When I was young, the head of our school was always yapping on about consequences. Whatever you did in life, and particularly in that school, would have consequences.
I am kind of wondering how it is that we are lost in a fit of hand wringing about financial industry reform.
What these people need is clear consequences to associate with their actions. Le'ts face it, they have been behaving like children, hands in the sweet jar while Mummy isn't watching.
And just like children they have been unable to stop themselves. They have gorged beyond any point of enjoying it, and made themselves sick. Economists tell us that consumption of any free good will be pursued until marginal utility is zero. These guys pushed marginal utility well into negative territory.
Perhaps they lacked the stout sort of upbringing I had, where a few years in a prison cell with your OWN TELLY looked like paradise compared to five minutes locked in a confined space with an irate father.
Either way, there need to be consequences. The minute a few of these guys are pictured, Jonathan Aitken/Kenny Lay/Conrad Black like on their way to prison, behavious WILL improve.
Unless that happens, they have got away with it. And like with all naughty children, that means they will carry on regardless.
Monday 16 July 2012
Thursday 5 July 2012
The Capture of the Left
In Marxist philosophy society is defined by the interaction between economic (social) classes. The state is theforum where this interaction is intermediated.
This kind of thing is generally termed class struggle.
In traditional western democracy, the idea is classes are more or less associated with political parties, the left with the lower class and the right with the middle class. Power alternates between parties or coalitions of the left & right. So far, so good.
Here is the West, we also have the notion of regulatory capture. Where a regulator, in associating closely with the leaders of the organisations under regulation, becomes part of that community. In so doing, the regulator becomes gradually less a creature of the general public, limiting those under regulation, and more a creature of those under regulation, a lobbyist for the regulated.
Regulatory capture often happens when there is an industry which is rich, or politically powerful. Or there is a revolving door from industry to regulator.
What I am thinking is the Labour party, and many European parties of the left, have gone through a process akin to regulatory capture.
These parties grew up from the people, and were sent to the seats of power to wrest control of the state from the ruling classes. Postwar, they were spectacularly successful, but ever since the process of regulatory capture has been growing, cancer like.
At the time the financial crisis began, the policies of the political left were indistinguishable from those of the political right.
The process of capture was complete.
Now Francois Hollande and Mr Tzipras are rebelling.
Perhaps Mr Hollande's Parti Socialiste can be recaptured from the establishment. In Greece Syriza is a new party. The traditional party of the left (PASOK) looks dead.
I am wondering if in the UK, and right across Europe, we need a new left. Can the old parties be recaptured, and are they worth the effort? Perhaps it would be better to let the establishment have their empty shells, and start afresh.
This kind of thing is generally termed class struggle.
In traditional western democracy, the idea is classes are more or less associated with political parties, the left with the lower class and the right with the middle class. Power alternates between parties or coalitions of the left & right. So far, so good.
Here is the West, we also have the notion of regulatory capture. Where a regulator, in associating closely with the leaders of the organisations under regulation, becomes part of that community. In so doing, the regulator becomes gradually less a creature of the general public, limiting those under regulation, and more a creature of those under regulation, a lobbyist for the regulated.
Regulatory capture often happens when there is an industry which is rich, or politically powerful. Or there is a revolving door from industry to regulator.
What I am thinking is the Labour party, and many European parties of the left, have gone through a process akin to regulatory capture.
These parties grew up from the people, and were sent to the seats of power to wrest control of the state from the ruling classes. Postwar, they were spectacularly successful, but ever since the process of regulatory capture has been growing, cancer like.
At the time the financial crisis began, the policies of the political left were indistinguishable from those of the political right.
The process of capture was complete.
Now Francois Hollande and Mr Tzipras are rebelling.
Perhaps Mr Hollande's Parti Socialiste can be recaptured from the establishment. In Greece Syriza is a new party. The traditional party of the left (PASOK) looks dead.
I am wondering if in the UK, and right across Europe, we need a new left. Can the old parties be recaptured, and are they worth the effort? Perhaps it would be better to let the establishment have their empty shells, and start afresh.
