Skip to Content

Make the Choice: Wall Street or Society

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version

 

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

The liberal reformers are once again talking about tinkering with Wall Street’s economic and political stranglehold on society. “The reformist debate accepts the inevitability of private capital as the engine of economic – and, therefore, social – development.” The truth is, Wall Street needs derivatives to generate the “windfalls and mega-scores to keep the decaying system going.” But, does society need Wall Street? Hell no!

 

Make the Choice: Wall Street or Society

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

Together, the top rung of ‘too big to fail’ institutions accounts for 56 percent of the U.S. economy.”

Left-liberals are in a huff, demanding another shot at reforming finance capital, perhaps through “breaking up” the five (or maybe, 20) biggest banks. They might as well prescribe a regimen of behavioral modification to fight Stage IV cancer.

The rehash of reformist debate is occasioned by news that JP Morgan Chase, the nation’s biggest bank, lost at least $2 billion betting in the derivatives casinos. President Obama feigns shock at the very idea that an institution with derivatives “exposures” of $70 trillion – larger than the gross planetary product of Earth! – has been caught, heaven forbid, “making bets in these derivative markets.” Since Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is, in Obama’s estimation, “one of the smartest bankers we got,” who knows what the less intelligent honchos at the other behemoth banks might be up to? Together, the top rung of “too big to fail” institutions accounts for 56 percent of the U.S. economy: $8.5 trillion in assets, last year, out of a GDP of about $15 trillion. Throw in the rest of the top 20 banks, all of which are “unsafe and unsound,” according to economics law professor William K. Black, of the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and the great bulk of the U.S. economy is in “unsafe and unsound” hands. These same hands politically control the State, to protect and further facilitate their “unsafe and unsound” practices.

The great bulk of the U.S. economy is in ‘unsafe and unsound’ hands.”

Does “breaking up the banks” solve the problem? No, not unless the whole class of gamblers and thieves is removed from centrality in the national and world economy – and, thereby, the political process – and their derivatives abolished. But, don’t tell that to Katrina vanden Heuvel, publisher of The Nation. In the magazine’s current issue, she swears by Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown’s bill to cap the size of individual banks at 10 percent of “the market” and stop them from “racking up non-deposit liabilities of more than 2 percent of the GDP.” Others, like Rolling Stone’s Mike Taibbi, would allow the bankers to continue to bet, but not with depositors’ funds or “free” money from the Federal Reserve discount window.

Here is the historical truth: at this late stage of capitalism, the financial class desperately needs to gamble on derivatives and manipulate markets on a huge scale in order to survive. The old, tried and true law of diminishing returns on investment, combined with the global rise of economic powers beyond their ability to control, caught up with the Lords of Capital some decades ago. Wall Street invented derivatives so that the big boys, the only ones equipped to play – and, therefore, rig – trillion-dollar games, could generate sufficient windfalls and mega-scores to keep the decaying system going. “Productive” investment – the kind that creates good jobs in mature capitalist societies – no longer sufficed to keep Wall Street’s speculative pumps primed.

Take away their ability to craft exotic mega-wagers, create “markets” and “bubbles” out of “notional” capital, and to organize vast waves of leveraged funds, protected by law and/or the armed might of the U.S. and its imperial partners, and finance capital ceases to function. Which would be a very good thing, if societies put in place public investment institutions capable on their own of financing growth and structural renewal. But that requires the displacement – the overthrow – of private capital from the “commanding heights” of the economy and national polity.

“’Productive’ investment – the kind that creates good jobs in mature capitalist societies – no longer sufficed to keep Wall Street’s speculative pumps primed.”

Otherwise, there is no choice but patchwork reforms that hardly slow, and may even accelerate, the consolidation of Wall Street's power – such as has occurred since the meltdown of 2008. Political power does not flow from the barrel of a gun; it flows from control of the economy, which buys State Power and the guns that go with it.

This is the lesson that movements such as Occupy Wall Street must learn, or be ultimately waylaid and demoralized. You cannot “regulate” the behavior of Tyrannosaurus Rex while he still has the size and teeth to kill you at will. The T-Rex, here, is a class that, even if chopped into many Velociraptors, will still dominate the societal jungle if they are not removed from dominion over the economy.

