Neoliberalism and the Rise of Corporate Globalism

Excerpted below is a recent book review of Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism, by Quinn Slobodian, Harvard University Press.

I have included a link to the entire article which I recommend reading if you wish to know more about how the rise of globalism, corporatism, and neoliberalism may go hand in hand within a reasoned construct.

I could have included much more and still not done justice to the themes and thoughts that it contains.

I found it particularly helpful because it provides a plausible rationale for the continuation of the European Union, despite its malformed integration of a currency union without internal financial integration of debts and transfer payments.  Not to mention its odd admixture of a remote central bureaucracy trumping traditional policy areas within the domain of national sovereignty.

It also helps to understand the stubborn commitment to global 'trade treaties' by corporate Democrats that tend to elevate international  bureaucracies and rules bodies,  dominated by corporate lobbyists, over the inclinations of their own national electorates. 

Obama's determined slogging for the TPP, even as his intended Democratic successor was being electorally eviscerated for her perceived corporatist elitism, was otherwise inexplicable given his sophistication in managing perceptions.

In this perspective these seemingly obtuse things can be seen as 'features' rather than well-intentioned but naively crafted arrangements containing unintentional flaws.

This review also positions neoliberalism within the context of the development of economic and political thought in the 20th century.  The two are inexorably entwined because, as is well established throughout human history, money is power.

The Boston Review
The Market Police
J. W. Mason

"Globalism in this story is not only, or even primarily, an extension of contacts between people, trade, production. Rather, it is the creation of a set of property rights that, precisely because they span multiple sovereignties, cannot be touched by one government without inviting conflict with another. In this sense it is positively desirable for property claims to cross national borders. Foreign investment, regardless of its value or otherwise for financing production, performs a political function that domestic investment cannot...

Organizing property and production across borders—whether through free trade, protections for foreign investment, currency unions or other devices—does more than limit the power of governments. It also serves, Slobodian writes, “to dissolve the small, discrete collective of mutual identification...in a larger unity.” Hayek spent much of his life searching for “a political model that would undermine the ‘solidarity of interests’ that naturally cohered” among similarly-situated people. Open borders played a critical role here, ensuring that economic interests were never “lastingly identified with the inhabitants of a particular region...

Today, the European Union offers the fullest realization of the neoliberal political vision. There is no sovereign people of Europe; the authority of European institutions rests on a body of law and treaties. The European Union is not a nation, but it is not simply an agreement among nations either. Unlike international agreements, European regulations are directly binding on individuals and not only on the government signing them. In many areas, European regulations and authorities don’t merely constrain, but actually replace, their national equivalents. (This is what makes Brexit so difficult.)

Europe’s incomplete integration—with its confusing mix of powers delegated to Brussels and powers retained by national governments—is often seen as a design flaw. But to Slobodian’s globalists, partial integration is precisely the goal—it means that neither the national nor the international body have the legitimacy and capacity to direct the economy. With no international entanglements, a government is sovereign; with complete integration, sovereignty moves to the higher level. What is wanted is a situation in which some powers but not others are delegated, leaving neither national nor super-national governments able to act outside of circumscribed role...

One might even call this the neoliberal paradox. State power is needed to enforce market relations and property rights, but when it rests on democratic politics, it can easily turn into a vehicle for a broader program of economic planning. So the site of power must be anonymized, hidden from politics—as in the opaque jurisdictional mazes of Europe...

From this point of view, the essential thing about the single European currency is not whatever dubious practical advantages come from having prices across the continent measured in the same units. Rather, it is the creation of the European Central Bank as an ostensibly technical decision-maker, more insulated from democratic politics than any national authority could be."

Read the entire book review at The Boston Review.

How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown - 'Old As Babylon, Evil As Hell'

"Professor Philip Mirowski author of Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown, explains the intellectual history of Neo-liberalism, what Neo-liberals believe, making capitalists think differently, the role of think tanks in Neo-liberalism, the mythology of market supremacy..."

The Neo-Liberal general action pattern:

1. Create a fog of confusion about a social policy issue, its sources, and its nature.

2. Propose 'new markets' to fix the problems created by gaps or flaws in existing markets which are the language by which to define the public policy issue.

3. Build the solution as a platform to encourage phony 'entrepreneurs' to come in and expand and embed the market solution, perspective and terminology into the social structure.  Provide little to no regulatory oversight so that monopolies and predatory pricing policies protected by monopoly enrich a powerfully dominant few.

The Obama healthcare 'market' is one such example, and it is no accident that it was created by the neoliberal Heritage Foundation, before Obama made it his own.

 

Was President Obama merely being expedient in choosing such a solution?   I do not think so. I believe he is and always has been a creature of, by, and for the system and the status quo of the elite.  He aspires to be rich and powerful, and to serve he recreates himself as a brand.

 

A similar approach to the problem of stagnant economic growth and wages is to create even more new markets like the trade deals such as TPP.

 

People, plants, animals, land, happiness, work, the environment are all merely commodities to be supremely dispensed with by the gods of the markets, without interference.  Their gods price everything, but inherently value nothing, including life, love, liberty, and peace. 

 

Everything is but a transaction for the moment, without serious regard for longer term consequences or damage.  Their god is power, and their religion is greed.

 

But all the time, and this is most important, the markets that are set up are rigged by insiders of the inner temple, and are very much a part of the 'grift.'  For these are no true markets of purely rational equals, but mechanisms for transferring and accumulating wealth and power to a few.

And there is nothing wrong with markets, and market based economies, if they are honest and transparent.  But the market is soulless, and it is not an appropriate mechanism for deciding policy.   The market is a tool, not a god. And if used wisely with the proper care it can perform price discovery and capital allocation well in the right hands. But like all things, it is in the abuse of the market and the distortion of priorities that even a tool can become an instrument of disorder and abuse.

 

One of the greatest propaganda triumphs of our age is to have identified neoliberalism with 'freedom' by portraying any generally beneficial public function as a source of all evil, all difficulties because they impede the policy making action of the omniscient market, which to the people is as a god.  Instead, it is a monstrous creation, an affront to all that is human, all that is just, all that is good, that brings with it only the utmost desolation.  The madness serves only itself.

 

Like most old wickedness and folly brought forth as something new, there is nothing 'new' about Neoliberalism.  It is as old as Babylon, and evil as hell.

We think that these things take place in other times, in histories and fables, and in far off lands.  We do not see them unfolding here, playing out amongst us, in our own time and day.  But like all who have gone before and will come after, we too have been called to decide, not only in our words, but in our actions.

Do you not know, that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you become, whether of a corruption unto death, or of a righteousness unto life?

 

 

Modern Economics: Austerity

"In Greek mythology Sisyphus (Greek: Σίσυφος) was the king of Ephyra. He was punished by the gods for his chronic deceitfulness by being compelled to roll an immense boulder up a steep hill, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again."

