaper columnists, those unacknowledged legislators
of the world, to set out the plan and put things right!
"Our principles would give rise to...the tracking of [large investment] funds
by national authorities...some form of capital controls...very much tighter
controls on lending...the forced demerger of large banking and finance groups...subjecting
all exotic financial instruments to official inspection...[and] the same protection
for our remaining top-class industrial companies as is routine in France..."
Not that Elliott and Atkinson want to meddle with your personal liberties,
of course. Business editors for Britain's most-educated newspaper readers and
the 'voice of Middle England' respectively, they actually want to increase middle-class
freedoms, defending them against the "huge damage already done on both sides
of the Atlantic" by those wicked capitalists and their PhD henchmen.
Doctors, lawyers, accountants and journalists top their list of the middling
sort now in need of help. And their modest scheme simply looks to control the
flow and use of money and credit, that's all. Choose only state-approved investments,
and you'll have nothing to fear.
"Contracts or deals entered into in offshore jurisdictions, or anywhere else,
in defiance of financial controls could be declared void in British law," advise
the brains behind The Gods That Failed. "This 'negative enforcement'
is highly attractive...It relies simply on courts not doing something, i.e.
recognizing and enforcing financial arrangements made without authorization."
Financial contracts, in other words, should be pre-approved by the state.
Otherwise they will sit outside the law. Hardly an infringement of the little
guy's rights, right? Even if the bleed between high finance and middle-class
savings can get a bit messy in practice. But where's the loss of liberty in
knowing that a bureaucrat's stamp must appear on your choice of contracts -
your financial investments - before you can enjoy protection under the law?
"Now that the US is looking inward once again, and learning that its wealth
is not limitless, populism is undergoing a revival," said TIME magazine
way back in April 1972. Reporting on that year's Democrat primaries, "Populist
describes something real," it went on - "the politics of the little guy against
the big guy...the classic struggle of the haves against the have-nots or the
have-not-enoughs.
"At the heart of the movement is the man in the middle. He is squeezed by
a system he wants to respect but feels he has no control over. He is the pursuer
of the American dream, but stalled in mid-passage. To oversimplify, he is self-reliant
and reasonably industrious, he holds a steady if not too exciting job, owns
and takes pride in a modest home, likes sports, wants his kids to go to college.
"Yet he can never quite make ends meet, especially in the last few years of
runaway inflation."
Spooky, no? Because just as inflation turned sharply higher in summer last
year - and just as a new financial storm broke over Manhattan - US Democrats
were again touting for the votes of the common man (and now woman) in the middle.
They began "moving toward a full-throated populist critique of the current
economy" as Robin Toner noted for the International Herald Tribune.
Hillary Clinton called the bubble in financial bonuses "trickle-down economics
without the trickle"; Sherrod Brown became senator for Ohio thanks to what
he called his "economic populist message".
"[Ohio] voted minimum wage...student loans...health care and prescription
drugs over what their traditional conservative social values might suggest," Brown
told the IHT in July 2007. Now "the party that deals with globalization
and economic security will win," agrees Rahm Emanuel of Illinois.
Of course, defeating globalization and creating economic security for all
might take a little, ummm, planning...? Perhaps even a little community-minded
action...? Say, like steering clear of Investment
Evils Like Speculation and choosing good, honest, American homes for your
money instead.
Because as Benito Mussolini said during the 1930s Depression, "the more complicated
the form of civilization, the more restricted the freedom of the individual
must become." And high finance is terribly complex today. So complex, in fact,
few people understand it - least of all in government!
And that's why we all need to kiss goodbye to our blind faith in money and
banking, and put out faith instead in tight controls and official inspection
by the authorities.
You can't trust banks, big business or the super-rich to look after you. So
trust politicians - or even financial hacks! - instead.
|