View printer friendly version |

Image credit: Adam_T4

I confess - I know very little about economics. It may be for this reason that where I see a mountain, you see only a molehill. In any case I wonder if you might humour me by taking a few steps with me up what is certainly at least a slope.

The response by our government to their negligible regulation of banking entrepreneurial freedom is to ‘partly’ nationalise the banks. This move is sold to us as the sensible thing to do to protect our money being invested to rescue the banks. Who’s money did these banks hold before exactly?

The point I wish to make, however, is that credit is the bread and butter of the prosperity of our existence. So much so in fact that some of us, including the government, are content to put prosperity before bread and butter. The state deems it necessary to step in to ensure that we are not left without breakfast, if you will, but does not see this nationalisation as a tell tale sign of the futility of capitalism; or as socialism (or even communism) via the backdoor.

The willingness of the government to wield nationalisation here very much implies that this is the only real option when fundamentals are at stake. The only issue is that our state is fortunate enough to have the luxury to be mixed up about what is really fundamental to the existence of humanity.

The cycles of capitalist economies conceal the vital role nationalisation can play. This is because during times of great prosperity and growth those who have, have a lot more and those who don’t have, have it on credit. But slumps and recessions are fixtures on this cycle too. During these times those who have are not willing to give what they have to those who don’t on credit. The state must step in, because in a democracy we all must have to a minimum extent – or more cynically, to resuscitate prosperity.

Does this broken record only seem nonsensical to me? As Timothy Garton Ash put it in the Guardian on the 1st January, “either a large part of humankind has to be excluded from the happy benefits of growth or our way of life has to change”. This change is recognition that prosperity is not fundamental or at least not as fundamental as other things, such as food, healthcare, utilities, housing, education and basic transport, for ALL. And herein lies the catch. The state sees its role in guaranteeing that each and every one of us receives the fundamentals, but if the emphasis were no longer to be placed on prosperity nothing would conceal the fact that its role is not as a babysitter in winter, but as a parent all year round.

Further evidence that nationalisation has at least something to offer society is the public/private debate that goes on under the Human Rights Act 1998. The act applies only to public bodies – state run organisations such as the police. What we’ve all started to realise however is that many of the companies that operate in the free market have a huge effect on all of our lives and so we say that some of their activities are almost public. We recognise that companies have responsibilities when it comes to certain fundamental things – such as access to medicine or pollution of our environment. For if they do not then we really have little existence at all. Money can only vindicate money for so long.

It may not be the case that the winter of Capitalism spells its death – at least in so long as Russia and Ukraine don’t cut off the gas supply. It is time however to ask whether it’s about time that Capitalism contemplated retirement, or a three-day week. If we are to respect each and every human being equally then the division inherent in capitalistic economies can no longer be tolerated comprehensively. Certain fundamentals must be guaranteed to all, at the cost of prosperity where credit is only a transient high that results in a grossly disproportionate, yet axiomatic come down.