In the modern mythology of bizarre economics, austerity can be described as 'the Reverse Sisyphus.'

The victims of systemic bank fraud and widespread cheating and manipulation of markets and laws are forced to pay the price, in an endless cycle of booms and busts, for the deceitfulness and injustice of the powerful financial interests and their privileged friends.

 

Related:  Bubblenomics

 

 

 

The NeoLiberal Colossus

"Keep, ancient lands, your human dignity!" cries she

With curling lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the weak, the homeless, the victims all to me,

And I will grind their bones, forevermore!"

 

 

Naomi Klein on Global Neoliberalism

Land of Idols: Lies, Wars, Empire

"The goal has been the 'Third Worldization' of the United States:

• an increasingly underemployed, lower-wage work-force;
• a small but growing moneyed class that pays almost no taxes;
• the privatization or elimination of human services;
• the elimination of public education for low-income people;
• the easing of restrictions against child labor;
• the exporting of industries and jobs to low-wage, free-trade countries;
• the breaking of labor unions;
• and the elimination of occupational safety and environmental controls and regulations."

Michael Parenti, Land of Idols, 1993

Michael Hudson: The Financialization of the Economy

I enjoyed this recent essay by Michael Hudson. It is a nice overview of the financialization process, and how the economic hitmen, who had ravaged the Third World, started coming home.

Of course I do not necessarily agree with everything in it. But the things he says make some real sense, and provide a balance to the prevailing economic mythos, and some would say propaganda, that comes out of the mainstream media in support of the financialization process.

Reality economics

December 19, 2012

By Michael Hudson

A review of Norbert Häring and Niall Douglas, Economists and the Powerful (London: Anthem Press, 2012).

“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

And if they would destroy economies, they first create a wealthy class on top, and let human nature do the rest. The acquisition of power soon leads to its abuse, to economic and social hubris. By seeking to protect its gains, perpetuate itself and make its wealth hereditary, power elites lock in their position in ways that exclude and injure those below. Turning government into an oligarchy, the wealthy indebt and shift the tax burden onto the less powerful.

It is an ancient tale. The Greeks got matters right in seeing how power leads to hubris, bringing about its own downfall. Hubris is the addiction to wealth and power, an arrogant over-reaching that involves injury to others. By impoverishing economies it destroys the source of profits, interest, capital gains, and even recovery of the original savings and debt principal.

This abusive character of wealth and power is not what mainstream economic models describe. That is why economic theory is broken. The concept of diminishing marginal utility implies that the rich will become more satiated as they become wealthier, and hence less addicted to power. This idea of progressive satiation returns gets the direction of change wrong, denying the basic thrust of the past ten thousand years of human technology and civilization.

Today’s supply and demand approach treats the economy as a “market” in a crudely abstract way, as quantities of goods (already produced), labor (with a given productivity) and capital (already accumulated, no questions asked) are swapped and bartered with each other. This approach does not inquire deeply into how some people get the capital to “swap” for “labor.” To top matters, this approach gets the direction of technological growth and basic business experience wrong, by assuming conditions of diminishing returns and diminishing marginal utility. The intellectual result is a parallel universe, whose criterion for economic excellence is merely the internal consistency of its abstract assumptions, not their realism.  (Life imitates models lol - Jesse)

Häring and Douglas show that the economics discipline did not get this way by accident. They are leading organizers of the World Economic Association, which emerged from the Post-Autistic-Economic movement intended to provide an alternative to mainstream neoclassical and neoliberal economics. (Häring is co-editor of the World Economic Review.)

Toward this end they provide a wealth of references tracing how economics was turned into a propaganda exercise for financiers, landlords, monopolists, insiders, fraudsters and other rent-seeking predators whom classical economists sought to tax and regulate out of existence. This state of affairs reflects the century-long drive of these free lunchers to fight back against classical economics by sponsoring self-serving fictions that depict them as earning their fortunes not in predatory and extractive ways, but by contributing to output as “job creators.”

Any given distribution of wealth and income is treated as an equilibrium reflecting voluntary choice, without examining the organizational and social structures of workplace hiring, production and distribution. The authors provide an antidote to this tunnel vision by pointing to the real invisible hands at work: insider dealing, anti-labor and anti-union maneuvering, and outright looting and fraud. What they mean by power is employers hiring strikebreakers, lobbying for special favors and insider deals, and backing the election campaigns of lawmakers pledged to act on behalf of the 1%.

Criticizing the textbook theory of the firm, they point out that that most production has increasing returns. Unit costs fall as fixed capital investment is spread over more output. As a producer with nearly zero marginal cost, for instance, Microsoft obtains a rising intellectual property rent on each program sold. On an economy-wide level, raising the minimum wage would enable most firms to benefit from increasing returns, by increasing demand.

Firms use political leverage to make sure that anti-labor referees are appointed to the courts and arenas that arbitrate disputes about employment, working conditions and firing. Capital-intensive industries outsource low-skill jobs to small-scale providers using non-union labor. Privatizing public utilities also aims largely at breaking labor union power. Marginalist supply and demand theory implies that each additional worker that is hired increases wage rates, prompting business to oppose full employment policies in order to keep wages low, even though this limits the market for their output.

So technology and diminishing terms are not the reason why wages have been pressed down – or why financial and other non-production costs have been rising for most Western economies. These cost increases are headed by debt charges for leveraged buyouts and corporate raiding, plus CEO salaries, bonuses and stock options. Labor also faces high costs of living as a result of the soaring mortgage debt taken on to obtain housing, student loan debt to obtain an education as a precondition for middle-class employment, and credit-card debt to maintain consumption standards, and rising wage withholding for Social Security and Medicare as taxes become regressive.

This personal debt service (including housing costs) and various taxes absorb more than two-thirds of the typical paycheck. So even if workers did not have to buy any of the goods and services they produce – food, clothes and other basic consumer needs – they still could not compete with labor in less financialized and debt-ridden economies.

At the corporate level, financial engineering is more about raising stock prices than new tangible capital investment. Even this is not being done in ways that serve stockholders’ long-term interest or that of the economy at large. Häring and Douglas give a scathing review of “motivating” managers by paying them in stock options. Managers maximize the value of these options by spending corporate revenue on stock buy-backs instead of new direct investment to expand their business. Even worse, companies borrow to buy their stock or even to pay out as dividends to bid up its price. The “capital” in this gain is financial, not industrial. It also turns out to be anti-labor, as loading companies down with debt enables corporate raiders use the threat of bankruptcy to demand pension downgrades and wage givebacks.  The problem with financial planning is its short hit-and-run time frame aiming at extracting income rather than taking the time to invest in new production and develop markets. Concealing this short-termism with Enron-style “mark to model” accounting fictions, managers take the money and run, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake.

