|
September 5, 2010
In his review of several finance books at National Interest Daniel W. Drezner asks a dam good question: "What is the role of finance in a good and just society?"
It's a good question given the hegemony of market fundamentalism or faith in the power of markets to correct themselves, the history of asset bubbles and financial crises and the shift to minimal regulation of finance capitalism. He doesn't directly answer it. it needs to be answered given the current conflict between Wall St and Main St in the US arising from the bursting of the housing/ financial bubble.
Drezner says that:
The trouble is that finance now permeates not only the economic but also the political and social fabric of our world. No one can talk about Big Finance without talking about the power of capital in politics. At the same time, Goldman Sachs now possesses all the cultural cachet of a tobacco company. And no matter how Washington attempts to curb the excesses of an industry whose core purpose is the making and reallocation of money, the future of global financial regulation remains unclear.
The financial sector has been entirely transformed since the mid-1970s. The changes are evident: rapid growth, deregulation, widespread introduction of new technology, profound institutional transformation. The weight of the financial sector has grown markedly in developed capitalist countries in terms of employment, profits, size of institutions and markets. Finance now penetrates every aspect of society in the developed world, and has also grown rapidly in the developing world.
The thesis of financialization depicts the shift in the center of gravity of the capitalist economy, from production to finance. In response to the bursting of the financial bubble, the main strategy of the advanced capitalist states has evolved from an immediate financial bailout, involving tens of trillions of dollars, to a much more concerted attempt, for which there are no real historical analogies, to reinstate financialization as the motor force of the capitalist system.
The growth of international capital markets limits the power of states to regulate them, forcing them to give way to financial market forces.Hence, although new regulations may be put in place, they will not, in the end, constitute effective restraints on financial institutions and markets.
Update
In Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism Kevin Philips says that:
My summation is that American financial capitalism, at a pivotal period in the nation's history, cavalierly ventured a multiple gamble: first, financializing a hitherto more diversified U.S. economy; second, using massive quantities of debt and leverage to do so; third, following up a stock market bubble with an even larger housing and mortgage credit bubble; fourth, roughly quadrupling U.S credit-market debt between 1987 and 2007, a scale of excess that historically unwinds; and fifth, consummating these events with a mixed fireworks of dishonesty, incompetence, and quantitative negligence.
Phillips compares the 21st century United States with the late stages of three great imperial powers before it -- the Spanish, Dutch and British empires to argue that the once mighty U.S. is no longer master of its own manifest destiny.
|
Forget for a minute the pros and cons of shifting the centre capitalist economy from production to finance.
The problems really get out of hand when SPECULATION becomes the main driving force... not actual returns or forecasts. The game is rigged in favour of the big stake holders. The fabled "mom and pop" investors are out of their depth.
[QUOTE]
One of the great mantras of the modern economics profession is that markets know best, and that the collective "wisdom" of investors is generally correct.
I've never really believed that, having spent years writing about business and finance. In fact, my interviews with market strategists, Wall Street economists and portfolio managers have convinced me that it's the rare investor or analyst who has done much serious reading of history, political science or even economics and finance for that matter. Sure, some people can be very good at analyzing the worth and the potential of a specific company, but when it comes to macroeconomic trends, most of the explanations you get are very narrowly focussed and ignorant, showing little concern for or understanding of the great drivers of history, economics or politics.
That said, I'm still left scratching my head at today's roughly 3% jump in the US equities market, which the investment analyst community is attributing to a report by the relatively obscure Institute for Supply Management, which announced that its index of manufacturing activity in the US had risen a bit to 56.3, instead of dipping slightly, as had been predicted by analysts.
Word that manufacturing was improving (and it was an improvement of just 0.8% at that), led to a stampede into equities by investors...
[/QUOTE]
http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/188