Banks Too Big To Fail, Governments Too Small To Succeed - Is Big Society the Answer?
73Bank of England
 | Amazon Price: $7.16 List Price: $14.95 |
 | Amazon Price: $6.88 List Price: $16.00 |
 | Amazon Price: $5.99 |
 | Amazon Price: $11.50 List Price: $16.99 |
![Fuck You (ST Remix) - Single [Explicit]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T-6Q%2BJTdL._SL75_.jpg) | Amazon Price: $0.89 |
I recommend Paul Foot's book - The Vote: How it Was Won and How it Was Undermined. Amazon have the price on this site quite high (above the list price) for some reason. But if you Google around I expect you'll get a better price; it's worth the effort. (See below.)
Paul Foot - The Vote: How It Was Won and How It Was Undermined
 | Amazon Price: $79.69 |
Is Big Society the answer?
See results without votingThe Governor of The Bank of England Mervyn King said in a Daily Telegraph interview recently that, "We've not yet solved the 'too big to fail' or, as I prefer to call it, the 'too important to fail' problem".
Yeah right Mervyn let’s get the semantics right. At least if we do that we’ll appear to be doing something.
Then, he said, "The concept of being too important to fail should have no place in a market economy." A ten year old could've told us that.
Mind you, it is refreshing to hear someone from the banking establishment admit such a thing. Although, what we really need now is action.
Anyway, I saw a woman on TV on Friday talking about domestic abuse. I can't find it on the BBC website now, but that doesn't matter because it was about the cutbacks; we all know about them. They're closing down all the shelters where domestically abused people can go to find safety.
So then, last week we found that we, as a society, are no longer able to afford places where people can go to find refuge from violence.
In 2010, in the UK, we witnessed our politicians scrabbling around trying to cobble together a coalition government, under great duress. They had to sort it out fast and it had to be fit for purpose - not for the purpose of the people they proposed to represent, but for the international money markets.
I won’t go into the catalogue of skulduggery that our predecessors had to endure before they could manage to secure us the vote - but anyway, the vote doesn’t really work like that after all. The requirements of the money markets take precedence over everything.
Therefore, in the year 2011, we can no longer afford to have places where our vulnerable citizens can find respite and safety.
The banks are too big to fail, and governments are too small to do anything about it - so now we have to put our collective effort into a Big Society according to our Prime Minister. Yet after 30 or more years of conditioning in the art of looking after number one, that might prove to be difficult for us to get to grips with. (Maybe that was always the intention).
However, I think the real issue we're dealing with here, is one of legitimacy: Why do we have to agree to endless reams of legalese when we buy something off the internet? Why do employers give us contracts of employment to sign? Why do we get yards of small print along with our credit cards? It’s because when we sign, we’re agreeing to the bank’s terms and conditions - but the point is, we’re agreeing. Theoretically, the law does not take the side of coercion or deception.
Unfortunately, as the banking system proved recently, there are people who would happily undermine our quality of life from offshore, and therefore, in their estimation, out of the reach of any legal changes that UK voters might seek to make via their political process. Yet it seems that the only solution to the problem our PM has to offer is a Big Society.
Under these circumstances, we need to make our democracy more effective rather than abandon it for such an abstract notion. When we look around the World and witness the treatment of people who don’t have democracy, should we see that as an incentive for less democracy?
The reason that our predecessors fought so hard for the vote was because they found that society, alone, left them vulnerable to abuses of power, and they needed to be involved in the political process, as, at that time, that was where power lay. Now, it seems to lie in the tax havens.
So, we should encourage society, but not as a substitute for power. I imagine that many people in the Middle East would testify to that. I also imagine that their societies are much stronger and tighter than ours are. They would need to be under their circumstances.
Diminishing society might have some bearing on our problems, but that’s not a reason to undermine democracy by capitulating to a bunch of marauding bankers.
We should keep in mind always, that money is merely a device. When it ceases to serve the needs of the majority of a democratic people, then it’s no longer fit for purpose, and change no doubt, is required. However, changing society to address an external financial threat seems to me as logical as beating your spouse because your boss is giving you a hard time at work.
