Monbiot on the Money

As regular readers will know, I do not always see eye-to-eye with George but here I think he is spot on. This is just one symptom of the adaptation of capitalism in the wake of financial crisis and with the prospect of environmental and energy crises. Our actions and discussions should be informed by a sense of this historical moment, rather than undermined by the attempts to create chaos and fear that Monbiot identifies:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2010/10/18/britains-shock-doctrine/#more-1291 Tweet

Limiting Educational Aspiration

The blizzard of policy announcements since May has been quite bewildering. Journalists and academics are reeling at the pace of change, and much of what is being proposed seems both illogical and inconsistent. In my own area, that of higher education, the aim of the policy seems fairly clearly: to reduce the number of young people going to university. Raising fees from £3,000 to £7,000 or more is not a funding measure but a rationing measure.

The Telegraph headline may read 'too many middle-class students at university' but is not very informative until we have a clear idea of what 'middle class' means. As the cuts proceed it appears to be the very concept of 'middle class' that is being squeezed. Perhaps we could have a more informed debate if the sociologists who used to explain to use what class meant had not all been removed from their posts during the 1980s Thatcherite purges.

Clegg argues that tuition fees led to an unfair system of admissions; the Lib Dems graduate tax would ensure social mobility. The actual policy has focused on cutting costs, so the 'too many students' part stuck but the graduate tax was lost. Two posts in a row citing Clegg unfavourably might be considered unfair, but he has foolishly allowed himself to be the fall-guy for the coalition's policies. It's a small step from 'too many middle class students' to 'too many students', and naive Nick has done the Tories dirty work for them.

For those who missed the announcement because they were looking down a Chilean mine, and to those whose minds cannot accept it and are still asking 'eight-teen per cent?', let me repeat here that the policy proposed by the erudite Lord Browne is that the teaching grant should be cut by 80%. In future the government will only subsidise medicine, science, engineering and modern languages degrees. The sorts of courses we need our thrusting businesspeople to be equipped with, which is unsurprising given that Browne and Cable (who will implement this policy on behalf of the coalition) are both veterans of the corporate oil industry.

The savings that will result from this reduction in funding a civilised society is £3.5bn. In comparison with the size of the bailout this seems like a drop in the ocean. Corporate pressure has already diminished the standards of education in our universities; this will convert them into external training departments for the globalised business elite. As well-qualified young people who choose to enter employment rather than university displace their less well-qualified contemporaries unemployment rates are sure to rise, bolstered by the cohorts of university teachers whose skills will no longer be required. The savings will be cancelled out but this does not mean the policy is misguided, since its aim was always political rather than economic.

The Browne Review promised to ask searching questions about what our universities are for, but none of the most important questions were considered. How might our cleverest citizens prepare society for the transition to a low-carbon economy? How do we balance the interests of business and citizens in determining curricula? How might universities be models of transition institutions, rather than following an export-led growth model of education?

These questions were not asked because Lord Browne already knew the answer to his own question. Our professors are required to work in the service of business and to prepare a new generation of serfs to do likewise. Critical thinking is off the menu: the new paradigm will be developed elsewhere. Tweet

Mortgaging our future; stealing our assets

Financial engineering is a phrase that has become part of our normal vocabulary when thinking about the 2008 crash and its aftermath. Like genetic engineering, which implies that the botchery of implanting crocus genes into rice is akin to building the Clifton Suspension Bridge, the phrase is unduly respectful towards the City whizz-kids. Financial fraud is obviously closer to the truth.

It is worrying, therefore, that so many of the cabinet have a background in the financial world and owe their exalted status to its riches. And more worrying that the techniques they learned there are creeping into policy-making at local and national levels. The offending item of policy is what is being called 'tax increment financing' - a piece of misleading spin typical of the 'financial engineers' who brought us credit-default swaps and leverage.

At the Lib Dem conference Clegg claimed that tax increment financing was ‘the first step to breathing life back into our greatest cities’. It is hard to see how shifting debt from central to local government is breathing life. At a time where debts are in the process of destroying what we have come to think of as civilisation it seems more like the kiss of death.

The theory is that public infrastructure can be funded through borrowing, which will be repaid as a result of extra taxes that will be generated because this infrastructure, say a road, will encourage the development of more property, say another supermarket. This is using financial engineering to engineer economic growth and forcing the pace of development. It is also putting local taxpayers at the mercy of developers, since infrastructure (like roads) that would serve their interests will find funding, whereas infrastructure that will not (say, a care home for elderly people) will not.