Debt leveraging is encouraged by taxing asset-price gains at much lower rates than earnings (wages and profits), and permitting interest to be tax-deductible. This fiscal subsidy is by no means an inherent feature of markets. It reflects the financial sector’s capture of tax policy, along with regulatory capture to disable the government’s oversight so as to make fortunes by deregulating, privatizing, and popularizing the idea that economies can get rich by going into debt. Neoliberal doctrine demonizes government as the only power able to regulate and tax unearned income and prosecute fraud. This inverts the idea of free markets away from the classical meaning of markets free from unearned economic rent, to connote today’s arena free for predatory rentiers.

This strategy is capped by the power to censor. The misleading and deceptive depiction of the economy drawn by financiers, real estate speculators and monopolists is careful to conceal their own behavior from sight. This is the ultimate power of today’s mainstream economics: to shape how people perceive the economy. The starting point is to distract the public from noticing (and hence regulating or taxing) the real-world power structures at work. They prefer to make themselves invisible, above all the financial power to indebt the economy. It is by financial means, after all, that finance has shifted economic planning out of the hands of government to Wall Street and similar banking centers abroad.

Lobbyists for the 1% popularize a view that today’s economy is a fair and indeed natural inevitable product of Darwinian evolution. As Margaret Thatcher put it: There Is No Alternative (TINA). This narrow-mindedness is enforced by a censorial policy: “If the eye offend thee, pluck it out.” Häring and Douglas describe the academic process of weeding out any offending eyes that might introduce more realism when it comes to predatory behavior and rent seeking.

The prime directive is to depict financial planning as better than that of public agencies. In contrast to the Progressive Era’s endorsement of public infrastructure keeping costs down so as to better compete in global markets, the financial sector seeks to privatize public enterprises – on credit, preferably at distress prices to create new fortunes. The task of today’s mainstream economics, as the authors describe it, is to distract attention away from Balzac was more realistic, in observing that behind every family fortune lay a great, usually long-forgotten theft.

They focus on domestic power rather than spelling out the international dimension of how economic power is wielded. The IMF, U.S. Government and European Union bureaucracy wield foreign-debt leverage to impose the neoliberal Washington Consensus. This is how the European “troika” imposes austerity on Greece to replace democratic government with “technocrats” whose policies serve the 1% in today’s class war. This path leads in due course to the targeted assassinations by which the Chicago Boys imposed their kleptocratic “free market” on Chile under Pinochet, elaborated by Operation Condor assassinating labor leaders, land reformers and Liberation Theology priests and nuns throughout Latin America and in the United States itself. But I can understand that the authors evidently decided that they had to draw the line between economics and its military tactic somewhere, focusing on the economic core itself.

Finance has become the modern mode of warfare. It is cheaper to seize land by foreclosure rather than armed occupation, and to obtain rights to mineral wealth and public infrastructure by hooking governments and economies on debt than by invading them. Financial warfare aims at what military force did in times past, in a way that does not prompt subject populations to fight back – as long as they can be persuaded to accept the occupation as natural and even helpful. After indebting countries, creditors lobby to privatize natural monopolies and create new monopoly rights for themselves....

Read the entire essay here.

Karl Polanyi On Liberal Economics and the Rise of Fascism

"Hobbes had argued the need for a despot because men were like beasts; Townsend insisted that they were actually beasts and that, precisely for that reason, only a minimum of government was required.

From this novel point of view, a free society could be regarded as consisting of two races: property owners and laborers. The number of the latter was limited by the amount of food; and as long as property was safe, hunger would drive them to work. No magistrates were necessary as hunger was a better disciplinarian than the magistrate...

The biological nature of man appeared as the given foundation of a society that was not of a political order. Thus it came to pass that economists presently relinquished Adam Smith's humanistic foundations, and incorporated those of Townsend...Economic society had emerged as distinct from the political state."

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose. Only the percentages and the methods of sorting seem to matter to a certain type of ubermensch mentality. And of course force and fraud are indispensable to the accumulation and protection of their wealth.

I have spent the last day or two reading Karl Polanyi's landmark work of economic history, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.

Polanyi's history is particularly good because he describes in some detail how the predominant economic thought changes and adapts itself to its cultural context, the changing attitudes and philosophies of people and particular historical developments. And how it even begins to shape history as a branch of political philosophy. What are people, and what is their relationship to society as a whole? What is power? What is moral?

It is a grave mistake to treat economics as a physical science like chemistry. Chemistry seeks to quantify and explain an essentially unchanging physical world in substance if not in incidentals.  There are real laws. Theory becomes verifiable fact, and new facts build to new theories. Chemistry evolves, in that it changes with a remarkably evident progression of one thing on another which can be seen against some objective standard.

Economics reflects the changing attitudes of politics and the other social sciences to the relationship among the individual, society, and nature.  That is not to say that there is no learning in a social science. There is plenty of learning, but also a strong tendency to have to re-learn the same hard lessons over and over again. 

If someone in astrophysics were to say that the sun revolves around the earth they would be laughed off the podium and booted out of their positions. But if an economist says even now that markets are naturally self-regulating and efficient if left alone, they might be given a large grant and the chairmanship of an economics department, even though this theory has been found wanting, or as some might phrase it, a howler. 

There is a remarkably poignant paragraph in Polanyi where he says that since self-regulating markets have been proven to be nonsense "we are witnessing a development under which the economic system ceases to lay down the law to society and the primacy of society over that system is secured." As John Kenneth Galbraith put it, there are no new financial frauds, just variations on the old familiar themes.

Keep in mind that there is a difference between monetary theory, which is more akin to finance, and macroeconomics, which operates more generally in the realm of broad relationships and what is essentially morals or public policy. It is well said that a little learning is a dangerous thing, because one does not understand the scope of the field and their own limitations.

A certain school of economics can, and often did as shown in this history, coolly observe that profits will be maximized if a large percentage of the workers are maintained on the verge of starvation and insecurity without any support or interference from society, in the service of a superior few. We can clearly see the descendants of that particular moral philosophy in the world today.

It should be understood that by 'liberal economics' is meant 'self-regulating,' or essentially unregulated markets, and not progressivism as we might think of it today.  Polanyi goes to some lengths to show that there are no self-regulated markets that are fair and efficient.  Mostly those markets that are called self-regulated are set up with a bias that favors the insiders that control them.  Or as I said the other day, naturally occurring self-regulated markets are as common as seals reciting Shakespeare.

It is a long book. I will almost certainly read it again in more leisure. I tend to read quickly online, and more carefully when holding an actual book. But it was enjoyable and those inclined might read it with some benefit.   It gave me a framework on which to hang quite of bit of independent thought and learning, providing some additional coherence.  I think I understand why certain things have happened in the way that they have.