Friday 29 June 2012
Power Corrupts
There is an old adage.... 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely'
So while politicians are generally viewed as venal characters on the make, democracy works a little better than other systems, becausepeople only have their hands on the corrupting levers of power for so long before the public votes them out. Also the longer a leader remains in office, the more power they accumulate.
It isn't that Tony Blair (of whom I have a VERY low opinion) was better or worse than Hosni Mubarak, it is just that our system got rid of him much quicker, so he had less time to cause damage. Had he been in office for another 20 years, doubtless his children would have got very lucrative jobs.
So, why is it that Britain seems to be in the grip of a real corruption crisis?
If anyone doubts that we are, think back to the following
1) Our political class has been found routinely fiddling its expenses. This was initially done as a means to duck the controversy of raising wages, but got to the point where it was clearly and unambiguously about politicians corruptly enriuching themseves
2) Our politicians have been in the business of selling honours. Many Americans think it is great that British corruptionrevolves around titles rather than money. Do these Americans realise a title sometimes (and not infrequently) comes with a lifetime seat in the upper chamber of our parliament?
3) Our politicians take cash for access
4) Our press can pay off the police
5) Our politicians bow before that same press
6) OUr banks collude to fix rates to enrich themselves and/or make themselves appear stronger
I could go on, but were these things pubic knowledge 20 years ago, we Brits would have been dumbfounded. We have always viewed ourselves as not in the least bit corrupt. No one thinks you can bribe policemen in the UK. But you can, and it happens pretty often.
I think our fundamental problems are twofold, they are
1) That thought that we are somehow incorruptible. Basically, people are people, and everyone has its price. I was talking to a (non British ) cousin of mine years ago. I mentioned that no one was ever caught for corruption in Britian. She said that was a sign of a REALLY corrupt place. I was shocked, this was some time ago. She was right. To minimise corruption, the last thing you do is brush it under the carpet. You need regular convictions 'pour decourager les autres'.
2) We have lost our social mobility. You may think that to be irrelevant. I would beg to differ. The elite in this country knows its children will be part of the next elite generation. There is nothing they can do to lose that status, because there is no social mobility. Every little corrupt trick is passed down from generation to generation, and magnified. There is no one to challenge the status quo, it is a cosy little club. A closed circle where everyone assumes everyone else deserves to be there, and no one else does. We need to start making sure people drop out of and get raised up to that elite far more regularly. Rattle their arrogant sense of security. Keep those knaves on their toes. Like in a proper democracy.
So while politicians are generally viewed as venal characters on the make, democracy works a little better than other systems, becausepeople only have their hands on the corrupting levers of power for so long before the public votes them out. Also the longer a leader remains in office, the more power they accumulate.
It isn't that Tony Blair (of whom I have a VERY low opinion) was better or worse than Hosni Mubarak, it is just that our system got rid of him much quicker, so he had less time to cause damage. Had he been in office for another 20 years, doubtless his children would have got very lucrative jobs.
So, why is it that Britain seems to be in the grip of a real corruption crisis?
If anyone doubts that we are, think back to the following
1) Our political class has been found routinely fiddling its expenses. This was initially done as a means to duck the controversy of raising wages, but got to the point where it was clearly and unambiguously about politicians corruptly enriuching themseves
2) Our politicians have been in the business of selling honours. Many Americans think it is great that British corruptionrevolves around titles rather than money. Do these Americans realise a title sometimes (and not infrequently) comes with a lifetime seat in the upper chamber of our parliament?
3) Our politicians take cash for access
4) Our press can pay off the police
5) Our politicians bow before that same press
6) OUr banks collude to fix rates to enrich themselves and/or make themselves appear stronger
I could go on, but were these things pubic knowledge 20 years ago, we Brits would have been dumbfounded. We have always viewed ourselves as not in the least bit corrupt. No one thinks you can bribe policemen in the UK. But you can, and it happens pretty often.
I think our fundamental problems are twofold, they are
1) That thought that we are somehow incorruptible. Basically, people are people, and everyone has its price. I was talking to a (non British ) cousin of mine years ago. I mentioned that no one was ever caught for corruption in Britian. She said that was a sign of a REALLY corrupt place. I was shocked, this was some time ago. She was right. To minimise corruption, the last thing you do is brush it under the carpet. You need regular convictions 'pour decourager les autres'.
