Sunday, 26 October 2008
Global financial crisis: questions to readers of this blog
I have noticed that there are people from around the world who look at this blog. I don't know how many of you read it or what you think of it, but simply having a global audience is very rewarding. So thank you and I hope you find it interesting or entertaining.
I have some questions about the global crisis and instead trying to answer them, I would be fascinated to know what people think, especially as your perspectives will, I imagine, be different depending on where you live.
Here they are:
- Is the global crisis in the money markets impacting on the real economy yet?
- Can we avoid a painful recession?
- Will the recession hit all parts of your economy or only sections?
- Should there be a new global regulatory framework?
- How would a new framework work and can it work?
- Do you expect to see world leaders back away from the rhetoric of Bretton Woods 2 in the next 6 months?
Please comment and I will either respond directly or post something on the main section of the blog.
US election update
Next Saturday, I shall be making my way to the United States. I am visiting a friend who has been campaigning for Obama, so will get to watch up close how the Americans campaign. I am hoping to post when I am there but if not, I certainly will when I return.
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
I am also hoping to Twitter - you can find me at Simon_Goldie.
In the meantime, here are a couple of campaign ads that caught my eye. Both are from the Obama camp, apologies for the political bias but I haven't seen anything from McCain's team that caught my imagination. Both of these are funny and inventive.
Sarah Silverman's The Great Schlep
The Great Schlep from The Great Schlep on Vimeo.
Political confusion in the 21st century
In the last month, a Republican administration in the United States has intervened in the financial markets, Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama, the Economist has reported that there now exists 'Obamacons' and those on the centre-left in the UK have called for tax cuts.
It is said that this political cross-dressing began after the fall of the Berlin Wall. But politics has never been straightforward.
When I was at a university, there were two visiting MPs. One was a Conservative who was undoubtedly the greenest parliamentary in the Commons and the other was a Labour member who was far more robust on defence than many Tories. Life is never simple.
In blogland, Charlotte Gore and Liberty Alone have been grappling with definitions of libertarianism and liberalism. They have touched on what the terms mean, what policies might be implemented and where they sit on the political spectrum.
There are many who take a pragmatic view. And just to make things more complicated there are two types of pragmatists. There are those simply interested in power and will join the governing coalition to get it. They believe in getting things done. For a long time this was how the Conservative party was seen but all that changed when Mrs Thatcher took over the helm.
The other type is someone who has a political vision but realises that it is highly unlikely to be ever completely achieved. They hitch their wagon to the camp that is closest to their thinking and try and move the camp along a path most to their liking.
The politicians who cannot abide this approach generally stay on the periphery. And then there are the mavericks, like the ones who lectured at my university and ones like Frank Field.
What's interesting about Field is that he began life as a Conservative and then joined Labour. I suspect there are many MPs in all three parties who could switch or join a new party. People don't tend to do this for a whole host of reasons.
Among this crowd are people who think they know better than others, people who want to run other people's lives and people who would like to make the system run better. Rarely are there any politicians who don't want to run something. If they didn't why would they be in the job in the first place?
All this leads to the confusing political environment we are now in. Then again, perhaps we were always confused but it just wasn't that evident during the Cold War.
At the tender of age of 15 I began to try and work out where I stood politically. There was a range of things that influenced me: my own temperament, the values I learnt as a child, what I was told at school, my experience growing up on council estates and attending a comprehensive school, my observations of the political scene and the books I began reading. By the age of 17, I had read two books by Alvin Toffler: Future Shock and Third Wave.
One of the central arguments in Toffler's books is that how society structures itself if largely due to its economic activity. In an agricultural society there is no need for mass education whereas an industrial one cannot survive without it. Political values may stay the same but the policies derived from them will have to change. And, very importantly, human impulses like interfering and controlling stay the same. In different societies there are different ways of doing it. For liberals, this means that whatever the circumstance, the rule of law and balancing power is essential. Liberals have to then ask how do you balance power in an information economy while the authoritarians will always argue that this is unimportant.
