Crashing the system II

I'm happy to see (via M. Thoma) that those who are crashing the systems are at least not making quite as much money.

Change is in the air for financial superclass, by David Rothkopf, Commentary, Financial Times: ...The re-engineering of international finance has been one of the transformational trends of our times – in just a quarter-century, capital flows became massive, instantaneous and controlled by a new breed of traders representing a handful of major financial institutions from a few countries. Their rewards have transcended any in history as shown by an estimate ... that the top hedge fund manager last year made $3bn.

The concentration of power has also steadily grown..., the key executives are in the US and Europe, underscoring the transatlantic nature of this elite. Change, however, is in the air. The history of elites is one of their rising up, over-reaching, being reined in and supplanted by a new elite. Several recent developments suggest that the financial crisis could signal the high-water mark of power for this group.

First, the crisis is prompting a re-regulatory drive. The power of financial elites had been evident in their ability to argue that global financial markets and markets in new securities should remain “self-regulating” (how many of them would hop into a self-regulating taxicab?), then when crisis comes ... these champions of less government involvement have then persuaded governments to cauterise their wounds.

Now, however, there are encouraging, if preliminary, signs of a push towards more effective collaboration between governments – the first steps towards creating the much needed checks on global markets... This could erode the agility of financial elites to play governments off against each other, with the weakest regulator setting the rules.

Checks on markets? Gosh, I wish someone had thought about that before.

France: Loosing its foothold

Of course, France lost its official "foothold" on african colonies in the 50's and early 60's, but globalization is now rendering the remaining linkages more tenuous according to Le Monde:

Comme deux vieilles connaissances fatiguées l'une de l'autre, l'Afrique et la France ne se comprennent plus. Non seulement Paris perd pied sur le continent noir, mais son image se dégrade. Objet de débat depuis quelques années, cette réalité est désormais officiellement reconnue et préoccupe le sommet de l'Etat. Multiforme, le constat est dressé dans un ensemble de télégrammes rédigés à la demande du Quai d'Orsay à l'automne 2007 par 42 ambassadeurs en poste en Afrique, et dont Le Monde a pris connaissance. Pareil état des lieux tend à plaider en faveur de la "rupture" dans la politique de la France en Afrique promise par Nicolas Sarkozy. "Rupture" que des proches du président français semblent remettre en cause.

L'image de la France "oscille entre attirance et répulsion dans nos anciennes colonies, au gré du soutien politique ou des interventions, militaires notamment, dont ont fait l'objet ces pays", constate un télégramme de synthèse. "La France n'est plus la référence unique ni même primordiale en Afrique. Les Français ont du mal à l'admettre", ajoute un diplomate qui a participé à ce travail. A l'entendre, tout se passe comme si le temps s'était arrêté : les Africains "jugent la France à l'aune des travers du passé alors que Elf, c'est fini".

De leur côté, les Français ignorent que les Africains entrent dans la mondialisation "plus vite qu'on ne le croit" et sont désormais courtisés par tous les pays émergents (Chine, Inde, Brésil) et par les Etats-Unis. "Loin de la pensée misérabiliste, (...) les progrès accomplis par l'Afrique sont importants et largement sous-estimés par l'opinion et les observateurs", estime le document, élaboré pour tenter de remédier à l'effet désastreux produit par le discours de Nicolas Sarkozy à Dakar en juillet 2007.

Of course, obtaining true financial, intellectual and cultural independence (to the extent that such a thing is possible anywhere on the planet) is a right that all countries should have, so I am not arguing for maintaining post-colonial colonialism. Interesting to note, though, the extent to which Sarkozy undermines everything he touches...

Elaboration on a comment...

I was over at "Election Central" this morning pre-coffee time and wrote

I guess I see this in a different light. The apparent contradiction between Larry C's lifestyle, voting record and party affiliation seems merely to be a surface phenomenon. In truth, the modern republican party gains its strength from men like Craig and others who have something to hide and the party has capitalized on these "dirty" secrets to make arm twisting a much more efficient mechanism. If a party thrives more on internal authority than coalition building, then that party can take advantage of secrets, lies and dirty laundry to ensure that business gets done. Starting with the president himself and going down, the power can be AND IS exerted through the skeletons in the closet. That is not to say that there is some central file cabinet with all the dirt (though, hey, that would be interesting!); rather, diffuse knowledge and constant surveillance of everyone by each other leads to internal social promotion the discipline of the republican village. Promote larry craig, he'll do what we say because...

Of course, there are plenty of people who get off from the very repression we see in the external tropes of republican behavior and those people are naturally attracted to an authoritarian party that makes their secrets all the more titillating. There are also plenty of men who will say they are not gay but who are quite happy with occasional man-on-man action. The latter are quite simply hypocrites. But let's not confuse hypocrisy and what has become a structural device for control, punishment and promotion within the "party of values."

I would add that the evidence for this is what I would call correlative but compelling: how do you explain the significant numbers of Larry Craigs or just gays in the party that hates gays? How do you explain the attraction of Bill O'Reilly's and Scooter Libby (both of whom having written quite explicit and sexually disturbing passages in their novels)*? How do you explain the fascination with authority? How do you explain the multiple porn stars who have met the president?

There is a connection, I think, between this behavior and the workings of the party and how power gets distributed. Ah, authority, uniforms, fascism! I think they think it's cute--really cute!

Coffeeeeeeee.

*I can't seem to find Bill's book. My loofah filter must be blocking it.