Apparently, in his newspaper interview, Mervyn King expressed concern about the integrity of the current 'market economy'. Maybe next time, he could do one about a Big Society Bartering System. I wonder how that would go down with his colleagues on Thread Needle Street and further flung places like The Cayman Isles. His next newspaper assignment would probably be with The Big Issue - selling it on street corners along with the homeless and the domestically abused.
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (4)
- Funny
- Awesome (4)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (1)
CommentsLoading...
We don't always know who our enemies are Polly - and if you believe in Satan, I’ve heard that he’s a slippery customer too. I suggest that anyone planning to undermine democracy in any way is an enemy of 'the people'.
Thanks for dropping by again.
You are sure right about that and Oh I do believe in satan, he nips at my heels quite often, even here, well we could say mostly here, (haha)but I have an agenda and I will just do as the bible says and tell him to "get thee behind me" so it doesn't upset me. I like you even if you don't believe in him, but it is apparent you are not his yet so there is hope we will meet one day. You are a kind sweet man and only One someone makes those.
Well Poly if 'Auld Nick' nips at your heels, that’s one thing - just don’t let him whisper in your ear. My Mum was religious so I don’t criticise religion or religious people. And I like to keep my options open so that if I do meet you up at the pearly gates, I won’t look so sheepish and I won’t have so much explaining to do.
If you get that far your worries are over and you don't have to be a saint now, that is what Jesus was for us, it is an easy and comforting life having nothing to do with riches or what others think of you, His burden is light, you kind of know one of your own when you meet them. I am betting on you, oh I forgot I can't do that. haha I believe God has a fine sense of humor with His kids.
We don't have to be religious to understand the benefits of frugality and integrity Polly, these things come to some of us with experience. As for the afterlife I always say (with the benefit of experience) - I'm clever enough to know, that I'm not clever enough to know.
Amillar,
I like your hub, but I'll just leave the devil out of my comment. I agree with you,Big banks are just running wild, they pay no taxes and buy politicians from every party, they get the laws they want passed and if a politician stands up to them, then their career in politics is short indeed. I would love to see some banking reforms, any ideas on what it would take for that to happen?
That is THE big question Phillip. The quick answer is no, I don't have any ideas in particular, and the older I get the more I realise that these things are impossible to predict. It might take total collapse of the system to happen before people realise that their physical survival depends on them working together. It doesn't depend on politicians; it never did. It doesn't depend on mighty armies; despite the rhetoric, no army was ever there to protect the people - but armies are often used against the people. They’re there to maintain the status quo.
Apparently Argentina had a financial collapse about a decade ago (I think). Money was obsolete and the people had to revert to bartering to survive. I heard that that situation was caused by the same shower that caused the collapse we’re suffering from now.
So, I'm sorry I can't be more upbeat about it, but at least you and I are airing the subject - most people just want to stick their heads in the sand and grab what they can for themselves. (Don't try to visualise that last statement.)
My humble advice would be the same advice my mother gave to me as a child: never borrow, waste nothing, save your money (under the mattress, is my personal advice.)
Thanks for dropping by anyway, and commenting. The more people can talk about these things, the better our chances will be.
Nuke Switzerland.
democracy is not about people Millar it is increasingly about the "people" who can manipulate people in to voting for some pArticular people.Hence in any democracy the interests to be protected are the interests of the pressure groups who rallied behiond the 'great white hope' or rather who drew up the specifications for the great white hope,found a charahcter to fit in them and then created the legend we entusiastically vote for ,and once the GWH is elected the plunder continues.
we have in India currently the case of one Hassan ali who owes the govt more taxes that the entire health budget !!!1 and he has three times more stashed away in Swiss banks.We have the proof, we have the law but we could not arrest him all these years till the Supreme Court stepped in and asked the govt to comply or else>
and after the arrest whatever happens?is the money recovered?does the country get more hospitals and doctors? no never!!! after the guys who arrest, the guys who sanction the arrest and the guys who prosecute are all the same as the guys that own all that money.
as BabaRamdev a crusader against corruption says" i asked them to get back the mony and they said our own money why? I asked them to enact laws against money laundering and they said- a law against ourselves?i asked them to arrest the offenders and they said -arrest ourseleves?"
i am increasingly sceptical about if anything can be done.