The word from the Treasury is that tax increment financing would operate within a ‘carefully designed framework of rules, which the Government will work closely with local authorities to design’. The nature of liabilities and the assignment of collateral will be key here. Depending on what the detail says, this could be a way of allowing developers and financiers to take control of local infrastructure and the most important local asset: land. Tweet

Chinese Check Us

For a while now it has been obvious that China is the dominant global power, and that it has accumulated, by a combination of skilful strategem and sheer hard work, the power to pull the plug on the US economy at any moment. It is almost exactly a year since Hilary Clinton's humiliating visit to Washington, when she almost begged the Chinese not to do this. When we hear that China is now offering to also buy the Greek debt – for which we might read by the Greek economy, given the way things stand in that country just now – it raises intriguing questions about why China became a 'state capitalist' country in the first place.

The use of that phrase implies that China is following the rules of the same economic game, perhaps with different motives. It is clear that China has understood the money-work nexus that lies at the heart of the capitalist game but there seems no reason to assume that they have any respect for the game itself. They have responded to its rules by keeping a rigid control over their own currency (a fact much bemoaned in Washington and the pages of The Economist alike), and working extraordinarily hard to displace the need for most of the other labour in the global marketplace.

Meanwhile the the shift in the designation of the Chinese currency away from the yuan (as it was traditionally called) to the renminbi (or people's currency) implies a shift from a domestic to a global currency. In much the same way that China accumulated pieces of eight that the Spanish had minted in their new world colonies, it is now accumulating hoards of US paper. Although the renminbi is surely the most powerful currency in the world today, it is not held as reserves by foreign governments. So long as China is prepared to buy US debt and use it as a trading currency then the dollar is secure. Once it decides its economy can grow on the basis of domestic consumption alone it could easily just walk away, leaving the dollar to crash.

In conclusion we can see that China is winning the work game and is also winning the money game. So far China has used this power to gain access to the world's rapidly diminishing resources, especially by striking deals in Africa that are far more favourable than those that Western nations have offered. Compared to our primitive and short-term economic thinking, the Chinese appear to be demonstrating a master play: as they have adopted our industrial methods and excelled us in their use, so they are playing the economic game we invented better than we are.

On a more conspiratorial note, what are we to make of the inscrutable Mr Li who, according to John Lanchester's book Whoops! was instrumental in creating the algorithm that lies behind explosion of collateralised debt obligations that led US traders to destroy the global financial system:

'Li had been sent to North America on a government scholarship in the late 1990s to learn about capitalism. . . In 2000, while working at J.P.Morgan, Li managed to apply a piece of mathematics called a Gaussian copula function to the creation of CDOs' (p. 97) His paper, published in the Journal of Fixed Income, was attractively titled 'On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach'. It offered a way to model how different types of stocks move up or down in value together. This enabled the financiers to reduce the risks associated with mortgage-backed CDOs to a single number and the trade took off.

To imagine Mr Li on a mission for the Chinese government is too appealing to be true, but one way or the other it seems that the 'state capitalist' power has out-manoeuvred the 'market capitalist' power and we are all just waiting to see when they will assert their authority. Tweet

Gwlad Golff

I consider myself a Welsh patriot. I have been watching Wales play rugby since I was 7 or 8, I once used the word hiraeth in an academic paper, and I would live in Wales now if it were not for the fact that the more rampant nationalists made me feel that I had to apologise every morning for my English father. I am beginning like this lest you think that what follows is an example of the tired English chauvinism towards the Welsh that has offended me all my life.

On this day when the world's attention leaves Newport for another 400 years or so I have to ask: what is Wales doing hosting the Ryder Cup? Golf is not a sport: it is a statement of corporate intent. Golf is a game indulged in by men in suits who rarely have another opportunity to walk on grass. That it attracts spectators is as inconceivable to me as that there are hordes of crowds at the world paint-drying championships.

Thomas Friedman, author of the best-selling tribute to globalisation The World is Flat lists his ability to play golf in Bangalore as a demonstration of the equalising power of corporate capitalism. Here is how he starts that world-beating book:

'No one ever gave me directions like this on a golf course before: "Aim at either Microsoft or IBM". I was standing on the first tee at the KGA Gold Club in downtown Bangalore, in southern India, when my playing partner pointed at two shiny glass-and-steel buildings off in the distance, just behind the first green. The Goldman Sachs building wasn’t done yet; otherwise he could have pointed that out as well and made it a threesome. HP and Texas Instruments had their offices on the back nine, along the tenth hole.'

You do not need to be very much in touch with your local environment to realise that a game devised in windy, rainy Scotland does not transplant well to Bangalore, and consequently the water demand associated with golf's tracking of the movements of corporate executives has disastrous environmental consequences. In Dubai, apparently, they play golf on sand instead.

The word on the street is that ticket sales for the Ryder Cup at Celtic Manor were poor – even before nature decided to take a hand and send two of the rainiest days we have seen for months. (And before you amuse yourselves at the expense of the Welsh weather, just pause to think how long it will be before you will be grateful for – and paying for – the liquid stuff we have in such abundance.) I am genuinely not pleased about this, in spite of my squirming amusement at the desperate attempts to market Newport as a world city of culture and the hideous waste of resources spent prostituting ourselves to the global executive class.

