This blog now lives at http://www.rjr.me/blog. See you there.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Today JPMorgan, America's biggest bank and one of the monsters of the 2008 bailout season ($25 billion), 'revealed a surprise trading loss of $2bn (£1.2bn) on complex investments made by its traders' (BBC, today)
Fortunately JPMorgan's CEO, Jamie Dimon (for whose name Microsoft's spellchecker corrects to 'Demon'), is a man of principle. To be precise, his principle is this:
I don't think just because someone's underwater they say I don't have to stay there. But they're supposed to pay the mortgage, and we should teach the American people, you're supposed to meet your obligations, not run from them. Because you have a mortgage doesn't mean you should run away as it goes down. (quoted in the Huffington Post online, 21/03/09)Well, that seems clear enough - not only will Mr Dimon not be looking for yet another bailout, but he would apparently recommend that no one gives him one if he did. And given his status as one of the financial luminaries of our day, who are we to gainsay his wisdom?
He's pretty stiff with the authors of the bank's distress - well, with some of them:
There were many errors, sloppiness and bad judgement. These were egregious mistakes... They were self-inflicted and this is not how we want to run a business. (quoted by the BBC)And again, speaking to NBC's Meet the Press last Sunday, the Great Man said:
We made a terrible, egregious mistake. There's almost no excuse for it.('Almost' no excuse? I wonder who he thinking of excusing.)
Only one omission, really - the man who led them to all this, the man whose capacity to control his bank is so feeble that he has been exposed yet again, the man who in April described concerns about the bank's problems as a 'tempest in a teapot', and the man whose hypocrisy is so vast that he could, without the least sign of a blush, say the above about American mortgage-holders after being bailed out on a truly staggering scale by those very same mortgage-holders.
So what is the solution? The Beeb also quotes Mark Williams, a professor at Boston University and a former regulator at the Fed, who observed that:
Taxpayers ultimately have to bail out these 'too big to fail' banks. And that's what JPMorgan is - it is too big to fail.Given that these banks are structurally integral to the US and global economies, this is probably true. But there is nothing in the need to protect the integrity of the banking and economic systems that obliges us to let the likes of Mr Dimon and the many colleagues who were also party to this and previous disasters continue running our major economic institutions. Or the shareholders to own it, for that matter - they are supposed to carry the can when the bank fails. We just need the institution, its employees and its deposits and contracts.
Way to go, Jamie, as they say on your side of the Pond. And the way to go is - out. Bye...
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Any rational economics would be about how economic activity plays a part in the wider social system. Modern economics is doubly divorced from that. Firstly, it treats economics as an abstraction from social life, as though it could be judged solely on its own terms. And within that, economic activity is presented as revolving around money, rather than money being kept in its proper place as a means to our real social (or even economic) ends. Even if we accept the former abstraction, within economics itself one would expect the making, distribution, exchange and consumption of goods and services to predominate - that is after all how people actually live - but we have succeeded in making all that secondary to the circulation and augmentation of money itself.
This peculiar displacement and inversion that places money first and last - the perspective of the miser, that most wretched of human beings, who is, as someone-or-other once said, as much in need of what he has as of what he has not - is not the fault of economists, of course. Or at least they are no more than ghost-writers to the real culprit. This is after all a perfectly valid description of an advanced capitalist society, in which finance capital (and its unacknowledged bastard-and-then-master, fictional capital) has deposed real goods and services from the pinnacle of profitability to such as extent that the classic model of capitalist economic activity in which money is augmented through the creation and sale of goods and services - summarised by that nice Dr Marx as M-C-M1 - has started to run an increasingly poor second to the more direct creation of money through speculation, the creation of fictional capital and all the rest - M-M1.
It’s a distasteful state of affairs and creates the impression that economics has fallen into a sort of fantastic black hole, from which the introversion into which it has fallen ensures that it cannot escape. But even from the most radical point of view we can't just switch economics off. The economy is after all where we create all the means to our various ends, our economy is a capitalist economy, and so we must at least try to understand capitalism's view of itself. On the other hand, surely we are capable of constructing an economics that starts and ends with people, and so with goods and services. (Even this ignores the deeper significance of economic activity, of course - the way the very process of participating in economic activity shapes the way we experience existence, and the way we define what is real and what is not, what is normal and natural, what is right, wrong and indifferent. But at least it would wrench us away from this hypnotic fantasy that money must rule.)
An example of what I mean. In economic theory money is rightly assigned many functions. It is a store of value: people can use it to hold their savings. It is a medium of exchange, enabling us to buy and sell without having to wait for someone possessing exactly what we want and wanting exactly what we have. As an instrument for expressing the value (or at least the price) of goods and services, it’s a unit of account. Finally (as the list usually goes), money provides a standard of deferred payment (which is one important reason why we are always so concerned about inflation).
So far so ordinary. But since the creation of money by means of speculation, manipulation and downright fraud has come more to the fore (and nothing in recent economic policy has reversed this), this has made another, perhaps previously too obvious function of money more visible. For money is also a claim on goods and services. In a market that responds only to money, anyone with money has a right (or at least an access that will only be challenged in exceptional circumstances) to the goods and services created by society as a whole. As a result, those who specialise in creating money can corner a correspondingly volume goods and services (i.e., get rich) even though they create none themselves. Of course, financial activity does have its value - not only managing the supply and circulation of money and directing investment (though still conceived of in narrowly financial rather than social terms) but also rationalising and smoothing various aspects of markets themselves. But once financialisation gets out of hand and the generation of money through bubbles, absurd risk and outright crime starts to predominate over real economic activity - the creation of goods and services -then the financial sector starts to achieve stupid levels of wealth (i.e., a huge proportion of the money in circulation) even though it is adding very little of social value. On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, once finance capital starts to predominate, bubbles, speculation, crashes and monopolisation are inevitable - yet 'investment' banks, hedge funds and the rest are left in greater control over the real economy than ever.
Hence the significance of money's function as a claim to goods and service. It allows an otherwise parasitical class of financial specialists to distort and undermine the socially valuable part of the economy, not only making them richer and richer even though they produce very little of value themselves, but by this very process strengthening their position in the economy - and so society and politics - as a whole.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Well, if the Chinese government was under the impression that creating a wealthy capitalist class would serve the future of China, I hope they have noted that 'Close to two-thirds (60%) of wealthy Chinese with assets of RMB 10m ($1.53m) or more are either considering emigration through investment overseas or have already done so (China Merchants Bank/Bain & Co). Further, the tendency to move abroad moves in line with wealth levels meaning the wealthiest group are the most inclined to emigrate. Of those with assets of more than RMB 100m for example, close to half (47%) are considering leaving while almost one-third (27%) have done so already' (Ledbury Research's High Net Worth, July/August 2011). Perhaps that's why, as Reuters reports, they are cutting taxes on luxury items.
Speaking of hedge fund-based donors, the July/August 2011 edition of Ledbury Research's High Net Worth reports that 'Overall philanthropy levels in the US were negatively impacted by the financial crisis and last year the total amount donated by the top 50 donors fell to the lowest levels since 2000'. In other words, just when things are at their worst, philanthropy dries up. But equally absurd, there is a strong correlation between philanthropy and hedge fund bonuses. In other words, the level of generosity is directly tied to one of the most pernicious features of the economic system!