Can You Change The 'Banking Culture' ?

[CountDeMoney]

the feral rich

I like that.

Then again, your feral rich over there don't run for President.

[Martinus]

I like that line:

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad.

Brits have some of the best social-outrage writers in the world. 

[Martinus]

The Downside of Liberty

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/04/opinion/the-downside-of-liberty.html

'This spring I was on a panel at the Woodstock Writers Festival. An audience member asked a question: Why had the revolution dreamed up in the late 1960s mostly been won on the social and cultural fronts — women's rights, gay rights, black president, ecology, sex, drugs, rock 'n' roll — but lost in the economic realm, with old-school free-market ideas gaining traction all the time?

There was a long pause. People shrugged and sighed. I had an epiphany, which I offered, bumming out everybody in the room.

What has happened politically, economically, culturally and socially since the sea change of the late '60s isn't contradictory or incongruous. It's all of a piece. For hippies and bohemians as for businesspeople and investors, extreme individualism has been triumphant. Selfishness won.'

The question is based on a flawed premise. The old-school free-market idea didn't "win". Every modern economy on Earth has a highly-developed welfare state. All of the policy machines that control our high-level economic functions are firmly rooted in Keynesian tradition. It's a social democratic world.

I'm going to disagree with you there. The "welfare" state was a compromise reached between free market capitalism and "socialism". Now, this compromise is being torn down by neo-cons and neo-liberals alike (already a "welfare" state, not to mention "socialism" is pretty much an insult, including in countries that never experienced a functioning example of either, like the former Eastern Bloc, where it is fashionable to be ruthlessly individualistic and selfish). The reason for that is the capitalist side (in the form of corporations) went global and thus much more powerful than nationalistic governments (which used to be the last mainstay of "socialism" and "welfare state") - and both the liberals and the conservatives mistrust the next natural step to restore the balance - supra-national "world governments".

[Martinus]

That's an interesting line of thought.

Not that much - it's pretty obvious. The free market devours all values, whether the ones sacred to the conservatives and the socialists. The fun/ironic part, however, is that so many conservatives seem to be worshipping at its altar withour realising it is much better than any sex revolution or gay pride parade at trivializing and destroying "God".

[Ideologue]

I like that line:

Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad.

Brits have some of the best social-outrage writers in the world. 

"Feral rich" was good, but the Animal Farm callback was a little obvious.

[CountDeMoney]

"Feral rich" was good, but the Animal Farm callback was a little obvious.

Meh, didn't think it was overtly Orwellian, but more of a Barnumesque reference.

[Richard Hakluyt]

"It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out."

I would take issue with this, IMO the rot extends throughout British society, it is really quite sickening.

[mongers]

"It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out."

I would take issue with this, IMO the rot extends throughout British society, it is really quite sickening.

This.

[Neil]

That's an interesting line of thought.

Not that much - it's pretty obvious. The free market devours all values, whether the ones sacred to the conservatives and the socialists. The fun/ironic part, however, is that so many conservatives seem to be worshipping at its altar withour realising it is much better than any sex revolution or gay pride parade at trivializing and destroying "God".

But do you agree that any solution must include killing you?

[Gups]

But do you agree that any solution must include killing you?

If you were really Neil, you wouldn't give a fuck whether he agrees or disagrees.

[dps]

So?  That could be said about anything.

You're probably not really a fool--why do you enjoy playing one here?

I don't think Raz said anything foolish here, and in fact you're the one who looks foolish here by engaging in an unprovoked attack.

Reading back through the thread, you're probably right, if you go just by what's in the thread itself. 

[Neil]

But do you agree that any solution must include killing you?

If you were really Neil, you wouldn't give a fuck whether he agrees or disagrees.

I just want him to endorse his own destruction.

[citizen k]

The question is based on a flawed premise. The old-school free-market idea didn't "win". Every modern economy on Earth has a highly-developed welfare state. All of the policy machines that control our high-level economic functions are firmly rooted in Keynesian tradition. It's a social democratic world.

In the same vein:

Is Marxism Coming Back?

It is true that as the financial and economic crises roll on, as more and more disasters accumulate, as more people are thrown into unemployment and suffering that more and more of us will question the fundamentals of our economic system. It is inevitable that many will be drawn to some of the criticisms of capitalism, including Marxism.

The Guardian today published a salutary overview of this revival:

    In his introduction to a new edition of The Communist Manifesto, Professor Eric Hobsbawm suggests that Marx was right to argue that the "contradictions of a market system based on no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment', a system of exploitation and of 'endless accumulation' can never be overcome: that at some point in a series of transformations and restructurings the development of this essentially destabilising system will lead to a state of affairs that can no longer be described as capitalism".   

    That is post-capitalist society as dreamed of by Marxists. But what would it be like? "It is extremely unlikely that such a 'post-capitalist society' would respond to the traditional models of socialism and still less to the 'really existing' socialisms of the Soviet era," argues Hobsbawm, adding that it will, however, necessarily involve a shift from private appropriation to social management on a global scale. "What forms it might take and how far it would embody the humanist values of Marx's and Engels's communism, would depend on the political action through which this change came about."

Marxism is a strange thing; it provides a clean and straightforward narrative of history, one that irons out detail and complication. It provides a simplistic "us versus them" narrative of the present. And it provides a relatively utopian narrative of the future; that the working classes united will overthrow capitalism and establish a state run by and for the working classes.