What a great read! Well done!
Wonderful article,thanks for writing.
You'd need a bank loan for that sort of thing Jed. There might be something in the contract about not nuking loan providers.
I'm away to work now - I'll respond to the rest of the comments later - thanks.
Hi Neeleshkulkarni, we use the expression 'wheels within wheels' in the UK - to describe what you mention here.
We shouldn't believe everything we hear or read, but I hear that there are billionaires amassing private armies now - at a time when the UK government is slashing defence spending. Although I don't believe, we should listen to everything that people say - what they do is what matters - but building private armies shouts warnings at me.
So, in the UK, they're sacking our servicemen and women, scrapping service equipment, our police and social services too, while billionaires are apparently building up private armies. Does no one wonder why?
I wouldn't be surprised if the World is moving towards a time of economic dictatorship, backed up by private armies. Mind you, that's just going by what people doing; if we are to believe what they're saying, we'll be okay.
Thanks for dropping by and commenting.
Hiya daydreamer13, thanks for dropping by and commenting.
Hello crystolite - thank you for reading, and for your encouragement.
Hi amillar, it is a difficult time in the world for almost everyone right now. I have spent much time reading philosphy throughout my past, and also spiritual writings. I believe we are on the cusp of a new world age and that much of the insanity going on is the catalyst we must bear through to have a better world. I hope so anyway. Thanks for stopping by my hubs and making your wise comments. I sincerely appreciate it.
Lela
A sign of the times and not trying to be depressing but if you believed in nothing would you believe it will fix itself? One world, new age, call it what you will, it is all a lie. Many will buy it though, many here already do, based on what... I don't know. I like scripture from the beginning of time for my answers, not what some crack head thought up and everyone jumps on his band wagon like a Jim Jones. He found a better place for his followers.
Hi amillar - good hub and interesting subsequent discussion too. You said, "I wouldn't be surprised if the World is moving towards a time of economic dictatorship, backed up by private armies".
I think we're already there, insofar as there's no 'legal' way to prevent the up-flow of wealth from the many to the few. No legal way, because as you said, the few also make the laws by owning the lawmakers.
Hi Lela, I don't know much about philosophy myself, but I imagine it would help us to 'think out of the box' (lateral thinking I think it's called), which seems evident in your hubs. I'm not very good on spiritual things either, but I never rule anything out.
I think that this kind of internet discourse is extremely important, and no matter how little effect it seems to be having, we should continue to get it out in the open, for as long as we can do it safely. I’d recommend your hubs to anyone who’ll listen to me. (That’s not many I’m afraid.)
Anyway, thanks for dropping by, and I look forward to reading more of your hubs.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'believe in nothing' Polly and I've never heard of Jim Jones, so I'm afraid I can't get too deep into that.
Some people believe that the Universe and everything in it (that includes us) happened randomly. I'm not very well educated so I wouldn't argue against that any more than I'd argue against your belief that a God planned and made the World.
Hiya Paraglider thanks for reading and commenting. I follow your articles a lot and find them very helpful.
Isn't it amazing that we hear nothing of these private armies from the media (except on the internet)? I never hear politicians talk about it. I wouldn't expect the private media to mention it - but nothing on the BBC.
It astounds me also, how few people question the way that the money markets dictate terms to democratic nation-states. It's as if Al Capone is back in business on a global scale.
George Carlin said, “Nobody cares, nobody cares”. I know the feeling well.
Wonderful and thought provoking article, thanks for writingit.
Hi there Anthea - thank you for reading, and for the kind and encouraging comment.
Well, you sure made everybody stop and think...and that's a good thing. The world is topsy-turvy and I just hope when things settle we can see our way to something better.
up/awesome
I do too Fay. I think there are times when people/communities pull better together. The trouble is it's often in the aftermath of chaos.
