Skip to main content

The Emperor has no clothes

John Berger wrote that the poverty of ‘our century’ (he was referring to the 20th Century) is unlike that of any other. ‘It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich.’ He went on to say that the modern poor are not pitied but held responsible for their own condition.

We see this writ large in Cameron's austerity Britain.  The poorest are not only being made to pay the price for the failings of an irresponsible financial system, they also have been stereotyped as undeserving, work-shy and dependent on benefits.  It is a stern message without hope -  more poverty will drive them to help themselves out of poverty.  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has said as much - he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'.  It is as if the poor must be saved from themselves, or from 'welfare dependency' by a 'cold turkey' of reduced benefits.

So what of the banking crisis? Have lessons really been heeded? It barely gets a mention in the political narrative.

For a brief moment after the banking collapse there was a focus on the sins of the bankers, or a concern about the banking system.  A bit of fuss was made about bankers bonuses and about 'rogue bankers', but such a narrative itself avoided the real issue - the financial system itself.

The financial system remains politically unchallenged.  But a new economic and social narrative is desperately needed.  We really need to ask what the financial markets are for - or who they are for. 

For the best part of the last five years the focus has been on 'cutting the deficit' by cutting welfare.  It has been an amazing political trick - to rewrite the narrative.

Welfare did not create the financial crisis, but the poorest and most vulnerable are being made to pay, and as our social infrastructure in health and social care collapses  - starved of funding - we are asked to believe that more private equity is the answer.

It is a spiral down as social provision is removed to be replaced by private provision -  or the provision isn't replaced at all.  It is all about 'reducing the size of the state'.  

But consider the global position.  How can it be that so many live in poverty and in poor health when the world has the capacity to produce so much food, has the potential to ensure families are decently housed and educated, and has the capacity to raise the health and wellbeing of all? Why this doesn't happen is in large part because of the absence of political will. But there is another more important reason.

The answer is that the algorithms of our financial markets have no social or environmental imperative. 

The one thing politicians cannot do is bring themselves to tell us the truth about our financial system. They have placed so much faith in it - worshiped at the Alter of neoliberal 'free' market economics. They have given up their free will for a belief in the inevitable economic imperatives of free financial markets - God is made in the image of an algorithm driven market and the assumption of human selfishness.  There is no social objective - only that of accumulating wealth.

Many of us are familiar with the cautionary story by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes.  The suit he is told is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions. If they can't see the invisible suit then they are stupid, or incompetent.  The Emperor believes it, and his courtiers are too afraid to tell him the truth.

When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, no one dares to say that he is naked until a child cries out, "But he isn't wearing anything at all!"

The neoliberal myth of ‘free markets’ is like the emperor without clothes. The global financial markets strut their stuff, buying and selling nothing at all to the tune of trillions of dollars. Imaginary boxes of nothing at all - or perhaps hope, greed, envy. The global markets work as long as we believe the boxes are full of something, or could be full of something. But they are not. They are empty. The greatest trick of capitalism is that it has valued nothing and sold it. It trades in it day in and day out, accumulating 'wealth'.

Yet so much of this activity creates no real wealth at all, no real goods or services. Only some 3% of the trillions held by British banks is ever invested in real production – in real businesses providing goods and services that we need. If we counted up the value of all the goods and services - the ‘real’ wealth -  it would amount to only a fraction of the ‘value’ of the transactions in the financial markets. It is a trade in imaginary wealth.

Politicians, like the emperor’s subjects, pretend that this isn’t so. But it is. And even when the system breaks down, they invest considerable effort in recreating the myth and refitting a new set of invisible clothing. Global financial capital rules, and only the ignorant would suggest otherwise.

Mr Osborne uses the term ‘we are the builders’. Sadly we are not. Where once we produced goods, we now import them. We have a massive balance of trade deficit with the rest of the world. London is the centre of the neoliberal myth, we depend on pretending the Emperor has clothes.

Global computer models, based on the worst instinct of mankind, selfishness, make thousands of transactions every second.  We have handed our financial well-being over to computer models, but the mathematics is not without its assumptions. They are philosophically and politically grounded. 

So how has this come about? The answer is the separation of the economy into two domains - the financial and the real.  Both should be part of an organic whole, but the financial markets operate with little regard for the real economy and with sparse regard for real need.