Bear in mind that Polanyi is a man of his time. I disagreed with many of his thoughts on the gold standard for example, even though I am not even in favor of it today as I have said, for some of the same reasons he cites. I have seen another 60 or more years of history without a gold standard, and know that what he saw was not so much attributable to the gold standard but the inflexibility of a single currency system, much as we are seeing with a euro currency and a multiplicity of fiscal regimes in the euro zone today.   And for the dollar reserve currency in the world which is in a similar process of failing for similar reasons.  I still wonder at who conceived these monstrosities and what they were really thinking, except for an expedient solution that became institutionalized with a powerful set of adherents and beneficiaries, and so long outlived its usefulness.

I include here only key passages, by no means exhaustive or complete. I have left out whole sections of his thought on land for example. But the major progression of his thought is here.

A Utopian system leads to an impasse between the adherents attempting to sustain the unsustainable and those who are obliged to endure its conflicts with reality. Much in the manner of the Wall Street financialisation cartel and the real productive economy today. The system might function well during a spectacular growth period, but when some return to normal growth occurs the system fails and a standoff occurs.

Unless resolved by organic reform that impasse can lead to 'reform by other means,' or an extreme solution and with it a general unhappiness. This is in fact his thesis, that the failure of neoliberal economics and its unwillingness to relieve the deadlock in which it held the real world economy led to the rise of the extreme solutions of fascism, communism, and the second great war. He makes an interesting case.

Enjoy.

"A market economy is an economic system controlled, regulated, and directed by markets alone; order in the production and distribution of goods is entrusted to this self-regulating mechanism. An economy of this kind derives from the expectation that human beings behave in such a way as to achieve maximum money gains. It assumes markets in which the supply of goods (including services) available at a definite price will equal the demand at that price. It assumes the presence of money, which functions as purchasing power in the hands of its owners.

Production will then be controlled by prices, for the profits of those who direct production will depend upon them; the distribution of the goods also will depend upon prices, for prices form incomes, and it is with the help of these incomes that the goods produced are distributed amongst the members of society. Under these assumptions order in the production and distribution of goods is ensured by prices alone...

Nothing must be allowed to inhibit the formation of markets, nor must incomes be permitted to be formed otherwise than through sales. Neither must there be any interference with the adjustment of prices to changed market conditions—whether the prices are those of goods, labor, land, or money. Hence there must not only be markets for all elements of industry, but no measure or policy must be countenanced that would influence the action of these markets. Neither price, nor supply, nor demand must be fixed or regulated; only such policies and measures are in order which help to ensure the self-regulation of the market by creating conditions which make the market the only organizing power in the economic sphere...

A self-regulating market demands nothing less than the institutional separation of society into an economic and political sphere. Such a dichotomy is, in effect, merely the restatement, from the point of view of society as a whole, of the existence of a self-regulating market...

A market economy must comprise all elements of industry, including labor, land, and money. (In a market economy the last also is an essential element of industrial life and its inclusion in the market mechanism has, as we will see, far-reaching institutional consequences.) But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them (people) in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market...

To allow the market mechanism to be sole director of the fate of human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged commodity "labor power" cannot be shoved about, used indiscriminately, or even left unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of this peculiar commodity. In disposing of a man's labor power the system would, incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity "man" attached to that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as the victims of acute social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation.

Nature would be reduced to its elements, neighborhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted, military safety jeopardized, the power to produce food and raw materials destroyed. Finally, the market administration of purchasing power would periodically liquidate business enterprise, for shortages and surfeits of money would prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts in primitive society...But no society could stand the effects of such a system of crude fictions even for the shortest stretch of time unless its human and natural substance as well as its business organization was protected against the ravages of this satanic mill...

But on the island of Juan Fernandez (an economic analogy described earlier) there was neither government nor law; and yet there was balance between goats and dogs. That balance was maintained by the difficulty the dogs found in devouring the goats which fled into the rocky part of the island, and the inconveniences the goats had to face when moving to safety from the dogs. No government was needed to maintain this balance; it was restored by the pangs of hunger on the one hand, the scarcity of food on the other. (This is the law of predator and prey).

Hobbes had argued the need for a despot because men were like beasts; Townsend insisted that they (people) were actually beasts and that, precisely for that reason, only a minimum of government was required. From this novel point of view, a free society could be regarded as consisting of two races: property owners and laborers. The number of the latter was limited by the amount of food; and as long as property was safe, hunger would drive them to work. No magistrates were necessary, for hunger was a better disciplinarian than the magistrate...

The paradigm of the goats and the dogs seemed to offer an answer. The biological nature of man appeared as the given foundation of a society that was not of a political order. Thus it came to pass that economists presently relinquished Adam Smith's humanistic foundations, and incorporated those of Townsend...Economic society had emerged as distinct from the political state...

To the politician and administrator laissez-faire was simply a principle of the insurance of law and order, with the minimum cost and effort. Let the market be given charge of the poor, and things will look after themselves...

What induced orthodox economics to seek its foundations in naturalism was the otherwise inexplicable misery of the great mass of the producers which, as we know today, could never have been deduced from the laws of the old market. But the facts as they appeared to contemporaries were roughly these: in times past the laboring people had habitually lived on the brink of indigence (at least, if one accounted for changing levels of customary standards); since the coming of the machine they had certainly never risen above subsistence level; and now that the economic society was finally taking shape, it was an indubitable fact that decade after decade the material level of existence of the laboring poor was not improving a jot, if, indeed, it was not becoming worse... (trickle down theory had not worked, mystifying economists.  The old canards are the best).

The acceptance of near-indigency of the mass of the citizens (roughly 47 to 99 percent apparently) as the price to be paid for the highest stage of prosperity was accompanied by very different human attitudes. Townsend righted his emotional balance by indulging in prejudice and sentimentalism. The improvidence (lacking personal responsibility) of the poor was a law of nature, for servile, sordid, and ignoble work would otherwise not be done. (born to be vile?) Also what would become of the fatherland unless we could rely on the poor? "For what is it but distress and poverty which can prevail upon the lower classes of the people to encounter all the horrors which await them on the tempestuous ocean or on the field of battle?"...

Robert Owen, in 1817, described the course on which Western man had entered and his words summed up the problem of the coming century...The organization of the whole of society on the principle of gain and profit must have far-reaching results. He formulated these results in terms of human character. For the most obvious effect of the new institutional system was the destruction of the traditional character of settled populations and their transmutation into a new type of people, migratory, nomadic, lacking in self-respect and discipline—crude, callous beings...

He proceeded to the generalization that the principle involved was unfavorable to individual and social happiness. Grave evils would be produced in this fashion unless the tendencies inherent in market institutions were checked by conscious social direction made effective through legislation...The Industrial Revolution was causing a social dislocation of stupendous proportions, and the problem of poverty was merely the economic aspect of this event. Owen justly pronounced that unless legislative interference and direction counteracted these devastating forces, great and permanent evils would follow...