What has always distressed me most about Wales is it inferiority complex. We have one of the most naturally beautiful countries in the world, with all the resources necessary to thrive in a bioregional future. Energy resources abound, population is sparse and the soil rich. And what about the likes of Dylan Thomas and Tom Jones: laughter, music and a depth of talent in poetry and spirituality could ensure a deeply fulfilling life. If only the Welsh economic planners would stop trailing along after the US management consultant's last-but-one bright idea. Tweet

Irish Tribe Buck the Markets

It seems that finally, a developed country has reached the point of saying ‘enough is enough’. Enough of transferring bank losses onto public balance sheets and destroying the public services that a civilised society requires. Enough of allowing the financial sector to create fictitious wealth at our expense. That country is Ireland and the outburst of discontent with the hegemony of the financial markets is emerging from the main opposition party Fine Gael.

Fine Gael Spokesperson on Enterprise, Trade & Employment, Leo Varadkar TD argues the banks took on the risky loans so it should be the shareholders who take the consequences, not the taxpayer. Under the party's so-called Good Bank policy, the National Assets Management Agency 'will pay the banks up to €54 billion for €77 billion of property loans. If the losses on these loans turn out to be very large, as many experts predict, our proposals could save the taxpayer up to €15 billion.' Given the much greater size of the UK banking sector, if we had adopted a similar policy it could have reduced the money paid to banks by a sum similar to this year's public sector borrowing requirement.

Refusing to respond to the shotgun demands of the banks that they receive their next fix of capital at the public expense is a bold but inevitable strategy in a country whose public borrowing is now ten times the size it is permitted by Eurozone rules and which has been on the verge of banktruptcy for at least a year. So much for bank debt, but what of the state? When the governments of Latin America got their people into excessive debt in the 1980s eventually they reached a point of refusal. The result was that the debts were ‘rescheduled’—either extended over a longer term or reduced so that credits got a proportion of their original loans back. Similarly, following Argentina's financial collapse in 2001, a solution was eventually negotiated where creditors received only 70% of their original loans.

In the case of Irish national debt, Fine Gael has been very careful to make the distinction between the debts of banks that are based in Ireland, and therefore backed up by the Irish government, and the debt that the government itself has taken on in the name of the Irish people to pay for its services. This was predictable, since Varadkar knows that the government will be turning to the market to sell more debt and its credibility must be maintained.

The UK government has taken a different tack through its Quantitative Easing policy. This has enabled it to wipe out chunks of our national debt on the sly. Money is created from thin air inside the bank of England and then used to buy bank national debt from the financial organisations who hold it. My assumption is that, since all such debt is time limited, it will quietly decay inside the bank's 'vaults' until it reaches its sell-by debt and goes to 'bank heaven' or perhaps--to keep my metaphor consistent--the rotten-money skip round the outside the back door of the bank. The banks are happy, since they now have 'real' capital that they can use to fill the black hole on their balance-sheets; the government is happy because its debt-to-GDP ratio looks more respectable than otherwise. We should be happy since this is less debt for our children to pay back.

Two questions remain: why are we not negotiating with our banks and their shareholders over how much of their fictitious wealth we agree to take responsibility for; and why should we not use the Quantitative Easing policy more creatively instead of seeing our public services decimated? Tweet

Time to Relaunch the Love Crusade

If you caught Lovely Ed's acceptance speech you will notice that he isn't afraid to use the word 'love'. We greens were onto this way ahead of you, Ed, having launched our own political love crusade some 20 years ago now. The reason why this works so well for us is illustrated by a two-dimensional graph of where the UK parties stand that you can find on the political compass website.

Of course we greens prefer to inhabit multi-dimensional space and live in a constant awareness of the whole system (man), but even two dimensions is better than one, and when we first discussed this in the regional council strategy group some 20 years ago we thought of the east-west axis as being about justice and the north-south axis as being about love vs. fear.

If you see it this way you reach some interesting conclusions. First, it doesn't appear to be possible to be loving and not concerned about social justice - hence the empty space in the lower right quadrant. But perhaps more importantly, we concluded, the way to gain more members for our party was to love them into submission. We need to bring them down across the horizontal line with an excess of free-flowing affection.

At that point, as I recall, Labour found itself well into the upper left quadrant, but I suppose that by now most of the members that kept them there have already left and joined us, or one of the other parties that is in the upper left quadrant. The love crusade was not a great success, but as a political strategy it was more fun than marching for jobs or fighting cuts. Perhaps we should revitalise it before Ed becomes the housewife's choice and takes up all the love space himself. I can't see that message going down well with the unionists who put him into power, but it could be fun to watch. Tweet