I’m reading 23 Things They Don't Tell You About
Capitalism by Ha Joon Chang, a Cambridge Professor of Economics. He blames
free market ideology for much of the world’s economic ills, and points out that
the ‘free’ market isn’t really free, it’s just a relative term, because there
are hundreds of rules, many of them political, around the market.
Since the West
liberalised its trade and finance rules in the 80s, economic growth has slowed
considerably compared to the period before. And sub-Saharan Africa, having been
forced to open its borders to ‘free trade’, has seen its growth reduced to zero.
Developing economies need to be protectionist in order to grow; the US and the
UK were when they were building their industries.
What I like
about the author’s style is that it is based in common sense rather than
technicalities, and he says we can all make economic judgements. And he
continually upends the received wisdoms, which as an Aquarian I like.
Here are a
few more of his ‘Things’ as he calls them:
Companies should not be run in the interest
of their owners
The washing machine has changed the
world more than the internet has
Greater macroeconomic stability has
not made the world economy more stable
Governments can pick winners
Good economic policy does not require
good economists
Ha Joon
Chang doesn’t have a political agenda. His only agenda is what promotes the greatest
economic growth, based on the evidence.
--------------------
Ad Break: I offer skype astrology
readings (£60 full reading, £40 for an update). Contact: BWGoddard1
(at)aol.co.uk
---------------------
I’d often
wondered about the ‘free’ market, not just because it clearly has thousands of
rules anyway, but also for the common sense reason (that the author doesn’t
mention) that all areas of human
collective activity need regulation or destructive things happen. Like we
saw in 2008 with the mother of all financial crises. I’ve always thought that
the people who want the internet unregulated are being naïve. Bad things happen
there as well. And bad things happen through mobile phone technology unless
governments keep an eye. And someone needs to keep an eye on governments
because they will do bad things as well, like when they take necessary surveillance
to excess.
The bigger
question that Ha Joon Chang doesn’t address is why growth? And what is
sustainable? Those are the real questions. We have more than enough to live on
in the West, particularly if wealth was shared a bit more equitably, so why
does the economy need to keep growing, even if the planet could sustain that?
Do we earn to live or live to earn?
The planet
needs sustainability. What humans need is
the forgotten notion of sufficiency. An idea of what is enough, of there
being a point at which our economic needs are met.
This is why
recessions can be good things. During the recent one we still had enough to
live on, particularly again if things could have been shared out better, but
the feelgood factor of growth was not there, so we all felt a bit gloomy. But
why do we need to feel gloomy if there is enough to live on? I think in this
way recessions can get us to think about our values, about what is in a real
sense important.
Economic
growth has become the main yardstick by which we judge a nation’s health and
happiness. Not the only one, but the main one. And it’s crazy when you think about
it, that what gives the most meaning to our collective life is whether we are
increasing the rate at which we produce more than we need to live on. As the
Buddha said, “All worldlings are mad.” I don’t quite agree with him, and it has
religious superiority in it, but he has a point.
As I went into in a previous piece, the US has not put in anywhere near the legislation needed to stop another financial crisis occurring, and has no intention of doing so. The banks, for example, have not been divided into separate retail and investment institutions, and they are even bigger and more complex than they were.
The managerial
level of the financial industry has such a power over government that very
little has happened in the wake of 2008. A classic example in the UK was that
of Fred Goodwin, the head of RBS, a bank that went spectacularly bust and
required a huge government bail-out. Yet Fred was allowed to walk away with his
£17 million pension pot untouched. After a public outcry, he gave back £4
million of it and he lost his knighthood. And that was that. He kept his reward for failure.
I don’t know
about other countries, but certainly the US and probably the UK governments were, and are,
being held to ransom by their lightly regulated financial industries. Well,
everyone knows that the US Congress is in the pocket of Wall St.
For the
West, the financial meltdown of 2008, and its consequences, have been the main
event of the Uranus-Pluto square, which still has some years, and several exact
crossings, to run. Uranus brings sudden disruptive shocks that open up new
possibilities. Pluto brings a death to the foundations of the old, and a chance
to rebuild on new foundations.