2) We have lost our social mobility. You may think that to be irrelevant. I would beg to differ. The elite in this country knows its children will be part of the next elite generation. There is nothing they can do to lose that status, because there is no social mobility. Every little corrupt trick is passed down from generation to generation, and magnified. There is no one to challenge the status quo, it is a cosy little club. A closed circle where everyone assumes everyone else deserves to be there, and no one else does. We need to start making sure people drop out of and get raised up to that elite far more regularly. Rattle their arrogant sense of security. Keep those knaves on their toes. Like in a proper democracy.
Wednesday 20 June 2012
It ain't drugs, its POWER and MONEY
It was probably over thirty years ago that I first heard those words. They were from an aging rasta.
At the time I thought it sounded cool.
I realised later that I didn't know how right he was.
I realise now that I still don't.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201261515312418850.html
At the time I thought it sounded cool.
I realised later that I didn't know how right he was.
I realise now that I still don't.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201261515312418850.html
Austerity
We, like normal working people, have been doing austerity for some time.
From today's NY Times:-
"The real entry-level hourly wage for men who recently graduated from high school fell to $11.68 last year, from $15.64 in 1979, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute. And the percentage of those jobs that offer health insurance has plummeted to 22.8 percent, from 63.3 percent in 1979. "
I have heard this a lot in the last couple of years. But when I was yapping on about it in the 90s, everyone used to stare at my like I was a swivel eyed left lunatic.
Now I may be a lefty. A lunatic even, perhaps my eyes can wander, that doesn't mean I was wrong back then.
There has been a massive cultural change. Now there are parts of our elite (like the NY Times for example) prepared to put this sort of thing out there. the people have moved on. The journalists have moved on. When will government stop behaving like it is still the 1980s?
From today's NY Times:-
"The real entry-level hourly wage for men who recently graduated from high school fell to $11.68 last year, from $15.64 in 1979, according to data from the Economic Policy Institute. And the percentage of those jobs that offer health insurance has plummeted to 22.8 percent, from 63.3 percent in 1979. "
I have heard this a lot in the last couple of years. But when I was yapping on about it in the 90s, everyone used to stare at my like I was a swivel eyed left lunatic.
Now I may be a lefty. A lunatic even, perhaps my eyes can wander, that doesn't mean I was wrong back then.
There has been a massive cultural change. Now there are parts of our elite (like the NY Times for example) prepared to put this sort of thing out there. the people have moved on. The journalists have moved on. When will government stop behaving like it is still the 1980s?
Tuesday 19 June 2012
Psycho CEOs
"Those CEOs and managing directors at banks with their millions … They deserve our pity, really. They are the victims of their own twisted minds. And it will bring them down. Whether you are a paedophile or pervert or control freak or psychopath; sooner or later a twisted mind will turn on itself.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/jun/18/executive-coach-finance-amoral-world
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/joris-luyendijk-banking-blog/2012/jun/18/executive-coach-finance-amoral-world
Egypt and revolution
So, the Egyptians had a revolution. The people went out to protest against the dictator and when the army decided to act ambivalent, the dictator had to go. Kind of significant they couldn't quite manage it without the army.
Then they had a parliamentary election. The Muslim Brotherhood came out on top. At least they did better than anyone else.
The military were not happy.
Then there was this presidential election. And the Muslim Brotherhood won.
So the army disolved parliament. Because it wan't the sort of parliament they liked. the supreme court validated this. Funny. The supreme court didn't do very much when faced with a dictatorship. The minute democracy takes over and the supreme court starts disolving parliament. Obviously, the people must have made a mistake and voted for the wrong party.
Anyone would think it was like Britain where the army, the judges, the politicans are all part of a ruling elite who go to the same schools and don't mix with the great unwashed, like me.
Now, I am no islamist. I am pretty sure, like many Egyptians, that I would not have enjoyed voting either for the Mubarak man (Shafiq) or the Brothers (Mursi). That is not the point. The game had rules and Mursi won. He is the legitimate president. Egypt needs a new constitution, and he is the man with the authority to preside over that process. Checks and balances are mainly provided by a democratic parliament.