The trading classes had no organ to sense the dangers involved in the exploitation of the physical strength of the worker, the destruction of family life, the devastation of neighborhoods, the denudation of forests, the pollution of rivers, the deterioration of craft standards, the disruption of folkways, and the general degradation of existence including housing and arts, as well as the innumerable forms of private and public life that do not affect profits...

Two vital functions of society, the political and the economic, were being used and abused as weapons in a struggle for sectional interests. It was out of such a perilous deadlock that in the twentieth century the fascist crisis sprang...

Economic liberalism (liberal in the sense of laissez-faire) was the organizing principle of a society engaged in creating a market system. Born as a mere penchant for non-bureaucratic methods, it evolved into a veritable faith in man's secular salvation through a self-regulating market. Such fanaticism was the result of the sudden aggravation of the task it found itself committed to: the magnitude of the sufferings that were to be inflicted on innocent persons as well as the vast scope of the interlocking changes involved in the establishment of the new order...

The global sweep of economic liberalism can now be taken in at a glance. Nothing less than a self-regulating market on a world scale could ensure the functioning of this stupendous mechanism. (one world government) ...No wonder that economic liberalism turned into a secular religion once the great perils of this venture were evident. There was nothing natural about laissez-faire; free markets could never have come into being merely by allowing things to take their course...The road to the free market was opened and kept open by an enormous increase in continuous, centrally organized and controlled interventionism...  (At the end of the economic continuum, both extreme laissez-faire and communism meet, becoming almost indistinguishable in their destruction of the individual and their particular social institutions which inhibit centralized control).

Stabilization of currencies became the focal point in the political thought of peoples and governments; the restoration of the gold standard became the supreme aim of all organized effort in the economic field. The repayment of foreign loans and the return to stable currencies were recognized as the touchstones of rationality in politics; and no private suffering, no infringement of sovereignty, was deemed too great a sacrifice for the recovery of monetary integrity.  (austerity anyone?)

The privations of the unemployed made jobless by deflation; the destitution of public servants dismissed without a pittance; even the relinquishment of national rights and the loss of constitutional liberties were judged a fair price to pay for the fulfillment of the requirement of sound budgets and sound currencies, these a priori of economic liberalism...

The root of all evil, the liberal insists, was precisely this interference with the freedom of employment, trade and currencies practiced by the various schools of social, national, and monopolistic protectionism since the third quarter of the nineteenth century; but for the unholy alliance of trade unions and labor parties with monopolistic manufacturers and agrarian interests, which in their shortsighted greed joined forces to frustrate economic liberty, the world would be enjoying today the fruits of an almost automatic system of creating material welfare.  

Liberal leaders never weary of repeating that the tragedy of the nineteenth century sprang from the incapacity of man to remain faithful to the inspiration of the early liberals; that the generous initiative of our ancestors was frustrated by the passions of nationalism and class war, vested interests, and monopolists, and above all, by the blindness of the working people to the ultimate beneficence of unrestricted economic freedom to all human interests, including their own.

A great intellectual and moral advance was thus, it is claimed, frustrated by the intellectual and moral weaknesses of the mass of the people; what the spirit of Enlightenment had achieved was put to nought by the forces of selfishness In a nutshell, this is the economic liberal's defense. Unless it is refuted, he will continue to hold the floor in the contest of arguments...

To separate labor from other activities of life and to subject it to the laws of the market was to annihilate all organic forms of existence and to replace them by a different type of organization, an atomistic and individualistic one.  (a vision of Orwell's 1984).

This effect of the establishment of a labor market is conspicuously apparent in colonial regions today. The natives are to be forced to make a living by selling their labor. To this end their traditional institutions must be destroyed, and prevented from re-forming, since, as a rule, the individual in primitive society is not threatened by starvation unless the community as a whole is in a like predicament...

Now, what the white man may still occasionally practice in remote regions today, namely, the smashing up of social structures in order to extract the element of labor from them, was done in the eighteenth century to white populations by white men for similar purposes... (the economic hitmen come home again).

Mankind was in the grip, not of new motives, but of new mechanisms., Briefly, the strain sprang from the zone of the market; from there it spread to the political sphere, thus comprising the whole of society. But within the single nations the tension remained latent as long as world economy continued to function...

Eventually, the moment would come when both the economic and the political systems were threatened by complete paralysis. Fear would grip the people, and leadership would be thrust upon those who offered an easy way out at whatever ultimate price. The time was ripe for the fascist solution.

The fascist solution of the impasse reached by liberal capitalism can be described as a reform of market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of all democratic institutions, both in the industrial and in the political realm. The economic system which was in peril of disruption would thus be revitalized, while the people themselves were subjected to a re-education designed to denaturalize the individual and make him unable to function as the responsible unit of the body politic.

This re-education, comprising the tenets of a: political religion that denied the idea of the brotherhood of man in all its forms, was achieved through an act of mass conversion enforced against recalcitrants by scientific methods of torture.

The appearance of such a movement in the industrial countries of the globe, and even in a number of only slightly industrialized ones, should never have been ascribed to local causes, national mentalities, or historical backgrounds as was so consistently done by contemporaries...

In fact, there was no type of background— of religious, cultural, or national tradition—that made a country immune to fascism, once the conditions for its emergence were given. Moreover, there was a striking lack of relationship between its material and numerical strength and its political effectiveness. The very term "movement" was misleading since it implied some kind of enrollment or personal participation of large numbers. If anything was characteristic of fascism it was its independence of such popular manifestations. Though usually aiming at a mass following, its potential strength was reckoned not by the numbers of its adherents but by the influence of the persons in high position whose good will the fascist leaders possessed, and whose influence in the community could be counted upon to shelter them from the consequences of an abortive revolt, thus taking the risks out of revolution.

A country approaching the fascist phase showed symptoms among which the existence of a fascist movement proper was not necessarily one. At least as important signs were the spread of irrationalistic philosophies, racialist aesthetics, anticapitalistic demagogy, (and procapitalist demagogy for that matter) heterodox currency views, criticism of the party system, widespread disparagement of the "regime," or whatever was the name given to the existing democratic set-up...

What we termed, for short, "fascist situation" was no other than the typical occasion of easy and complete fascist victories. All at once, the tremendous industrial and political organizations of labor and of other devoted upholders of constitutional freedom would melt away, and minute fascist forces would brush aside what seemed until then the overwhelming strength of democratic governments, parties, trade unions.