Trouble is, history is vastly more complicated than the teleological narrative provided by dialectical materialism. The economic and social reality of the present is vastly more complicated than Marx's linear and binary classifications. And the future that Marx predicted never came to fruit; his 19th Century ideas turned into a 20th Century reality of mass starvation, failed central planning experiments, and millions of deaths.

Certainly, the system we have today is unsustainable. The state-supported financial institutions, and the corporations that have grown up around them do not live because of their own genius, their own productivity or innovation. They exist on state largesse — money printing, subsidies, limited liability, favourable regulation, barriers to entry. Every blowup and scandal — from the LIBOR-rigging, to the London Whale, to the bungled trades that destroyed MF Global — illustrates the incompetence and failure that that dependency has allowed to flourish.

The chief problem that Marxists face is their misidentification of the present economic system as free market capitalism. How can we meaningfully call a system where the price of money is controlled by the state a free market? How can we meaningfully call a system where financial institutions are routinely bailed out a free market? How can we meaningfully call a system where upwards of 40% of GDP is spent by the state a free market? How can we call a system where the market trades the possibility of state intervention rather than underlying fundamentals a free market?

Today we do not have a market economy; we have a corporate economy.

As Saifedean Ammous and Edmund Phelps note:

    The term "capitalism" used to mean an economic system in which capital was privately owned and traded; owners of capital got to judge how best to use it, and could draw on the foresight and creative ideas of entrepreneurs and innovative thinkers. This system of individual freedom and individual responsibility gave little scope for government to influence economic decision-making: success meant profits; failure meant losses. Corporations could exist only as long as free individuals willingly purchased their goods – and would go out of business quickly otherwise.

    Capitalism became a world-beater in the 1800's, when it developed capabilities for endemic innovation. Societies that adopted the capitalist system gained unrivaled prosperity, enjoyed widespread job satisfaction, obtained productivity growth that was the marvel of the world and ended mass privation.

    Now the capitalist system has been corrupted. The managerial state has assumed responsibility for looking after everything from the incomes of the middle class to the profitability of large corporations to industrial advancement. This system, however, is not capitalism, but rather an economic order that harks back to Bismarck in the late nineteenth century and Mussolini in the twentieth: corporatism.

The system of corporatism we have today has far more akin with Marxism and "social management" than Marxists might like to admit. Both corporatism and Marxism are forms of central economic control; the only difference is that under Marxism, the allocation of capital is controlled by the state bureaucracy-technocracy, while under corporatism the allocation of capital is undertaken by the state apparatus in concert with large financial and corporate interests. The corporations accumulate power from the legal protections afforded to them by the state (limited liability, corporate subsidies, bailouts), and politicians can win re-election showered by corporate money.

The fundamental choice that we face today is between economic freedom and central economic planning. The first offers individuals, nations and the world a complex, multi-dimensional allocation of resources, labour and capital undertaken as the sum of human preferences expressed voluntarily through the market mechanism. The second offers allocation of resources, labour and capital by the elite — bureaucrats, technocrats and special interests. The first is not without corruption and fallout, but its various imperfect incarnations have created boundless prosperity, productivity and growth. Incarnations of the second have led to the deaths by starvation of millions first in Soviet Russia, then in Maoist China.

Marxists like to pretend that the bureaucratic-technocratic allocation of capital, labour and resources is somehow more democratic, and somehow more attuned to the interests of society than the market. But what can be more democratic and expressive than a market system that allows each and every individual to allocate his or her capital, labour, resources and productivity based on his or her own internal preferences? And what can be less democratic than the organisation of society and the allocation of capital undertaken through the mechanisms of distant bureaucracy and forced planning? What is less democratic than telling the broad population that rather than living their lives according to their own will, their own traditions and their own economic interests that they should instead follow the inclinations and orders of a distant bureaucratic-technocratic elite?

I'm not sure that Marxists have ever understood capitalism; Das Kapital is a mammoth work concentrating on many facets of 19th Century industrial and economic development, but it tends to focus in on obscure minutiae without ever really considering the coherent whole. If Marxists had ever come close to grasping the broader mechanisms of capitalism — and if they truly cared about democracy — they would have been far less likely to promulgate a system based on dictatorial central planning.

Nonetheless, as the financial system and the financial oligarchy continue to blunder from crisis to crisis, more and more people will surely become entangled in the seductive narratives of Marxism. More and more people may come to blame markets and freedom for the problems of corporatism and statism. This is deeply ironic — the Marxist tendency toward central planning and control exerts a far greater influence on the policymakers of today than the Hayekian or Smithian tendency toward decentralisation and economic freedom.

[garbon]

both the liberals and the conservatives mistrust the next natural step to restore the balance - supra-national "world governments".

As pointed out elsewhere to you - why wouldn't they? Said supra-national organizations tend to be less democratic.

[Razgovory]

So?  That could be said about anything.

You're probably not really a fool--why do you enjoy playing one here?

I don't think Raz said anything foolish here, and in fact you're the one who looks foolish here by engaging in an unprovoked attack.

Reading back through the thread, you're probably right, if you go just by what's in the thread itself.

Yeah, you have to go to my live journal to find the really stupid shit.