Courts and judges who bowed before that convicted crimal, laughing cow lookalike Mubarak lack legitimacy.
The Muslim Brotherhood is routinely described as the oldest islamist party in the world. They are definitely motivated by religion. I am not sure I find them any more frightening than the tea party. They have a right to pursue their agenda. They are not as corrupt as the average middle eastern politician. It is very difficult to know how far they are down the line of religious extremism. But anyone who believes in democracy must surely back their right to form the Egyptian government, and preside over the writing of the constiution.
Likewise, andone who believes in democracy must want the Egyptian military to get out of the way.
When I was a young lad, my Dad was an avid watcher of the news. I remember the previous Egyptian leader, President Sadat. Sadat was a brave man, Like Nasser before him. Love or loathe him, Sadat took a great risk in siging the Camp David peace accords with Israel. He paid for it with his life. I remember the day he was shot.
An enduring memory, my first memory of Mubarak, is how he ran like a coward from the scene.
I remember Mubarak being sworn in. His fear was palpable. He literally dripped with sweat.
Egypt needs a leader that can stand up to its military. Nasser, a military man himself, could control the military, Sadat could. From his first day when they smuggled him away, Mubarak was more s servant of the miltary than the other way around.
Egypt's revolution is nowhere near finished. The people who lament its failure should remember that European democracy took decades, even generations to build. American Democracy was part of that process. It did not appear over night.
They may be more blood shed. There may be more hours of darkness, more setbacks. But the Egyptians have proven they CAN unseat a leader, ballot box or no. If they elect leaders strong and distant enough from the military their path will be much easier.
Then they had a parliamentary election. The Muslim Brotherhood came out on top. At least they did better than anyone else.
The military were not happy.
Then there was this presidential election. And the Muslim Brotherhood won.
So the army disolved parliament. Because it wan't the sort of parliament they liked. the supreme court validated this. Funny. The supreme court didn't do very much when faced with a dictatorship. The minute democracy takes over and the supreme court starts disolving parliament. Obviously, the people must have made a mistake and voted for the wrong party.
Anyone would think it was like Britain where the army, the judges, the politicans are all part of a ruling elite who go to the same schools and don't mix with the great unwashed, like me.
Now, I am no islamist. I am pretty sure, like many Egyptians, that I would not have enjoyed voting either for the Mubarak man (Shafiq) or the Brothers (Mursi). That is not the point. The game had rules and Mursi won. He is the legitimate president. Egypt needs a new constitution, and he is the man with the authority to preside over that process. Checks and balances are mainly provided by a democratic parliament.
Courts and judges who bowed before that convicted crimal, laughing cow lookalike Mubarak lack legitimacy.
The Muslim Brotherhood is routinely described as the oldest islamist party in the world. They are definitely motivated by religion. I am not sure I find them any more frightening than the tea party. They have a right to pursue their agenda. They are not as corrupt as the average middle eastern politician. It is very difficult to know how far they are down the line of religious extremism. But anyone who believes in democracy must surely back their right to form the Egyptian government, and preside over the writing of the constiution.
Likewise, andone who believes in democracy must want the Egyptian military to get out of the way.
When I was a young lad, my Dad was an avid watcher of the news. I remember the previous Egyptian leader, President Sadat. Sadat was a brave man, Like Nasser before him. Love or loathe him, Sadat took a great risk in siging the Camp David peace accords with Israel. He paid for it with his life. I remember the day he was shot.
An enduring memory, my first memory of Mubarak, is how he ran like a coward from the scene.
I remember Mubarak being sworn in. His fear was palpable. He literally dripped with sweat.
Egypt needs a leader that can stand up to its military. Nasser, a military man himself, could control the military, Sadat could. From his first day when they smuggled him away, Mubarak was more s servant of the miltary than the other way around.
Egypt's revolution is nowhere near finished. The people who lament its failure should remember that European democracy took decades, even generations to build. American Democracy was part of that process. It did not appear over night.
They may be more blood shed. There may be more hours of darkness, more setbacks. But the Egyptians have proven they CAN unseat a leader, ballot box or no. If they elect leaders strong and distant enough from the military their path will be much easier.