The 'third way' social democrats, Clinton, Blair and Mandelson, to their credit got Toffler. They weren't simply moving their parties to the centre. They were realigning their parties to the fundamental change in how developed economies were working. Whether they succeeded, whether you agree with the policies or whether they fell back on old habits once in power isn't the point.
In my view, it is this shift, from an industrial to an information economy that explains our political confusion.
One of the greatest challenges for politicians, apart from updating their policies to fit the times, is to find a language that makes sense to voters who rarely think about political trends and ideology. It is perhaps ironic that one British politician who is seen as probably the least articulate got very close. As John Prescott is fond of saying: "Traditional values in a modern setting."
The Conservative and Liberal Democrats have also been grappling with this. Both parties have put forward policies that may empower the individual and disperse power.
For those interested in this new economy, especially if they have a classical liberal disposition, the best advice would be to jump in with both feet. Engage, socially network, blog, Twitter, 'crowd source' and all that. It is very difficult to make sweeping reforms of existing structures. They will change but it will take time. But if the new economy throws up solutions, it is far more likely to affect how we structure our society and political system.
And if this new online world doesn't work, or doesn't quite work as Toffler envisaged, something else will come along to challenge us all and cause us confusion.
Tuesday, 21 October 2008
Green taxes documentary
Forgive the slight self-promotion but if you are interested in green taxes you may find this of interest. It is a Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) documentary about green taxes. My declaration of interest is that I was heavily involved in its production. For the record, I am Head of Communications at the CIOT.
The video looks at some of the key issues around green taxes and discusses the things that policy-makers should be thinking about when they approach the subject.
Green Taxes Documentary from CIOT Tax News on Vimeo.
Green Taxes Documentary from CIOT Tax News on Vimeo.
Sunday, 19 October 2008
The dangerous dogs of the global financial crisis
In 1991, the UK parliament passed the Dangerous Dogs Act. There had been a series of dreadful attacks on children, by dogs. The Government rushed the legislation through to protect the most vulnerable in society.
In Britain, the legislation is often cited as an example of how not to make law. It is claimed that the Act was not thought out and was never going to work. Recently, Kenneth Clark argued that in fact it was good law but needed time to show it could work.
Attacks by dogs on small children continue.
When a disaster happens we all want to do something. And we quite like to see our governments act to sort out the problem. Many candidates are nominated as the cause of such disasters. In the middle of the storm it is difficult to work out what exactly went wrong and why.
A very normal reaction is to go against everything that went before.
There are two problems with this: it might have been that what was happening was fine but the way it was happening was causing the problem and the solutions might be ineffectual or counter-productive.
How you see crisis and the solutions will depend on where you sit politically. In the last few weeks, I have seen the following arguments:
Libertarian position
The financial markets were not free enough. If a free market existed banks and firms would fail but new banks could enter the market. In this situation there would be no need for a bail-out. The action here is to free the market.
Variation on the libertarian position
Clearly governments need to act but it would better to turn the banks into mutual entities. The employees and customers would become the new owners.
Centrist position
The regulation was ineffective and governments had to act to recapitalise the banks.
Statist/Left position
The market has run wild. It was all about greed. As a friend of mine said, 'the invisible hand has been caught in the cookie jar'. It is time to stop people selling thin air, time to regulate and control.
There have been other arguments but those characterisations, I believe, take in most views.
The right like to say that only the left want to intervene and act. Yet no one on the right has taken the Donald Rumsfeld view: stuff happens. According to that argument one would presumably change nothing in the hope it probably won't happen again but whatever you do, you can't stop it pr something like it happening.
Everyone has argued for something to change. Even the US Republicans who voted against the bail-out wanted something done. At least every commentator and blogger I have looked at. If there is one out there that hasn't, apologies.
I merely point this out because it is important to understand the political process instead of caricaturing positions.
And interestingly, the left also like to claim only they want to intervene. They rather like caricaturing the right as proponents of laissez-faire.