The real economy needs social objectives. It needs a healthy, skilled workforce. It needs infrastructure to work and it needs a stable local environment - the real economy needs social objectives as an integral part of the economy. But it also needs finance.

The global financial market trades largely in 'derivatives', futures, swaps - or some other terminology for the empty boxes -  the value of which are only loosely related to a real asset. It has little capacity for social or environmental strategy.

It is a massive gambling casino with betting on, for example, interest rate futures, where traders speculate on the future direction of interest rates, or the rise and fall of commodity prices or exchange rates.  It will bet on any aspect of 'price' that will move.  But rarely engages in building bridges or restoring the environment or tackling poverty.

But what about growth? Doesn't that help?

Relying on growth to reduce poverty is at best rather inefficient. How much growth does it need? In spite of massive 'growth' the poor receive but crumbs. Yet it has been the curse of the poor for so many decades that government has promoted 'growth' as a strategy.

The more wealth we can produce, the story runs, the more it will benefit the poorest.  The idea that there could or should be a social strategy for apportioning such growth appears to have been lost somewhere in the late 1970s - redistribution became a dirty idea, in part because it would mean taxing the 'wealth makers'. Taking from the rich and giving to the poor we are led to believe would be a disincentive to the 'wealth creators'.

Relying on growth alone without  strategies to achieve social redistribution of the benefits of that growth is unlikely to be effective. If our objectives are to make poverty history or to make the world a less unequal place in which to live, then we need something different in the way we do things. 

We need a new political-economic settlement that puts social objectives at the heart of economic activity.  This requires politicians, businesses and finance to work together to achieve fair growth. We need growth, not for its own sake, but for a purpose - the purpose of increasing well-being for all whilst protecting the environment on which we depend.  The Emperor needs a real suit of clothes.  


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Maternal depression can impact child mental and physical health

Maternal depression has been repeatedly linked with negative childhood outcomes, including increased psychopathology.  Now, a new study shows that depression in mothers may impact on their children's stress levels,  as well as their physical and mental well-being throughout life.

In the study, published in the journal  Depression & Anxiety,  the researchers followed 125 children from birth to 10 years.

At 10 years old, the mothers’ and children’s cortisol (CT) and secretory immunoglobulin (s-IgA)—markers of stress and the immune system (see below)—were measured, and mother-child interaction were observed.
Psychiatric assessment  The mothers and children also had psychiatric diagnoses, and the children's externalising and internalising symptoms were reported.



Internalising disorders include depression, withdrawal, anxiety, and loneliness. They are often how we 'feel inside', such as  anger, pain, fear or hurt, but may not show it.  In contrast, externalising symptom…

Palm Oil production killing the planet

Bad trade and bad products are killing our planet. We have said this before on The Thin End. There is no better example than that of palm oil. It is used ubiquitously in so many products, and its production is a major factor destroying rainforests and threatening precious species.

Demand for palm oil is 'skyrocketing worldwide'. It is used in packaging and in so much of our snack foods, cookies, crackers, chocolate products, instant noodles, cereals, and doughnuts, and the list goes on.
Bad for the planet So, why is this so bad for the planet?

The oil is extracted from the fruit of the oil palms native to Africa. It is now grown primarily in Indonesia and Malaysia, but is also expanding across Central and West Africa and Latin America.

Palm oil production is now one of the world's leading causes of rainforest destruction, and this is impacting adversely some of the world's most culturally and biologically diverse ecosystems. Irreplaceable wildlife species like t…

Clear blue lakes turning murky in USA

New research reveals that many lakes in the continental United States are becoming murkier, with potentially negative consequences for water quality and aquatic life. These are the findings of a study published in Limnology and Oceanography.

From blue, clear lakes to greenish brown In the 5 years between 2007 and 2012, the dominant lake type in the United States shifted from clear, blue lakes to greenish-brown, murky lakes. Blue lakes declined by 18% while murky lakes increased by 12%. 



Overall, “blue” lakes decreased by ~ 18% (46% of lakes in 2007 to 28% in 2012) while “murky” lakes increased by almost 12% (24% of lakes in 2007 to 35.4% in 2012).  So, the majority of lakes are now murky.

Regionally, murky lakes significantly increased in the Northern Appalachian, Southern Plains, and Xeric ecoregions.

In the Northern Appalachians, blue lakes decreased by 41.4%, brown lakes increased by 17.8%, and murky lakes increased by 26.8%. In the Northern Plains, green lakes significantly increas…