Monday 18 June 2012
Greece, and what to do with Europe
So.... Greece looks like it voted for a beating. To be fair to the average Greek voter, they had a pretty poor choice. Vote for the guys who got you in to this mess (PASOK - centre left or ND Centre right).
On the other hand vote for a bunch of idealistic lefties. Not really knowing what you'll get or which currency you will be using next week.
Tough choice.
But the whole Greek thing is like a microcosm of the where the west sits. Basically, we have all had a good run. We got rich on colonialism, fought each other to a standstill, stayed rich on exploitation of third world resource, and now as China & other brics rise we face a challenge to our collective dominance for the first time since the renaisance. As Greece was a victim of Ottoman colonialism, you can see why they feel it isn't up to them to pick up the tab. But, like my mother was very fond of reminding me, life isn't fair.
Except real wages for ordinary people have been falling for over a decade. For those poorer than the average, their share of the pie has been in decline since around 1980.
Normal people have been chomping on austerity since long before the Lehman collapse. In fact you could easily argue that the combination of falling real wages and easier borrowing was the root cause of the whole crisis (And some people whose job it is to know agree with me.)
Not that any of that helps us see that way out. But what it does tell us is what our next steps should be.
1) Start cancelling debt. There is too much debt. People have borrowed to much. And (to state the obvious) this means people have lent too much. We have tried kicking the borrowers. For a LONG time we have tried this. Time to give the lenders a damn good kicking too. If you have lent money to a household or bank that can't afford to pay, tough. You lost that money.
2) Start restricting household access to credit. This is not so fashionable. It will impact the profits of banks (aaaahhhhhh) and the bonuses of bankers (diddums). But it will limit the extent to which credit bubbles can build up in the future
3) Separate investment banks from retail banks. Separate them sbsolutely. I am not interested in Chinese walls or clever solutions that management consultants propose, if there is a unversal banks, one side will have to sell off the other. Simples. End of.
Doubtless the financial insdustry guys won't like it. That is the first endorsement any proposed solution should be looking for.
On the other hand vote for a bunch of idealistic lefties. Not really knowing what you'll get or which currency you will be using next week.
Tough choice.
But the whole Greek thing is like a microcosm of the where the west sits. Basically, we have all had a good run. We got rich on colonialism, fought each other to a standstill, stayed rich on exploitation of third world resource, and now as China & other brics rise we face a challenge to our collective dominance for the first time since the renaisance. As Greece was a victim of Ottoman colonialism, you can see why they feel it isn't up to them to pick up the tab. But, like my mother was very fond of reminding me, life isn't fair.
Except real wages for ordinary people have been falling for over a decade. For those poorer than the average, their share of the pie has been in decline since around 1980.
Normal people have been chomping on austerity since long before the Lehman collapse. In fact you could easily argue that the combination of falling real wages and easier borrowing was the root cause of the whole crisis (And some people whose job it is to know agree with me.)
Not that any of that helps us see that way out. But what it does tell us is what our next steps should be.
1) Start cancelling debt. There is too much debt. People have borrowed to much. And (to state the obvious) this means people have lent too much. We have tried kicking the borrowers. For a LONG time we have tried this. Time to give the lenders a damn good kicking too. If you have lent money to a household or bank that can't afford to pay, tough. You lost that money.
2) Start restricting household access to credit. This is not so fashionable. It will impact the profits of banks (aaaahhhhhh) and the bonuses of bankers (diddums). But it will limit the extent to which credit bubbles can build up in the future
3) Separate investment banks from retail banks. Separate them sbsolutely. I am not interested in Chinese walls or clever solutions that management consultants propose, if there is a unversal banks, one side will have to sell off the other. Simples. End of.
Doubtless the financial insdustry guys won't like it. That is the first endorsement any proposed solution should be looking for.
Thursday 14 June 2012
Turing worship
Having treated Turing terribly while he was alive, we now revere him as a true wonder. And beat ourselves up over our collective homophobia. Of course, had be been somewhat more aristocratic you could argue he would have escaped censure for his sexual orientation, so he was done as much for his class as his homosexuality. Nevertheless, I do love to read about Alan Turing. Take a look at this quote:-
"Alan could not stand social chat or what he was pleased to call “vapid conversation”. What he really liked was a thoroughly disputatious exchange of views. It was pretty tiring, really. You could take a safe bet that if you ventured on some self-evident proposition, as, for example, that the earth was round, Alan would produce a great deal of incontrovertible evidence to prove that it was almost certainly flat, ovular or much the same shape as a Siamese cat which had been boiled for fifteen minutes at a temperature of one thousand degrees Centigrade."