This was
what happened in the last Uranus-Pluto square in the early 30s. We had a
similar financial crisis, and governments learned from it and brought in a load
of regulations to stop it recurring, and it worked.
But this
time we seem to have learned nothing. Well, we learned from the last time not
to let the banks go under. But that seems to have been it.
Uranus-Pluto
will always bring disruption and change at a fundamental level that takes some
years to work through. And the old power base will either be destroyed and
reborn ( as it was in the 30s) or the old will remain but strengthened,
empowered.
So this is
what I think is looking like the most important outcome for the West of this
Uranus-Pluto square: an empowerment of the financial industry in essentially
its old form, and a strengthening of its stranglehold over government. And the
certainty of future financial crises and their destabilising effects on society
at all levels.
It’s rather
like Rome burning: a decadent West that has been wealthy for so long it takes
it for granted, is gradually losing out to the BRIC and other countries. It has
borrowed massively to conceal this, and is unable to rectify the situation
because it is being run by the financial industry which is seeking
its own short-term interests at the expense, if necessary, of the interests of
the country.
This is particularly
the case in the UK and the US, which are less financially regulated than other
western countries, though in the UK the situation is mitigated by the disproportionately
international nature of our financial industry, and the earnings that brings
us.
But if you
want a real conspiracy it is this: the bankers and hedge fund managers really
are running the world – well, the US – and their grip is tightening. Pluto in Capricorn.
And it’s not a secret cabal, they are just doing what any industry will do if
it is allowed to: it will end up advancing its own interests at the expense of
the country’s. It is a failure of government.
Goblin Bankers in Harry Potter |
And
remember, your average banker is not a ‘bad’ person, he’s just doing his or her
job, and it is a necessary one. We need our financial industry. There are of
course ‘bad guys’ there, but it essentially a collective thing that is going
on, a herd thing, if you like. It is often just easier for us to have some
stereotyped figures in our mind that we can blame things on. It is lazy, it is
an excuse not to think or to be conscious.
Maybe it
comes back to Democracy itself. You can’t imagine the Chinese allowing
something like that to happen, despite all the bribery and nepotism that goes
on. Their government is able to exert its will. Meanwhile the US government is
famously paralysed. And if the US is not able to regulate its financial industry, then the rest of the West has to follow suit to a large degree.
The received
wisdom has been that Democracy advances hand in hand with the progress of
capitalism. And there is a certain truth in that, in that we see the Chinese
government having a more open country gradually forced upon it. But maybe that
is mainly the internet’s doing rather than wealth.
So these are
the major changes that Uranus-Pluto seems to me, from our current standpoint, to
be bringing about: a shift in power from the West to the East; the
strengthening in the West of the power over government of the financial
industries; and a consequent crisis of Democracy in the US.
2 comments:
I think the gloominess can be put down to a constant media dripfeed reinforcing the myth of austerity/cuts/redundancies etc..it is difficult to step away from this no matter how clever one is..(no man is an island)..even philosophers find themselves 'acting with the herd ' at times.However,many have found unexpected freedom through this..they have even enjoyed shopping in cheaper supermarkets, savoured browsing the books in the burgeoning charity shops in he localities, found, in many cases, that really, if we got heat and light and enough to eat who needs the rolexes and the expensive clothes? this is good, and whilst i think its really a daft game and its all graphs fluctuating on the screens of traders, if more move away from the 'pull' of the trappings of money then the better.
Great post. I agree that the Pluto in Cap energy appears to be manifesting as a reconfiguring of the financial sector's status quo...I keep rooting for Uranus in Aries. Go Uranus! There is much to be gleaned from this square...perhaps the most blatant lesson is that we, as individuals, do not need to accept the directives of the political/financial elite. We have the option of nonparticipation to a large degree. This in and of itself would be an ecumenical shift of power...and a revolution of soul. There is more coming for sure.
Post a Comment