Thank you for reading and voting me up.
Hi amillar, I read Mervyn King's article too. He's concerned that the banks are returning to their bad old ways, and from what I've seen he could well be right. Other countries are much further down the alternative banking route than we are. Credit Unions are very well established in the USA, Ireland and Australia, and they give people a viable option to the banks. We've been a little slow to make Credit Unions work. We Brits are far too stuck in our ways, but maybe there will come a tipping point where the banks will have to sit up and smell the coffee.
Meanwhile, I guess you know my feelings on the Big Society. It's only going back to what we used to do, and what we should always have done. People seldom notice the things government does for them. They only notice the things that stop getting done. As a nation we've become de-skilled. People don't seem to cook , sew, make or mend in the same way they used to, and maybe it's time that those old skills were relearned, and people started to look after themselves and eachother a little better.
I agree Amanda - strong society is a good thing, and as you say, "People seldom notice the things government does for them. They only notice the things that stop getting done." We do tend to take things for granted.
I think that the crux is about agreeing on what’s due. I expect that should be the job of our elected representatives. If they get the balance right, perhaps they’ll be re-elected - if they don’t, perhaps the people will elect a different government. That would be the theory. But what if it makes no difference which party we elect, because an unelected clique have hijacked our banking system, taken control of our means of production and bought our representatives? We could have Mick Jagger as our PM; it wouldn’t matter; it doesn’t.
It’s true that people seldom notice what we do, until we stop doing it. I suppose that’s why people used to go on strike - when it was legal. Yet if we found ourselves living under an economic dictatorship, could we to stop doing what we don’t want to do?
What if we had a government that had locked itself into a five-year term with some accomplices, which then passed laws saying that no one could refuse work of any kind, regardless of the conditions, otherwise they would find themselves destitute? Then suppose that that government passed a law saying that we must take those destitute into our homes on the basis that that sort of thing was no longer the responsibility of government, and because the prisons and other institutions were too expensive to run? They might call it The Large Society. Am I going too far yet?
They might say that it was a necessary measure because the previous administration had mismanaged things so badly. They could pass many such laws on that basis. It doesn’t matter what they have in their manifesto - and, if the biggest party gets a poor result in an election, we know now that that can be an advantage, because they can coalesce with anyone they like to deliver nothing they promised.
You mention credit unions. What if government banned or undermined credit unions, on some pretext. That‘s not hard to imagine. I think that if credit unions got in the way of big business, it would be a certainty.
If money is to remain an important factor in our lives, and we want to live in a democracy, then we have to democratise money. Money is a system, not a private possession.
Anyway, thanks for dropping by again Amanda I always look forward to your comments.
Hi Amillar, have you seen the ABCUL website?
http://www.abcul.org/media-and-research/news
At the moment the government is very supportive of the Credit Unions. It's to nobody's benefit to have banks that are 'too big to fail'. The UK government has earmarked £73 million to invest in the credit unions. I know that's small beer in the wider context, but it's a positive move. I've also been looking at some of the alternative currency schemes and barter schemes that are around, and I notice that Bartercard is now in the UK. Things are definitely changing.
I know it seems a bit of a stretch at the moment when things seem so gloomy, but I do believe that change is in the air. As oil becomes increasingly more expensive so the costs of transportation will rise. Companies who moved their manufacturing bases abroad in the 80s and 90s are now re-thinking this strategy, and they are already starting to reverse that trend. It's not going to happen overnight, but it will happen because it must. Eventually high transportation costs, and rising third world living standards, will make it uneconomic to do anything else. As to Mick Jagger being PM. Could be interesting! Didn't he go to the LSE? He might actually have half a clue!
£73 million sounds a lot of money to me Amanda, but for a Jammy Dodger and a cup of tea, I'm anybody's.
You’re always very trusting and optimistic; I admire that. I'm more inclined to look at the measures they're putting into law. Credit unions might be OK just now, but what's to stop the buyouts sometime in the future? Once they start to make a killing, they'll start to shift away from the people. It’s not new that they privatise profit and socialise loss. That’s always been the way.