Slightly on a tangent, Hayek's view was that the expression came about because the French wanted to control the market and the state. Laissez-faire was in response to that but seprate to how he saw the workings of a free and open market.
Hayek, from what I have read, had no problem with rules. In fact, he rather favours the central tenet of liberalism: the rule of law. To have rules and law you need government. He even conceded that at times of economic crisis you should rely on a bit of Keynesian stimulation.
Politics is a complicated business. Trying to make sure the economy isn't devastated by a banking crash isn't easy. Working out what sort of rules you should after such an event is even harder. But when the politicians sit down to discuss it they should try and avoid a financial dangerous dogs' Act.
In Britain, the legislation is often cited as an example of how not to make law. It is claimed that the Act was not thought out and was never going to work. Recently, Kenneth Clark argued that in fact it was good law but needed time to show it could work.
Attacks by dogs on small children continue.
When a disaster happens we all want to do something. And we quite like to see our governments act to sort out the problem. Many candidates are nominated as the cause of such disasters. In the middle of the storm it is difficult to work out what exactly went wrong and why.
A very normal reaction is to go against everything that went before.
There are two problems with this: it might have been that what was happening was fine but the way it was happening was causing the problem and the solutions might be ineffectual or counter-productive.
How you see crisis and the solutions will depend on where you sit politically. In the last few weeks, I have seen the following arguments:
Libertarian position
The financial markets were not free enough. If a free market existed banks and firms would fail but new banks could enter the market. In this situation there would be no need for a bail-out. The action here is to free the market.
Variation on the libertarian position
Clearly governments need to act but it would better to turn the banks into mutual entities. The employees and customers would become the new owners.
Centrist position
The regulation was ineffective and governments had to act to recapitalise the banks.
Statist/Left position
The market has run wild. It was all about greed. As a friend of mine said, 'the invisible hand has been caught in the cookie jar'. It is time to stop people selling thin air, time to regulate and control.
There have been other arguments but those characterisations, I believe, take in most views.
The right like to say that only the left want to intervene and act. Yet no one on the right has taken the Donald Rumsfeld view: stuff happens. According to that argument one would presumably change nothing in the hope it probably won't happen again but whatever you do, you can't stop it pr something like it happening.
Everyone has argued for something to change. Even the US Republicans who voted against the bail-out wanted something done. At least every commentator and blogger I have looked at. If there is one out there that hasn't, apologies.
I merely point this out because it is important to understand the political process instead of caricaturing positions.
And interestingly, the left also like to claim only they want to intervene. They rather like caricaturing the right as proponents of laissez-faire.
Slightly on a tangent, Hayek's view was that the expression came about because the French wanted to control the market and the state. Laissez-faire was in response to that but seprate to how he saw the workings of a free and open market.
Hayek, from what I have read, had no problem with rules. In fact, he rather favours the central tenet of liberalism: the rule of law. To have rules and law you need government. He even conceded that at times of economic crisis you should rely on a bit of Keynesian stimulation.
Politics is a complicated business. Trying to make sure the economy isn't devastated by a banking crash isn't easy. Working out what sort of rules you should after such an event is even harder. But when the politicians sit down to discuss it they should try and avoid a financial dangerous dogs' Act.
Saturday, 18 October 2008
Obama and the Blazing Saddles contradiction
I wanted to title this post: KKK endorses Obama but decided that was not only in bad taste but actually a misrepresentation of the article I am about to refer to. Although, for one moment imagine the spot ad. It would be a remarkable piece of television to behold.
But the heading came to mind when I read Racists for Obama on Politico's website.
When Obama won the Presidential nominee quite a few people I know told me that they doubted he could win the election. America wasn't ready, they said. One should never assume.
My response was to recount a scene in Blazing Saddles. The black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, is about to be lynched by the townsfolk. To get himself out of the situation, he takes his gun from his holster, points it at his forehead and says something like 'if you don't back off, he gets it'. Which is, of course, want the people wanted in the first place. But suddenly the mob turns and starts saying things like, don't hurt that poor boy...
