narrativeAFTER THE MELT-DOWN.
What has been done to create a financial system to better serve Society? Nothing much.
Why??
The financial meltdown of 2008/9 was probably the biggest man-made catastrophe of our generation. It was caused by a global financial system that ran out of control, hiding many of its activities behind a veil of secrecy in offshore tax havens, beyond the reach or influence of national governments or international institutions like the IMF. The impacts of the crash are horrendous, millions will lose their jobs, their homes and hope. Other millions in emerging countries will suffer real poverty and even starvation, blighting the lives of a whole generation.
Billions of taxed incomes of ordinary people have been deployed to shore up the banking system from total collapse, landing countries like the UK, a most enthusiastic supporter of free financial markets, with a burden of debt that it will take decades to reduce to sustainable levels. And it is likely to undermine efforts to address the impending disaster of global warming.
In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, there were many voices raised condemning the behaviour of the powerful, rich and greedy individuals and institutions that caused the problems.
And what has happened more than six months later? Not very much - yet. And the trouble is, the longer we go on the less likely it is that anything effective will be done to change a rotten system based on the lowest of human behaviours, self-interest, greed and aggression.
We will probably witness slightly tighter regulation of the banking system, maybe more power given to international bodies such as the IMF, but nothing fundamental that might re-align the interests of the financial system with those of ordinary people and society.
In Britain, much of the anger and resentment that was aroused by the bankers has been diverted towards politicians and their expenses. This anger is in the wider scheme of things misplaced. Politicians deserve our anger, but for progressively and weakly abdicating from any responsible role in regulating or mitigating the excesses of the banks. For various reasons - collusion being one, they went along with Peter Mandelson, now Lord Mandelson, who declared his party to be "Intensely relaxed" about people becoming filthy rich. Mandelson claims that he was misquoted, but the following comments about his letter to the "Guardian" newspaper are telling:
You quote my comments to California computer executives in 1998 that "we are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich" (Leaders, January 11). I do not object to being quoted, as long as I am quoted accurately and in full. What I in fact said on that particular occasion was "as long as they pay their taxes".
Peter Mandelson
EU trade commissioner
The thing is, when you look at the tax loopholes that New Labour has failed to close over the years, allowing the rich to avoid tax, and costing the country billions, I'm not sure quoting Mandelson in full shows him or his party in any better light.
The fortunes of Tony Blair when he stepped down from power and almost instantaneously into directorships with investment banks indicates clearly that a good relationship with the banking system is literally worth a fortune. The same has applied to senior Conservative politicians who have historically enjoyed a close relationship with property and finance. (See Politicians and the finance industry)
But there is a more fundamental reason why nothing of significance will happen. And that is because the current generation of politicians have been so soaked in the ideology of free market individualism that they have completely lost sight of what a healthy society would look like. They are not to be totally condemned. The experiments with socialism in Britain and the massive disaster of Soviet-style communism were hardly models to be copied. But neither is market fundamentalism, which has failed almost as dramatically as the Soviet system in its time. As philosopher Michael Sandel has said in the BBC 2009 Reith Lectures, most political questions are at their core moral or spiritual; they are about our vision of the common good: bring religion and other value systems back into the public sphere for a civic renewal.
Sandel is right: without a sense of community and a moral compass to guide us, we all live in the jungle as individuals competing with other individuals for the biggest share of the spoils we can get. What we have witnessed since the disaster is anger and incoherence, many people venting their rage as individuals and proposing punishments - but no strong picture of the alternatives to market fundamentalism have emerged.
Until they do, we will continue to flounder in the morass, easy victims for the return of the neo-liberals and market fundamentalists.
Madeline Bunting, writing in the "Guardian" newspaper, put her finger on the real problem:
"Every... modern narrative - communism, socialism, even those that were destructive, such as neoliberalism and fascism - laid claim to a better version of the kingdom of God, a better world that would nurture a better human being. They were all narratives of redemption and salvation. All that we have now is apocalypse, and that is paralysing. How then can we build hope?
We need some politicians and leaders in other spheres who have moral substance - and they are in short supply.
See Saving capitalism from its own excesses - making the market serve society. Getting our values straight for constructive ideas about a way forward.