The reformist debate accepts the inevitability of private capital as the engine of economic – and, therefore, social – development. It seeks to hem in the T-Rex with fences of string or transform the beast into lots of vicious, smaller killers, without removing them as a class from the top of the food chain, and replacing them with public capital to create jobs and a better society. In the end, such tinkering reforms require the T-Rex’s permission to be enacted, resulting in diversionary drivel like the Dodd-Frank bill, which did nothing to slow down JP Morgan Chase and its fellows.

In point of fact, derivatives are now estimated at $600 trillion, world-wide, most of them held by the five biggest U.S. financial institutions. (This figure does not count the unknown number and notional value of wholly unregulated credit “swaps” between corporations.)

Hedge funds should be allowed to continue to engage in grand speculation, say the left-liberals – as if massed, purely speculative capital is not horrifically destructive. Ask the Europeans, whose nation-states are being mauled by hedge funds and savaged by derivatives, mutations of a decaying and predatory class that clings to life through pure speculation, producing nothing but chaos.

The enemy has been named: Wall Street. It must be destroyed and replaced by public (people’s) power. That’s the politically sophisticated solution – and the only one.

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.

Share this

Comments

TED Censors Entrepreneur Hanauer's Debunking Rich Job Maker Myth

 

Non-profit group TED- a self-styled 'champion' of "ideas worth spreading"- censored Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer's 'Frank Talk' debunking the mythology of rich Wall St Banksters & corporate elites as so-called 'Job-Creators',  because TED deemed it 'too partisan'. 

}NOTE: It was at a TED talk that Bill Gates made the curious comment where he seemed to link vaccines to poplulation control in Africa & the so-called 3rd World. Another TED talk featured a guy who pushed the dubious yet 'official_mainstream' theory that AIDS orginated in Africa based on the alleged 'Bush- Meat_Cut Hunter' theory- [Note: The first AIDS case dates to circa 1959. Yet various people in Africa have been hunting & eating bush-meat for centuries. So if the 'Bush-meat_Cut-hunter' thoery is valid, why didn't African slaves, shipped to the 'New World' by the Tens of Millions for 400yrs, bring AIDS to the Americas 2 - 3 centuries ago??]. - These are the kind of ideas which TED feels are worth spreading.{

Back to the Nick Hanauer's censored talk- Some excerpts:

} 'It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and its policies. Consider this one. If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.  

This idea is an article of faith for Republicans and seldom challenged by Democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape [this is the statement which TED claimed was 'too partisan' ].

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs would have evaporated.

That's why I say with that rich people don't create jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist like me. When business-people take credit for creating jobs, it's a little like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a capitalist's act of last resort, something we do only when increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates benefit the richest, all in the name of [the ploy of] job creation, all that happens is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980, the share of income for the richest Americans has more than tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.  If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is wrong is that there can never be enough super-rich Americans to power a great economy. The annual earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds or thousands of times more stuff...

Rich people can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or declining wages.  

Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would the economy be if that were the case? We've had it backward for the last 30 years. ' {

SPREAD THE TRUTH

Thanks for this information. I've expressed similar opinions and reservations about the American consensus that the only people who drive the economy are the rich, and that, in order for the economy as a whole to operate, all social, economic, and political policies must be tailored to cater to their interests. Far too many so-called liberals and progressives accept this simplistic and reactionary premise of how markets work without even challenging it on a basic common sense or logical level, let alone a moral one. I hope that you are sharing this source with as many people as possible.

I doubt that I am the only one who is confused by econ...

I doubt that I am the only one confused by the economic talk, no doubt deliberately obfuscated in the corporate media - but I can understand that we, the public, are being robbed and I hope to learn from Glen Ford.

(I'm back.  My rebuilt ancient machine died - in computer years it was as old mas me, like in "dog years". So I have to learn new cheap machine, while I still can pay for connection...)             

UNDERSTANDING ECONOMICS

There is no economy without either workers to produce the products or consumers with a desire to purchase the completed goods. If no one spends, no one gets wealthy. Old school reactionaries (Americans) like to prioritize the role of the rich as if their wealth simply evolves out of nothing. New school reactionaries tend to prioritize the role of thinkers and genuises and their ideas, as if an iPad or a supertanker is capable of becoming anything more than a great idea without either the raw materials which make up an iPad or a supertanker or the workers and their work which shaped and transformed the raw materials into useful or at least desirable things.



Dr. Radut | blog