Whether you like Mel Brooks's mad subversive humour isn't the point here. What he does is show the audience that the mob is fickle. They can change their mind. Everything is about context.
Voting for Obama isn't about personal views. It's about making sure the trigger isn't pulled on the US economy. If the polls are right, it looks as though Americans think that McCain is the wrong guy for the job.
But the heading came to mind when I read Racists for Obama on Politico's website.
When Obama won the Presidential nominee quite a few people I know told me that they doubted he could win the election. America wasn't ready, they said. One should never assume.
My response was to recount a scene in Blazing Saddles. The black sheriff, played by Cleavon Little, is about to be lynched by the townsfolk. To get himself out of the situation, he takes his gun from his holster, points it at his forehead and says something like 'if you don't back off, he gets it'. Which is, of course, want the people wanted in the first place. But suddenly the mob turns and starts saying things like, don't hurt that poor boy...
Whether you like Mel Brooks's mad subversive humour isn't the point here. What he does is show the audience that the mob is fickle. They can change their mind. Everything is about context.
Voting for Obama isn't about personal views. It's about making sure the trigger isn't pulled on the US economy. If the polls are right, it looks as though Americans think that McCain is the wrong guy for the job.
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Bretton Woods Two
The FT reported yesterday that there is talk of a revised Bretton Woods and now politics.co.uk has run this headline: Brown launches Bretton Woods Two.
In the whirlwind that has been the global financial crisis it isn't easy to spot trends and predict anything with certainty. But when Peter Mandelson returned to government, I had a feeling that it was part of a Bretton Woods type project.
In the whirlwind that has been the global financial crisis it isn't easy to spot trends and predict anything with certainty. But when Peter Mandelson returned to government, I had a feeling that it was part of a Bretton Woods type project.
Sunday, 12 October 2008
The influence of journalists
Total Politics is running a survey to discover who are the most influential journalists in the UK. Those who make it into the top 50 will get a mention in the magazine.
While I was completing the survey, if you are on Facebook and would like to take part go to the magazine's page and you'll find the link, I began to question what influence means.
Are these commentators and reporters influencing each other, the public, politicians or all of he above? And if they are influencing them, how are they doing it and does it vary depending on the group?
Philip Stevens in the FT provides analysis of political news. He rarely offers his opinion but rather lays out what is going on and what it might mean. And he gives options. This allows the reader to take all these factors into consideration when developing an opinion on a policy issue. Is this influence?
Or are the columns of Polly Toynbee and Peter Hitchens the really influential ones? They are providing their considered view from a particular political mindset. They are writing for an audience who are likely to agree with them. So are they reinforcing opinion or changing minds?
My final thought on all this is that if the commentators are altering how people see an issue then how good are their arguments? Are they based on gut instinct or evidence? When the commentators make a prediction how often are they right? Right or wrong, if they are collectively helping to create a consensus around what is important and what isn't does that agenda setting help or hinder the democratic process?
A detailed study of the media would have to be undertaken to answer these questions. I rather hope that once Total Politics has published the top 50 most influential journalists they will then turn their attention to what it all means.
While I was completing the survey, if you are on Facebook and would like to take part go to the magazine's page and you'll find the link, I began to question what influence means.
Are these commentators and reporters influencing each other, the public, politicians or all of he above? And if they are influencing them, how are they doing it and does it vary depending on the group?
Philip Stevens in the FT provides analysis of political news. He rarely offers his opinion but rather lays out what is going on and what it might mean. And he gives options. This allows the reader to take all these factors into consideration when developing an opinion on a policy issue. Is this influence?
Or are the columns of Polly Toynbee and Peter Hitchens the really influential ones? They are providing their considered view from a particular political mindset. They are writing for an audience who are likely to agree with them. So are they reinforcing opinion or changing minds?
My final thought on all this is that if the commentators are altering how people see an issue then how good are their arguments? Are they based on gut instinct or evidence? When the commentators make a prediction how often are they right? Right or wrong, if they are collectively helping to create a consensus around what is important and what isn't does that agenda setting help or hinder the democratic process?