Even when there are laws to prevent that sort of thing, if we don’t watch what our politicians are doing, they can repeal these laws. I just pick up snippets of information here and there, but I've heard that the reason we're in schtook now is that our politicians changed the laws, which previous administrations had put in place.
I might be off my eggs a bit, but I heard that Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which was the legislation brought in as a direct consequence of the Wall Street Crash of the 30s. Some people say that the misery that that caused in Germany along with the rotten settlement at Versailles after WWI went on to cause World War II.
The Thatcher administration deregulated the banks in the 80s. That allowed the banks to demutualise and start gambling with our savings. I reckon my pension is scuba diving off the Bahamas now.
As I understand it, these things happened because of changes in the law. I don't know why the politicians did it, maybe they're like many ordinary people I know, and they're too trusting, maybe they rely heavily on the experts to advise (or ill-advise) them, maybe they're corrupt. The point is they did it - and the part they played was to change the law, which they were entitled to do as elected representatives of the people.
I don't remember Margret Thatcher saying in any of her manifestoes that her government would do anything like that, but maybe I was drunk at the time. It would be nice to be able to trust our politicians to do the right things, but that doesn't mean that we ought to.
BTW, I don't think Mick Jagger would want to be PM - he'd have to pay tax in this country. Does TB pay tax now? I wonder. I bet that if he doesn't have to, he won't. (I tell my wife I wasn't born a cynic, but she never looks at all convinced.)
Anyway Amanda, I think I’ve had my money’s worth of moaning for tonight. Thanks for the confab -I’ll take a look at these Credit Unions, and I’ll check out that web address. Many thanks again - you’re always upbeat about these things.
Dear Amillar,
Sounds like the banks have ALL the money, in every country, with the exception of the money they share with their paid partners in crime, the politicians!
When they talk about the global economy, they are really talking about global control by banks. many in the U.S. are putting their money into credit unions and happy about it. I have no money to speak of, but have been with a small, local credit union for the last 10 years. They are great!
Loved this article! Showed me we all have those banks that are too big to fail...Makes me very angry!
Hi Jillian,
I like the idea of credit unions, and I've heard that the US has a large percentage of the population using them. I've tried to find one near me, but when I Google in my postcode and my trade union name, nothing is available for me. I live in a part of Scotland that is quite remote, so it seems I'm stuck with the Bank of Scotland at the moment. I'm very suspicious now of all these banks, every time I phone to do a transaction the telephone operator tries to get me to put more of my money from my current account into my savings account. To cut the story short - I'm so mistrusting of everything now that if the bank says suck, I know it's time to blow.
Thanks for dropping by and commenting - I appreciate it.
There is a book about this issue called "When Corporations Rule the World". Can't remember the authoer's name but it is an interesting read.
Democracy is so corrupted by big business that it is a joke - or rather, a tragedy.
Thanks for this great Hub and the very interesting debate it has sparked.
Love and peace
Tony
Hi Tony - that sounds like an interesting book. I heard recently that Mussolini said, "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power". He didn't live to see it, but we have.
Anyway, thanks for dropping by and commenting, it’s nice to see you again.
This has all been engineered but by multinationals. If government gets out of the business of "governing", big corp. moves in. By forcing governments to cut their vital services to the public, corporations can step in and take over. Once they have control, they can do as they please. Corporations do not have to be accountable, according to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that corporation's bottom line is to make profits for their shareholders and that is it.
As government gets smaller, big business gets bigger and more control.
Bascially, the citizen has lost all control.
I think you describe the situation precisely road2hell, and it astounds me that so few people are even yet unable to see things from the same perspective as you and me. But I get the sense that 'the people' are starting to awaken now - they're more inclined to listen - and I just hope it doesn't take too long, because the further down the slippery slope we slide, the harder it will be to climb back up again.
Pollyannalana 14 months ago
It's getting the same the world over, satan is in the hearts and souls of them all and the people let things get too far to be stopped. This is what men (soldiers) should be willing to die for, not protecting the enemy.