What a guy. Who wants vapid conversation and popular culture when you can scream at the tell and start an argument?
Wednesday 13 June 2012
Fiddling while it burns
So... I was watching the Leveson enquiry. Rupert Murdoch said he never asked a prime minister for anything. John Major said he asked him to change European policy.
Gordon Brown said Murdoch et al published his son's private medical details. Murdoch et al say Brown authorised them.
Gordon Brown says he knew nothing about leaking stuff to the media.
George Osborne says he couldn't give two hoots about whether Murdoch bought the rest of bSkyb. There was no implicit quid pro quo about waving the deal through and getting the support of Murdoch et al at the election.
Phonecalls, threats and declarations of war were alleged/denied by various people like Vince Cable/Gordon Brown/Rupert Murdoch/John Major.
Tony Blair said the media was a feral beast, he never cut any deal with anyone called Murdoch. That the independent was the very worst of them. Wow. Worse than the whole of the Murdoch thingy. Shut that paper down!
It's been pretty poor entertainment really, but better than EastEnders. Or the bile of the tabloid press.
Meanwhile the world sleepwalks to some kind of economic armagedeon. They all sing from the same Milton Friedman inspired Austrian School hymn sheet, but no one, like NO ONE, dare tell the rich cabal at the top, WE CANNOT PAY THE DEBTS.
So I will. It's like this. You may think you got it made, and you top 1%ers can take an ever bigger slice of the pie, but we ain't paying your stinking debt. We ran out of money. Sure we are collectively a feckless lot and have blown it all on a decent (well, actually pretty average) party. But, thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Get over it. We ain't paying you back. Now go cry to Mama.
Gordon Brown said Murdoch et al published his son's private medical details. Murdoch et al say Brown authorised them.
Gordon Brown says he knew nothing about leaking stuff to the media.
George Osborne says he couldn't give two hoots about whether Murdoch bought the rest of bSkyb. There was no implicit quid pro quo about waving the deal through and getting the support of Murdoch et al at the election.
Phonecalls, threats and declarations of war were alleged/denied by various people like Vince Cable/Gordon Brown/Rupert Murdoch/John Major.
Tony Blair said the media was a feral beast, he never cut any deal with anyone called Murdoch. That the independent was the very worst of them. Wow. Worse than the whole of the Murdoch thingy. Shut that paper down!
It's been pretty poor entertainment really, but better than EastEnders. Or the bile of the tabloid press.
Meanwhile the world sleepwalks to some kind of economic armagedeon. They all sing from the same Milton Friedman inspired Austrian School hymn sheet, but no one, like NO ONE, dare tell the rich cabal at the top, WE CANNOT PAY THE DEBTS.
So I will. It's like this. You may think you got it made, and you top 1%ers can take an ever bigger slice of the pie, but we ain't paying your stinking debt. We ran out of money. Sure we are collectively a feckless lot and have blown it all on a decent (well, actually pretty average) party. But, thats just the way the cookie crumbles. Get over it. We ain't paying you back. Now go cry to Mama.
Marriage...... of Gays and others
"Equality in civil marriage, they [C of E Bishops] claim, raises the prospect of the biggest rupture between the Church and State since the CofE became the established Church 500 years ago. What, bigger than the dissolution of the monasteries? Than Queen Mary burning Protestant bishops at the stake? Than the decapitation of the Church's Supreme Governor, Charles I?"
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-nothing-but-hyperbole-on-samesex-marriage-7844862.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-nothing-but-hyperbole-on-samesex-marriage-7844862.html
Ha, what a gang of silly pans...ies these bishops have proven themselves to be. Disestablish and be done. Like a bright bloke once said, a long time ago "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". Or "my kingdom is not of this world".
But will anyone ever read this???
But will anyone ever read this???
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)