A detailed study of the media would have to be undertaken to answer these questions. I rather hope that once Total Politics has published the top 50 most influential journalists they will then turn their attention to what it all means.
Sunday, 5 October 2008
Saturday Night Live's version of the VP debate
Sadly, I can't work out how to embed an image but click here to watch. I cried with laughter.
US Presidential election - review of the week
From my occasional postings on the Daily Kos, my review of the last week.
Presidential candidates as trains
As seen on Daily Kos, funny and perceptive - the Presidential candidates as trains.
Tim Harford on moral hazard and the financial crisis
Tim Harford, economist and journalist, has posted a very interesting piece about moral hazard. Like everything in life, it is a question of proportion. Moral hazard plays a part in developing policy but should not be used as an excuse for a do nothing approach.
Saturday, 4 October 2008
Links to other sites
I have recently made some changes to my external links. Many of the originals are still there. There are some new ones and I have said farewell to some others. The main difference is categorisation. In case anyone noticed or wondered what the reason was, here is my explanation for each one:
- Global news - these are news sites that cover global issues. There is a clear bias to American sites but this is a reflection of the influence of the US, the need to understand how America thinks about global politics and economics and the fact that the quality of journalism is excellent
- US politics - this list will probably grow. These sites provide gossip and insight into the Presidential election
- UK politics and economics - predominately news links but also blogs from the FT that inform instead of speculate
- Innovative thinking - there are certain people who challenge how we see the world in what they say, how they say it or how they do it. This is not a comprehensive list but all the writers and the two organisations listed here are certainly not proponents of conventional wisdom
- Entertainment - speaks for itself really
- PR comment - some of the best PR practitioners or thinkers that I have come across. I am sure I have missed many but again hope to add to the list
- UK blogs - people writing about politics or how we live. It isn't a comprehensive list, how could it be with so many people blogging? But it gives a flavour of the conversation.
Brown shuffles
This Friday, Gordon Brown reshuffled his Cabinet. The most intriguing announcement, the return of Peter Mandelson to British politics, left commentators collectively asking: what just happened?
For those who don't know, Brown and Mandelson have form. Ever since 'Mandy' switched allegiance to Tony, Gordon has been resentful. So much so that rumour has it they didn't speak to each other for years. If all this is making you think of soap operas, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Blair/Brown years have been played out like that in the British media. We may never know what really went on.
So what did just happen?
In hindsight, bringing Mandelson back from Brussels makes perfect sense. Despite the Westminster press pack having their ears to the ground there was not a hint of it until it was announced. And hats off to Number 10 for keeping it quiet.
Rightly or wrongly, Mandelson has is seen as a Blairite. By getting him to return to government, Brown has cornered that New Labour fan club. How can they criticise the leadership when a key flag waver is part of it?
But this isn't just about politics. It is also about policy. Mandelson has spent four years as a European Commissioner working on very difficult trade negotiations. He is a world figure.
Prior to the financial crisis, Brown wanted to make significant strides on global poverty. He now wants to ensure that there is a world financial regulatory system to stop another credit crunch. The final part of the jigsaw is the influence American Democratic politics has had on the Prime Minister. In his recent speech to the Labour party conference he talked about a 'new settlement' with echoes of Johnson's 'Great Society' and FDR's 'New Deal'.
If Brown wants to address global poverty and the financial crisis together, and at least get talks going on a framework for dealing with it before the next general election, then who better to help him establish Bretton Woods Mark 2 than Peter Mandelson?
And my guess is, that is what the PM is after. While he has pursued a fairly monetarist approach to fiscal policy he is at heart a Keynesian. As a non-economist, I must admit ignorance. I have no idea if that would work, be a good idea or is appropriate. But it would place Brown and the Labour government in control of the policy agenda.
Whether Brown can bring other governments with him is another matter. If he can, then the outcome of the next election might not be as certain as everyone thinks.