If a "revolutionary situation" is characterized by the psychological and moral disintegration of all forces of resistance to the point where a handful of scantily armed rebels were enabled to storm the supposedly impregnable strongholds of reaction, then the "fascist situation" was its complete parallel except for the fact that here the bulwarks of democracy and constitutional liberties were stormed and their defenses found wanting in the same spectacular fashion...  (or as Orwell put it, a revolution is the kicking in of a rotten door - Jesse)

Fascism, like socialism, was rooted in a market society that refused to function. Hence, it was world-wide, catholic in scope, universal in application; the issues transcended the economic sphere and begot a general transformation of a distinctively social kind. It radiated into almost every field of human activity whether political or economic, cultural, philosophic, artistic, or religious. And up to a point it coalesced with local and topical tendencies. No understanding of the history of the period is possible unless we distinguish between the underlying fascist move and the ephemeral tendencies with which that move fused in different countries."

Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944

Neoliberalism: Rise of the Machine

Miranda: O brave new world that has such people in it!

Prospero: 'Tis new, to thee.

The Tempest Act 5, scene 1

In my reading today I came across this relatively good description of Neoliberalism in economics excerpted below, and its implications for society.  The name for this school is often confusing to some, because it is a school of the right, more akin to political neoconservatism than anything commonly known as liberal.

Here is the schoolbook definition of neoliberalism in economics:

"Neoliberalism is a label for economic liberalizations, free trade, and open markets. Neoliberalism supports privatization of state-owned enterprises, deregulation of markets, and promotion of the private sector's role in society. In the 1980s, much of neoliberal theory was incorporated into mainstream economics."

I have to reiterate my own perspective that economics is not a physical science with rules generally tested by replicable experimentation on the macro level, but is at most a 'social science' that attempts to approximate a complex human reality, like sociology.

Microeconomics 'works' because it is less dependent on the human element, and involves itself with mechanical processes and pricing functions. By 'economics' I am discussing what is called macroeconomics, or the economics not of a discreet process or set of processes called a 'business' but of a broad economy with enormous sets of variables and processes that are far too complex to represent well mathematically.  They most often trim and crush reality to fit some compactly useful model, as in the manner of Nassim Taleb's Procrustean Bed.

When it ventures into the realm of public policy discussions, economics often resembles a belief system very much like a religion.   It is easily twisted to serve the desires and actions of its acolytes while conferring an aura of logic.  But there is almost always some 'leap of faith' made that spans the enormous gulf between the model, its assumptions, and reality.

Economics is only as good as its assumptions, which may in fact be terribly distorted with each step towards a more general application from a simple a priori observation that sounds self-evident at first.  Economics is a veritable cornucopia of non sequiturs encased in obscurantist terminology.

People are reasoning, therefore in their actions they act reasonably. And in the mass of financial transactions that is the market, these rational actors and their actions impute a natural rationality to the market that makes it efficient. Therefore the law of supply and demand and the perfect clearing price of the market, which are central tenets of market efficiency, are not to be interfered with by outside forces, like regulation and government.

And what makes this believable is that this can be true, if people are as good and perfectly wise and uniform in their actions as angels; but they are not, not a one of them, but especially those who are drawn to making their money from money, and especially from speculation in the markets.  This type of activity attracts people from the tails of human behaviour, like most sources of wealth and power.

This assertion  of natural market efficiency sounds good, especially when it is delivered by academics in nice suits with lots of degrees and titles, backed by a multimillion dollar PR campaign that contains well crafted, thinly disguised appeals to more visceral emotions.   But it is a theory that is easily shown to be founded in fantasy to anyone who has driven on a crowded multi-lane highway in rush hour.

And a corollary to this is that the system grades or objectively and perfectly evaluates people on their merits. If one suffers some misfortune or fails to rise 'to the top' of the heap, then this is an objective judgement on them and their value, their character, their worthiness as a human being.   And some would say that this speaks to their status as a fully valued member of that society, to have rights and to vote, to receive food and vital medical attention, and to have families and to procreate.

Because the system is perfectly efficient and rewards the best, the most successful are sanctified by it. I am wealthy, therefore I am among the elect, whether it is marked by an aristocratic title or an enormous bank account.  I am above all the rest, and this proves my value, and provides all the things which are stuffed into my hollowed being.

One can certainly and legitimately use economics, among other things, to support their particular policy arguments to estimate effects. But the listeners should accept this with plenty of skepticism, because the proofs are largely based on statistics, or statistically based models, that are filled with often unspoken assumptions, questionable estimates, and too often critical omissions, both conscious or inadvertent.

But to take an economic model out of its place, and put it above the discussion as policy maker in the manner of a computing machine which spits out the ultimate solutions, to capitalize 'Market' as a type of god on earth, to put that false idol as an unfettered decision-making machine above the individuals of a society and the rule of law, is inhuman, and ultimately a tyranny of the anti-human.

Economics is a tool, in some implementations better than others, but overall not a particularly reliable one.  It is better in 'explaining' than predicting; its explanations are more often rationalizations founded in its malleability and lack of rigor, especially in its use of correlations and assumptions.

The elevation of macroeconomics today reminds one of the perversions of the discoveries in biology that led to the theories of eugenics and the race worship, the mythology of the blood that motivated much of the social thinking and many serious political movements at the beginnings of the twentieth century.   It was when the intelligentsia and the professions, the doctors and lawyers, threw in their lot with the financial and industrial elite that European society began to quickly fall apart.

"I believe that if a canvass of the entire civilized world were put to the vote in this matter, the proposition that it is desirable that the better sort of people should intermarry and have plentiful children, and that the inferior sort of people should abstain from multiplication, would be carried by an overwhelming majority...

Indeed, Mr. Galton has drawn up certain definite proposals. He has suggested that "noble families" should collect "fine specimens of humanity" around them, employing these fine specimens in menial occupations of a light and comfortable sort, that will leave a sufficient portion of their energies free for the multiplication of their superior type."

Source: H.G. Wells, Mankind in the Making

People forget that a whole range of intellectuals and popular thinkers, from George Bernard Shaw to H.G. Wells and a large measure of the economic, professional and political aristocracy of the day, embraced the notion of the natural superiority of certain human types, and the scientific necessity of encouraging their proliferation, and the dominance of the untermensch as not only their right but their obligation.

The medical profession disgraced itself, amongst the first of those in Germany, with their willingness and devotion to implement euthanasia based on these 'scientific principles.' And the elite in the West broadly looked at this movement with quiet compliance and even admiration for the will to make these 'hard decisions.'  It was only when the definition of the master race became increasingly narrow and their methods madly brutal that they recoiled in horror.  But by then it was too late, although many adherents to the basic principles remained sympathetic in England and America.

Science serves at its best, but it does not rule well, except to blind the heart and the mind to madness.

And one might look at these people from the past with revulsion and wonder, but the self-proclaimed ruling class of the West is doing the same thing today, largely by financial means for now. Their rhetoric and reasoning is filled with it, a sense of the obligation of their natural superiority. And if they steal from you, it is a privilege. And if a little of their spoils trickles down, you should be grateful.

