Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Hong Kong, economic and political rights, and the banking class

The following quote from A History of Chinese Civilization1 details the perspective Han Dynasty China held towards merchants, a perspective we should pay attention to. As we read about their hostility, as well as their reasoning for having such hostility, we may reflect on our own situation.

"The hostility towards merchants which had such profound effects on the fate of the Chinese world, and which has given Chinese civilization its own particular character, is explained by a number of different and complex factors. [... ] An indication of dissipation, arrogance, and lack of virtue according to the literati [i.e. Confucian tradition], the taste for luxury appears already in Mencius as one of the indirect causes of peasant poverty. [...]
But the deepest reasons for this hostility seem to have been those adduced by the rulers and the state: mercantile activities were, they felt, a factor leading to a maladjusted society, since merchants' wealth enabled them to secure domination over the poor, to buy up peasant lands and to employ as slaves in their mining, iron and steel, or manufacturing enterprises the cultivators of whom they had reduced to destitution. Mercantile activities, by inciting people to useless expenditure, distracted them from the activities fundamental and indispensable to the survival of the state"
In our day, it would seem out of place to think of merchants as being the source of what is clearly happening in our time. For us, financial services and merchant banking, which are part of all modern day corporations, are the locus of our ire whether we are aware of it or not. We may not be slaves, per se, but it must be accepted as a difficult truth that the bulk of us lack any economic rights, whatever political rights we may still have. As David Graeber2 points out excellently, political rights without economic rights are almost useless. And those who have secured domination over us, whether middle class or poor, we may call the banking class.

This is one thing that concerns me about the protests going on in Hong Kong currently. While I understand and sympathize with their desire to be able to choose those they vote for, rather than having the PRC give them a handful of puppets to choose from, the truth is that, even if they were to succeed, without changing the fundamentals of the way the financial system works, they would ultimately end up with something much like what exists in the United States. That is to say, a system where the only true political rights belong to those who already have economic rights, power, and influence. It is especially ironic to me that the Hong Kong protests are taking place in the financial sector, yet the focus of the protests are political in focus, rather than economic.

In other words, we cannot disentangle our financial systems from our political systems, they have to be considered and altered together. One will not be meaningfully changed without the other. A starting point for some meaningful change would be skepticism of our institutions, if not outright hostility. Hostility is, of course, totally warranted when there are so many unemployed and homeless. What do we have if not a maladjusted society?

It would be mean and cruel to suggest that we live completely sparse lives, and it is a pernicious assumption that people become indebted in order to buy frivolities. While there is a certain truth to that in some cases, the fact is that by and large people have little alternative but to succumb to debt in order to buy birthday presents and other items which become meaningful when viewed in the context of human relationships. Student debt taken on to get an education, for example, could hardly be seen as a luxury. 

Ultimately, the protests in Hong Kong will probably yield little fruit, in the larger context of society. I'm not even sure that their goals being met would be a good thing. It's not that having puppets in place, as handed by the PRC, is a perfect scenario, it is just that one would ultimately end up with puppets, and these would be in the control of the banking class as in the United States. Not everyone is willing to take the risks that the young student population is willing to make and I admire their courage under pressure, I just wish their focus was on the financial system, or on both systems, or included protest about housing prices in HK, etc. which might ultimately lead to something positive.


Friday, October 10, 2014

The disaster of money becoming its own moral imperative

From David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years1:
All of this helps explain why the Church had been so uncompromising in its attitudes toward usury. It was not just a philosophical question; it was a matter of moral rivalry. Money always has the potential to become a moral imperative unto itself. Allow it to expand and it can quickly become a morality so imperative that all others seem frivolous in comparison.
This is it folks, this is where we are in the West and increasingly (though to a lesser degree) in the East as well. Graeber goes on to discuss that the structure of corporations are "designed to eliminate all moral imperatives but profit."

This is where we lose our humanity, when we are nothing but bean counters scrambling to have more beans than we had before, more than the next guy, more than the next corporation. This may seem like an ueber-obvious observation, but it's important to stand back a bit from society and see how this plays out in reality.

With profit being the primary imperative, it becomes acceptable to let people go a week before retirement after having worked at a company for a lifetime. This isn't "the market", nor is it anything desirable in any human sense. It's the apex of the evil nature of man so eloquently discussed by Xunzi2. It's this imperative which also has paved the way for a U.S. government which gives large sums to profit-seeking banks as a bail-out, the selfsame banks which were a major part of economic collapse and resulting house foreclosures, rather than using the same large sums to essentially pay down the mortgages. This would have had the same functional effect to the economy and the balance sheet's of the lenders, but it would have also had the human effect of keeping people in their homes.

What kind of a world do we want to live in? We have inherited this one and largely haven't made it better. The first step for us is to recognize where we are standing.



References

[1] From David Graeber's Debt: The First 5000 Years
[2] Xunzi

I've recently moved my blog to the blogger platform. If you link to my blog in your blogroll, please do me a solid and update the link to: taoofdirt.blogspot.com. I'd greatly appreciate it.