For those who don't know, Brown and Mandelson have form. Ever since 'Mandy' switched allegiance to Tony, Gordon has been resentful. So much so that rumour has it they didn't speak to each other for years. If all this is making you think of soap operas, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Blair/Brown years have been played out like that in the British media. We may never know what really went on.
So what did just happen?
In hindsight, bringing Mandelson back from Brussels makes perfect sense. Despite the Westminster press pack having their ears to the ground there was not a hint of it until it was announced. And hats off to Number 10 for keeping it quiet.
Rightly or wrongly, Mandelson has is seen as a Blairite. By getting him to return to government, Brown has cornered that New Labour fan club. How can they criticise the leadership when a key flag waver is part of it?
But this isn't just about politics. It is also about policy. Mandelson has spent four years as a European Commissioner working on very difficult trade negotiations. He is a world figure.
Prior to the financial crisis, Brown wanted to make significant strides on global poverty. He now wants to ensure that there is a world financial regulatory system to stop another credit crunch. The final part of the jigsaw is the influence American Democratic politics has had on the Prime Minister. In his recent speech to the Labour party conference he talked about a 'new settlement' with echoes of Johnson's 'Great Society' and FDR's 'New Deal'.
If Brown wants to address global poverty and the financial crisis together, and at least get talks going on a framework for dealing with it before the next general election, then who better to help him establish Bretton Woods Mark 2 than Peter Mandelson?
And my guess is, that is what the PM is after. While he has pursued a fairly monetarist approach to fiscal policy he is at heart a Keynesian. As a non-economist, I must admit ignorance. I have no idea if that would work, be a good idea or is appropriate. But it would place Brown and the Labour government in control of the policy agenda.
Whether Brown can bring other governments with him is another matter. If he can, then the outcome of the next election might not be as certain as everyone thinks.
Friday, 3 October 2008
The end of the American century?
Commentators have the unfortunate tendency of rushing to judgement. When the Berlin Wall came down we were told that this was the 'end of history'. Now it is being said that the crisis on the financial markets is the end of the American century. David Simon, the brilliant creator of The Wire has been predicting just that, well before the current financial shenanigans.
For those who didn't know it, the last hundred years has been the American century. The logic goes that America is an economic powerhouse that dominated the World. After all, once the Soviet Union fell it was, for a brief time, the only superpower in town.
There are some who don't like the United States of America. For them this is a moment to saviour. They think the country has been too powerful, irresponsible and bent on imposing its will on everyone else. The counter narrative is that the country has stood for human values, held back the tide of despotism and helped ensure economic and democratic success across the globe. And like everything in this world, the truth lies somewhere in between.
A friend of mine told me that his father once remarked, 'however much you dislike some of what the American government does, just imagine what things would be like if the country didn't exist'.
It is far too early to say if America's dominance is coming to an end. We know that India and China are on the rise. But Rome wasn't built in a day and nor was it destroyed overnight.
I suspect America will continue to be a huge global influence for quite some time. I doubt we are witnessing the end of capitalism. We are certainly not seeing a collapse of America's military might. Part of the reason for all this is because of what America is and what it represents.
America was founded on liberal values: the right to life and liberty, the rule of law, balancing power to prevent tyranny and the pursuit of happiness. The last one is important. It isn't the right to happiness but the right to pursue. You might not get there, you might make decisions that make you unhappy but you have the right to pursue it. And because it isn't a right, the government doesn't have to guarantee it just make sure you have the opportunity to go after it.
The Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are expressions of that liberalism. It is a liberalism that began in England with the likes of John Locke, Adam Smith and Tom Paine.
Of course, those ideals can easily be forgotten. Human beings are far from perfect. We make mistakes, do bad things, do wonderful things, become seduced by power and do bad things when we think we are actually being good. But there are certain arrangements that help us thrive while other systems crush us. And even then the human spirit wins out in the end. That doesn't mean there is a lot of pain along the way, it doesn't mean that there is any excuse for downright immoral decisions or stupid alliances with people who are our enemies enemy.