There are plenty of believers in the ascendancy of a new master class, as long as they think they are a part of it. You may see them and their ideas on display this week from Brussels and Berlin, to Tampa and Jackson Hole. And they are not members of learning organizations, but protectors and promoters of the status quo.

"There is a lack of critical assessment of the past. But you have to understand that the current ruling elite is actually the old ruling elite. So they are incapable of a self-critical approach to the past."

Ryszard Kapuscinski

If one wishes to have an oligarchy or even a dictatorship based on power and unscrupulous behaviour in which the 'superior,' as one may choose to define them, use the weak as servants and prey, then decide to do so and say it, and hope the people will support it.

But it seems particularly hypocritical and cheap to set up a god of economic science which is elevated to speak these same words as an inspired dictum from above, but which is in reality a false idol carrying the calculated whisperings of its high priests, and then expect the people to bow to it forever without any eventual reaction. 

The Tyranny of Neoliberalism

Unapologetic in its implementation of austerity measures that cause massive amounts of human hardship and suffering, neoliberal capitalism consolidates class power on the backs of young people, workers, and others marginalized by class, race, and ethnicity. Neoliberal capitalism appears to no longer need the legitimacy garnered through its false claim to democratic ideals such as free speech, individual liberty, or justice—however tepid these appeals have always been.  (cf. Glenn Greenwald - Jesse)

In the absence of alternative social visions to market-driven values and the increasing separation of global corporate power from national politics, neoliberalism has wrested itself free of any regulatory controls while at the same time removing economics from any consideration of social costs, ethics, or social responsibility. Such a disposition is evident in the fact that neoliberalism's only imperatives are profits and growing investments in global power structures unmoored from any form of accountable, democratic governance.

The devastating fallout of neoliberal capitalism's reorganization of society, the destruction of communities and impoverishment of individuals and families, now becomes its most embraced mode of expression as it is championed, ironically, as the only viable route to economic stability.

In this widely accepted, yet dystopian world view, collective misfortune is no longer interpreted as a sign of failing governance or the tawdry willingness of politicians to serve corporate interests, but attributed to the character flaws of individuals and defined chiefly as a matter of personal responsibility. In fact, government-provided social protections are viewed as pathological. Matters of life and death are removed from traditional modes of democratic governance and made subject to the sovereignty of the market.  (Don't feed the 'losers' or the undesirables - isolate and then euthanise them, indirectly at first - Jesse)

In this new age of biocapital, or what Eric Cazdyn calls "bioeconomics," "all ideals are at the mercy of a larger economic logic" —one that unapologetically generates policies that "trample over millions of people if necessary." Neoliberalism's defining ideologies, values, and policies harness all institutions, social practices, and modes of thought to the demands of corporations and the needs of the warfare state. They are as narrowly self-serving as they are destructive.  (The individuals, even in their millions, must die if not for the good of the state or the race, then for the good of the market and corporate profits.  - Jesse)

As collective responsibility is privatized, politics loses its social and democratic character, and the formative culture necessary for the production of engaged critical agents is gravely undermined. An utterly reduced form of agency is now embodied in the figure of the isolated automaton, who is driven by self-interest and eschews any responsibility for the other.

As Stuart J. Murray points out, neoliberalism's totalizing discourse of privatization, commodification, deregulation, and hyper-individualism "co-opts and eviscerates the language of the common good." The ascendancy of neoliberal ideology also manifests in an ongoing assault on democratic public spheres, public goods, and any viable notion of equality and social justice.

As corporate power is consolidated into fewer and fewer hands, ideological and structural reforms are implemented to transfer wealth and income into the hands of a ruling financial and corporate elite.  This concentration of power is all the more alarming since both Canada and the United States have experienced unprecedented growth in wealth concentration and income inequality since the 1970s.

Henry Giroux, Days of Rage: The Quebec Student Protest Movement

Unenlightened Self-Interest: Deficit Hawk Down On Tax Cuts and Financial Reform

"Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man." Henry Hazlitt

The argument that 'tax cuts for the wealthiest few stimulates growth' aka the trickle down theory needs to be buried alongside the 'efficient markets hypothesis' and the other principle beliefs of voodoo economics that have brought the US from the world's greatest nation to third world status in a generation.

It was the irresponsible tax cuts enacted by Bush II while increasing military spending on two wars, one highly discretionary, along with the increasing financialization of the economy through deregulation, fraud, 'one way globalization,' and crony capitalism that have undermined the foundation of the American economy.

The banks must be restrained, the financial system reformed, and balance restored to the real economy before there can be any sustained recovery.


h/t The Economist's View for the cartoon

The following charts are from the ContraryInvestor but all annotations and comments are mine.

Think about what this chart below is saying. Will a return to the status quo through Fed intervention 'work?' Is austerity directed at the middle class the answer, as in the suffering endured by the many in the Great Depression?



What would happen if the economy 'recovered' with the same fundamentals in place? Fundamentals such as an overly large financial sector, increasing wealth disparity, and a stagnant median wage?

Can 'the many' continue to borrow to maintain a constant standard of living? Can a democracy be maintained in conditions that start to resemble a third world country? How long before a 'strong man' rises to take control of the political situation on behalf of the national society of workers? And how long after that would it be before the industrialists and oligarchs lose control of this strong man, as they always seem to do?

Can the US afford to maintain 800 overseas military bases while the domestic tax base continues to erode through a parasitical transferal of wealth from the many to the few based on leverage, speculation, monopoly, asset bubbles and fraud?

Closer View of the Rise of Neoliberal Economics and the Ponzi Economy



US Federal Debt Only as a Percent of GDP Since 1792



What the US needs right now, more than ever, is a coherent industrial policy and a national strategy focused on the median wage, a serious reform movement, a reduction in its military spending, and a set of encompassing social principles with a longer term vision for the country as its goal.

Americans may not trust government as a recent tenet of dogmatic faith, but in doing so they are entrusting their futures to other people's governments, and soulless multinational entities who are in fact using globalization and the 'free markets' to aggressively advance their own ends and benefits, which are probably antithetical to yours.

Bringing a dogmatic neo-liberal bias for "free markets" (ironically promoted by political neo-conservatives) into a game where every other major country is executing a well thought out industrial policy based on increasing net exports is like bringing a knife to a gun fight, and then stabbing yourself in the back as an opening move.

Iceland Voters Reject Bank Bailouts in Crushing Electoral Defeat; Neo-Liberalism In Context

"Voters rejected the bill because ordinary people, farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers, are being asked to shoulder through their taxes a burden that was created by irresponsible greedy bankers."

"Is there any reason why the American people should be taxed to guarantee the debts of banks, any more than they should be taxed to guarantee the debts of other institutions, including merchants, the industries, and the mills of the country?" Senator Carter Glass (D-Va), author of the Banking Act of 1933 and of Glass-Steagall

It is interesting that the government of Iceland had already declared the vote of the people as 'obsolete.' One has to wonder when the voters will declare their current government and their representatives as obsolete. One would give the government credit for at least allowing a vote on a referendum, but to then disregard and circumvent it through political devices is seems like a base hypocrisy.

