One Rule for the Rich?

My suspicions were aroused when the credit-rating agencies started criticising the capital holdings of the Co-operative Bank. After all, any bank is effectively bankrupt at all times, so pointing the finger of accusation just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I put my suspicions down to paranoia, but now that the BBC's Robert Peston is starting to make similar noises about the Nationwide I am beginning to wonder whether I wasn't suspicious enough.

As Peston notes, the response by many to the disasters and calumnies of the banking corporates has been to look in the direction of mutual ownership. I have called for the Royal Bank of Scotland, rather than being sold back to shareholders, to be broken up into a system of local community banks, owned by those in the local economy who would uses their services, and with boards made up of local businesspeople, councillors, and citizens. Green MP Caroline Lucas made a similar point during her intervention in the banking debate earlier this week.

The logic is clear: if we, the public, provide the guarantee that allows the banking system to have credibility while operating in a state of permanent insolvency then we should have control over how it directs credit and should also see the profits from banking invested for public benefit not private gain. The redistributive effects of such a shift would be massive, which may be why the commentators are now portraying mutual financial institutions as unreliable.

Yesterday's suggestion from credit-rating agency Moody's that the situation is improving for the commercial banks is the final piece in the puzzle. Since the problem for both the Co-operative Bank and the high street banks is that they are holding commercial property assets that have massively lost value since the crisis, it simply cannot be right to say that their credit ratings are moving in opposite directions, at least not if you take this as an independent indication of financial health, rather than a piece of political propaganda. The rules set by the Basel Committee as to what counts as a reliable form of capital are similarly prejudicial to the interests of building societies, whose assets really are safe as houses and far less subject to risk than the complex financial instruments counted as assets by the banks. Nationwide boss Graham Beale made a similar point in an interview with the FT recently.

The inconsistency with which mutual and shareholder-owned financial institutions are being treated by financial commentators leads to an unsavoury conclusion. Could it be that, having used austeria to attack public services and the working conditions of those employed throughout the economy, the defenders of capital are now using it to destroy the vestiges of the co-operative and mutual economy?
. Tweet

Follow the money

Any intelligent observer who was paying attention must have learned since 2008 that the money system is the trick that facilitates the control of the global economy in the interests of a tiny but powerful minority. So when any proposals are made to change the way that money-banking system works we should pay great attention.

On Tuesday Mervyn King, the Governer of the Bank of England and therefore the man responsible for both banking in the UK, monetary policy and the pound sterling itself, gave a speech in New York (aka Capitalism Inc. HQ) where he said explicitly that 'Of all the many ways of organising banking, the worst is the one we have today.' (Full text available here.) This is the clearest indication yet that capitalism is in the course of a major adaptation: the key to who will gain and who will lose will be in the design of the money system that will emerge.

King's central point in terms of critique seems to be similar to that made by my good friend Mary Mellor in her book The Future of Money, namely that it is simply unfair that a system so unstable as that of fractional reserve banking should be guaranteed by the public so that, in the now familiar cliche, the losses are socialised while the profits are privatised.

According to Robert Peston's summary of the speech, King argued that the hastily agreed Basel III accords are insufficient guarantee for publics who still stand behind their banks. For those do not spend their time watching the pin-stripes, Basel is the place where international bankers go to decide amongst themselves what is the least they can agree to tinker with their business model to keep the world's politicians happy (again: note the location).

What Mervyn King was arguing for, in the heart of the banking beast, was the abolition of banking as we know it. He proposed two alternative models. The first is already the subject of wide debate and would require a complete separation of retail and investment banking. The second is more interesting and known as 'limited purpose banking'. It works on the insurance model inherent within mutual approaches to finance and, as far as I can understand, leads to a situation where we really are ‘all in it together’, since the risks between capital and personal investments are pooled, with businesses and households sharing risks, but within different kinds of 'banks', operating with different degrees of risk.

Mervyn King places his hope in the Independent Commission on Banking, whose members are all well-steeped in the capitalist money and banking system, and are sure to recommend an adaptation that does nothing to change the status quo in terms of the sharing of economic power within global capital. Perhaps it is time to launch our own People's Commission on Banking in response. This could propose that the creation of money should be in the public, not the private sector, thus solving all King's problems at a stroke. I propose Mary Mellor for Chair. Tweet

Laughing all the way . . .

So the banks are in profit again, and this is apparently a cause for celebration. The number of questions being begged by the mainstream media mounts by the day. Robert Peston, our most promising hope as a curious voice, limits his comments to an arm-waving complaint about the banks' failure to lend in sufficient quantities to small business, a complaint they bat away with tired lies about low levels of demand. Politicans have failed to enforce strict new capital requirements, indicating that banks are still more powerful than our political representatives. And the profits are a clear indication that the money being made at the public expense is being spent on both bonuses and shareholder dividends, and not to rebuild capital reserves.

We are living through a time when history is being rewritten. The Tory line is that Labour has mismanaged the economy leading to a fiscal crisis, a socialist tradition they enjoy drawing attention to. This is a Big Lie to conceal the reality that we have barely survived a monetary crisis that is a periodic symptom of a capitalist economy system.

Let's ask a few of the questions that the pundits are ignoring. The first is: where do the profits come from? This is a difficult one to pin down, for the very reason that the banks' international venture-capital operations are mixed up with their domestic banking operations so we cannot easily see where the profits are being made. However, the wider distance between Bank of England base-rate (which has been at half a per cent for 18 months) and bank interest rates indicates that much of the profit is coming from the people they lend to. Another source of public subsidy to the banking industry and small cause for celebration.

The media line that we should greet news of a return to profitability by the banks with unbounded joy since belong to us and so their profits are our profits also seems disingenuous at best. The debts we incurred by rescuing the banking system in its entirety two years ago are on the public balance-sheet and the cause of the massive public-sector deficits and consequent cuts. The odd billion here and there that may come into the public finances via the bank levy seems a small compensation. Tweet