Steve Richards's take on the subject I must say, there's little I disagree with

Steve Richards's take on the subject I must say, there's little I disagree with

cod'ead wrote:Steve Richards's take on the subject I must say, there's little I disagree with He has a good comparison there. Thatcher smashed the miners because she thought they were too powerful. Who will bring the bankers to heel?

cod'ead wrote:Steve Richards's take on the subject I must say, there's little I disagree with He has a good comparison there. Thatcher smashed the miners because she thought they were too powerful. Who will bring the bankers to heel?

There is no one man who can do to the banks what Thatcher did to the miners. Notions of the nation state, flag waving patriotism and self-determination are now hopelessly quaint. We now have a global government - and it isn't the UN. These people operate almost completely outside of any national jurisdiction (with the possible exception of the US), wield enormous power and are completely opposed to the principles of democracy. If they have their way we'll be living under fascist rule - the perfect wedding of the interests of the state and the interests of the capitalist class - where the unions are smashed, regulations (H&S, human rights, environmental law, the minimum wage etc.) are obliterated and the media is compliant.

"Notions of the nation state, flag waving patriotism and self-determination are now hopelessly quaint."
I agree, up to a point.
The points you make are all further reasons why I am in favour of a Federal Europe. (yes, I'm banging that drum again)
Only by nation states banding together can Global business be kept on a leash.

I agree but that would also depend on how deeply entrenched global business was, in the powerhouses of individual states. We already have two member states effectively being run by unelected, ex-Goldman Sachs technocrats. Who knows how deeply their influence runs in the others?

It would not take many to agree to bring about change: the EU, UK (if we insist on not being part of the EU), US, China and Australia. Possibly include Russia just so it don't feel left out

Except for UK and Australia, the rest of your list have enough individual clout on their own, if they wanted to use it.
There can't be many global companies who would relish the idea of losing, say, the EU or the US as an area into which to sell.
They would have to toe the line stated by that entity (e.g. virtually the whole of the Western world adopted the standards that the US rushed through after the Enron/Anderson scandal).

Well the bankers ensuring their remuneration stays high, and the share price recovering are two different things.

It's an idea - but I can't help feeling it is a solution we should have turned to 10-20 years ago (the time when Thatcher, Clinton, Major, Bush Snr. etc were busy make it easy for businesses to organise transnationally - not to mention signing away rights that were hard won in the first place) . Big business, the "corporatocracy" - call it what you will - has since loaded the game to such an extent that it can now summon and bring to bear a vast array of political, economic and social weapons that make it almost impossible to resist.

Capital flight is one obvious method of blackmail and it is arguably the most potent (certainly against poorer nations such as those in Africa). Britain decides to, say, introduce a Tobin Tax and take a slice out of individual transactions and suddenly the FT is awash with rumours about large sums of money being withdrawn from the country.

I agree that organisation is the key. But even around the turn of the century when your average worker was far more engaged with labour rights it still wasn't easy for the first guy to say no when the police and hired thugs were waving blackjacks and pistols under your nose.

Yes but Russia had this problem with the oligarchs and Putin dealt with them.

In Yelstin's time the oligarchs had got rich off the fall of the Soviet Union and used their wealth and influence to dictate government policy, and evaded taxes at will. In Putin's early days he tried to pass a bill raising taxes to close Russia's budget deficit and the oil bosses bought off enough MPs to block his bill going through the Duma. Unfortunately for them Putin's background is in the KGB and he knew the oligarchs were bent as anything and just got the security services on the case to gather evidence to put before the state prosecutor and bang the ones he didn't want were in jail.

I would not give up on the power of the state just yet, it needs someone strong enough to enforce it and use the intelligence and security services to take on the bankers. Mrs Thatcher used them against the miners.

The bankers are now the enemy within. If I was the PM every big fish banker would have it made clear to them that the security services were going through every bit of their life and their past and if they ever do, or have ever done, one small thing that contravened the law or evaded 1p of tax, the full force of the law will come down on them. If they ever do anything that would be of interest to the tabloid press, the tabloids will hear about it from the intelligence services.

The Russian oligarchs form only a small subset of a far more powerful, influential and potentially dangerous group of trans-national corporate interests (many of whom are responsible for cycling half the US GDP through global markets daily) that has become remarkably adept at neutering socially conscious governments, politically aware electorates as well as legislation that in any way attempts to restrict the torrent of money flooding into collective coffers. It's a complex, dynamic and often uneasy alliance of disparate entities, divided loyalties and conflicting interests sharing a mutual and overriding precept that the only people that can be trusted less than themselves are the people. Self-determination is bad for business.

I give credit to Putin for taking down Berezovsky, Malkin, Khodorkovsky and the rest of the robber barons. But there's just no comparison with the task we are currently facing. Real power doesn't need to break the law to make money because it writes the law. I mean, spend some time looking into the mechanics of the WTO, "investor rights" and "national treatment" if you want to understand how power games the system in its favour.