If The Wire is about the end of the American century it fails. As attentive readers of this blog know, I think the programme is one of the best pieces of television ever made. Perhaps it is the Frank Capra in me but I don't buy Simon's idea. It is partly because he shows that human beings find a way to live against all the odds. Our creativity, inventiveness, lust for living and the need for each other survives, even in the most appalling situations. If Simon really thought it was all over, 'Bubs' would not have taken his place at his sister's dinner table in the final episode.
What on earth has this got to do with Wall Street? I am not saying that the characteristics I am talking about are unique to America. I am saying that for all its faults, America at its heart encourages those characteristics. It might not do so all the time, it might fall back or forget or think it is encouraging them when it isn't. Despite all that, the words of the Founding Fathers (and no doubt their mothers, wives and daughters made a major contribution without any credit) are written down to inspire every generation.
It is those ideals combined with those characteristics that keep America going. If the current financial chaos helped America get back to those founding principles, if the next President of the United States could inspire its citizens to remember what America is all about, if they all thought yes we can, then I suspect the American century might go on for a little while yet.
For those who didn't know it, the last hundred years has been the American century. The logic goes that America is an economic powerhouse that dominated the World. After all, once the Soviet Union fell it was, for a brief time, the only superpower in town.
There are some who don't like the United States of America. For them this is a moment to saviour. They think the country has been too powerful, irresponsible and bent on imposing its will on everyone else. The counter narrative is that the country has stood for human values, held back the tide of despotism and helped ensure economic and democratic success across the globe. And like everything in this world, the truth lies somewhere in between.
A friend of mine told me that his father once remarked, 'however much you dislike some of what the American government does, just imagine what things would be like if the country didn't exist'.
It is far too early to say if America's dominance is coming to an end. We know that India and China are on the rise. But Rome wasn't built in a day and nor was it destroyed overnight.
I suspect America will continue to be a huge global influence for quite some time. I doubt we are witnessing the end of capitalism. We are certainly not seeing a collapse of America's military might. Part of the reason for all this is because of what America is and what it represents.
America was founded on liberal values: the right to life and liberty, the rule of law, balancing power to prevent tyranny and the pursuit of happiness. The last one is important. It isn't the right to happiness but the right to pursue. You might not get there, you might make decisions that make you unhappy but you have the right to pursue it. And because it isn't a right, the government doesn't have to guarantee it just make sure you have the opportunity to go after it.
The Declaration of Independence, the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights are expressions of that liberalism. It is a liberalism that began in England with the likes of John Locke, Adam Smith and Tom Paine.
Of course, those ideals can easily be forgotten. Human beings are far from perfect. We make mistakes, do bad things, do wonderful things, become seduced by power and do bad things when we think we are actually being good. But there are certain arrangements that help us thrive while other systems crush us. And even then the human spirit wins out in the end. That doesn't mean there is a lot of pain along the way, it doesn't mean that there is any excuse for downright immoral decisions or stupid alliances with people who are our enemies enemy.
If The Wire is about the end of the American century it fails. As attentive readers of this blog know, I think the programme is one of the best pieces of television ever made. Perhaps it is the Frank Capra in me but I don't buy Simon's idea. It is partly because he shows that human beings find a way to live against all the odds. Our creativity, inventiveness, lust for living and the need for each other survives, even in the most appalling situations. If Simon really thought it was all over, 'Bubs' would not have taken his place at his sister's dinner table in the final episode.
What on earth has this got to do with Wall Street? I am not saying that the characteristics I am talking about are unique to America. I am saying that for all its faults, America at its heart encourages those characteristics. It might not do so all the time, it might fall back or forget or think it is encouraging them when it isn't. Despite all that, the words of the Founding Fathers (and no doubt their mothers, wives and daughters made a major contribution without any credit) are written down to inspire every generation.
It is those ideals combined with those characteristics that keep America going. If the current financial chaos helped America get back to those founding principles, if the next President of the United States could inspire its citizens to remember what America is all about, if they all thought yes we can, then I suspect the American century might go on for a little while yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)