Iceland is a victim of the neo-liberal economic deregulation of the 1990's, in which a few bankers can buy the government, and rack up enormous profits for themselves in Ponzi like leverage, and then attempt to socialize the debt back to the people when their schemes collapse.

Neo-Liberalism is a system of economic thought embracing the efficient markets hypothesis, the inherent good of deregulation and the natural impediment of government regulation, the necessity of free trade and globalization, the supremacy of the corporation over the individual person in the social economy, and supply side economics. It most likely favors a one world currency and consolidation of production into large corporate combinations or 'trusts' under the principle of laissez-faire.

Neo-liberalism may degenerate into crony capitalism, or even corporatism, as its theoretical idealism of perfect rationalism and virtue falters against the reality of human behaviour. In times of financial crisis, for example, neo-liberalism ironically turns to centralized economic planning by allegedly private banks which appropriate public funds and the power of the monetary license to socialize private debts, and, in a strikingly Orwellian twist, eviscerate the discipline of the markets and the individual to preserve their freedom, and the well being of the private corporations. Although now largely repudiated, neo-liberalism has strong roots in the public consciousness, and its adherents hold considerable power in Western governments and among the 'freshwater school' of American economics.

What makes neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism 'neo' or new is their attitude towards the relationship of the individual to the state. Both tend to denigrate and diminish the condition and rights of the inividual as compared to the consideration of the corporate system or the centralized command state.

In the States, the Congress and the President have just ignored the massive protests against their own bank bailouts. The US was able to cloak its own debt assumptions through accounting frauds, claiming that the bailouts were repaid by the banks. The bailouts are wrapped in AIG, Fannie and Freddie, and the Federal Reserve. This is the advantage of owning the currency, the IMF and ratings agencies. And of course your media.

Although Europeans and the markets are looking at the 'PIGS' for the next serious default as the economic hitmen are moving from Iceland to Greece, the real test of globalization in financial markets and the dominant control of the private banks will come in the UK, a sovereign people too proud and strong to go down into feudal servitude and the rule of tyrants easily. Or at least one would hope.

The Relationship of the Condition and Rights of the Individual to the Organized State




Bloomberg
Iceland Rejects Icesave Depositors Bill in Referendum
By Omar R. Valdimarsso

March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Icelanders rejected by a massive majority a bill that would saddle each citizen with $16,400 of debt in protest at U.K. and Dutch demands that they cover losses triggered by the failure of a private bank.

Ninety-three percent voted against the so-called Icesave bill, according to preliminary results on national broadcaster RUV. Final results will be published today.

The bill would have obliged the island to take on $5.3 billion, or 45 percent of last year’s economic output, in loans from the U.K. and the Netherlands to compensate the two countries for depositor losses stemming from the collapse of Landsbanki Islands hf more than a year ago. The island’s political leaders say they’ve already moved on to talks over a new accord.

“The government’s survival doesn’t rest with this Icesave vote,” Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir told RUV after the preliminary count was announced. “The government coalition remains solid,” Finance Minister Steingrimur Sigfusson told RUV.

Failure to reach an agreement on the bill has left Iceland’s International Monetary Fund-led loan in limbo and prompted Fitch Ratings to cut its credit grade to junk. Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s have signaled they may follow suit if no settlement is reached.

‘Obsolete’

Iceland’s leaders are trying to negotiate a new deal with the U.K. and the Dutch that focuses on the interest rate payable on the loan, making the bill in yesterday’s vote “obsolete,” Sigurdardottir said on March 4.

Dutch Finance Minister Jan Kees de Jager in a statement posted on the Internet last night said he is “disappointed” the agreement hasn’t yet come into effect. The U.K. was “obviously disappointed,” while “not surprised,” said a Treasury official who declined to be identified in line with departmental policy.

Iceland’s government pointed to “steady progress toward a settlement” in the past three weeks in a statement.

“The British and Dutch Governments have indicated a willingness to accept a solution that will entail a significantly lower cost for Iceland than that envisaged in the prior agreement,” the statement said.

The U.K. and Netherlands have offered an interest rate of the London Interbank Offered Rate plus 2.75 percentage points, according to the U.K. Treasury official. That’s the same as the rate for the loan from the Nordic countries that the Icelandic Government accepted in July 2009. The new offer also gave relief on the first two years of interest for the loan, amounting to 450 million euros.

‘Ordinary People’

The three governments have declared their intention to continue the talks, the Iceland statement said.

Voters rejected the bill because “ordinary people, farmers and fishermen, taxpayers, doctors, nurses, teachers, are being asked to shoulder through their taxes a burden that was created by irresponsible greedy bankers,” said President Olafur R. Grimsson, whose rejection of the bill resulted in the plebiscite, in a Bloomberg Television interview on March 5.

The Icesave deal passed through parliament with a 33 to 30 vote majority. Grimsson blocked it after receiving a petition from a quarter of the population urging him to do so. The government has said it’s determined any new deal must have broader political backing to avoid meeting a similar fate.

Icelanders used the referendum to express their outrage at being asked to take on the obligations of bankers who allowed the island’s financial system to create a debt burden more than 10 times the size of the economy.

Protests

The nation’s three biggest banks, which were placed under state control in October 2008, had enjoyed a decade of market freedoms following the government’s privatizations through the end of the 1990s and the beginning of this decade.

Protesters have gathered every week, with regular numbers swelling to about 2,000, according to police estimates. The last time the island saw demonstrations on a similar scale was before the government of former Prime Minister Geir Haarde was toppled.

Icelanders have thrown red paint over house facades and cars of key employees at the failed banks, Kaupthing Bank hf, Landsbanki and Glitnir Bank hf, to vent their anger. The government has appointed a special commission to investigate financial malpractice and has identified more than 20 cases that will result in prosecution.

Economic Impact

The island’s economy shrank an annual 9.1 percent in the fourth quarter of last year, the statistics office said on March 5, and contracted 6.5 percent in 2009 as a whole.

Household debt with major credit institutions has doubled in the past five years and reached about 1.8 trillion kronur ($14 billion) in 2009, compared with the island’s $12 billion gross domestic product, according to the central bank.

Icelanders, the world’s fifth-richest per capita as recently as 2007, ended 2009 18 percent poorer and will see their disposable incomes decline a further 10 percent this year, the central bank estimates.

Grimsson, who has described his decision to put the depositor bill to a referendum as the “pinnacle of democracy,” says he’s not concerned about the economic fallout of his decision.

“The referendum has drawn back the curtain and people see on the stage the matter in a new perspective,” he said in an interview. “That has strengthened our position and our cause.”