Some unanswered questions

In its infinite generosity, Washington came to the rescue. Of course it had no choice; no modern government would dare let a financial crisis turn into a general collapse. Yet the situation is rich with irony. In the early 1990s, Greenspan would craft the Federal Reserve’s bailout of the 1980s mania. And the braindead caretaker administration of George Bush crafted the greatest socialization of private loss in history, the S&L bailout. And, remarkably, almost nobody has suffered serious criminal penalties or political disgrace for this rampant abuse of trust. Huge quantities of public money — some $200 billion, though definitive accountings are hard to come by — were spent with little discussion or analysis, and the affair is now largely forgotten. The chance to use the industry’s partial liquidation as an opportunity to develop new public and cooperative financial institutions was blown. Within a couple of years of the crisis’ passing, no one paid it any mind any longer. It’s as if it never happened.

Wall Street, page 90, Doug Henwood.

One question I haven’t seen answered so far, or even asked yet, is how the various governments around the world are paying for their bailout schemes. The US government doesn’t just have 700 billion dollars lying around, or the British government fifty billion pounds, nor even the Dutch government the 17 billion euros needed to bail out Fortis. So where do they get it from? That’s right, they borrow it on the international money markets.

So two questions: 1) if the banks are in trouble because they can’t get anybody to lend them money, where do the governments get their money from and 2) if there is money in the system, and if governments can get money for bailouts there obviously is, why isn’t this money loaned to the banks directly?

Obviously the answer to the second question is that the people with the money don’t trust the banks but do trust governments enough to think their investment is safe with them, even if their bailouts fail. Private profits, socialised risk.

Fortis nationalised

Jump you fuckers!

This time last week Fortis was to be part-nationalised by the governments of Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg. Less than a week later, this drastic measure costing billions of euros was already ruled to be insufficient and now Fortis is to be broken up, with the Dutch part nationalised and the Belgian and Luxembourg parts sold to a French bank. Instead of the four billion euros that were to be paid last week for 49 percent of Fortis, the government will now pay some 17 billion euros for the entire kit and kaboodle. No longer will it be dependent on the vageries of the stock market but instead the rot is stopped and it’s safe under state control. A thriumph for socialism?

Hardly.

There’s a big difference between a proper nationalisation done by the workers for the workers and a nationalisation of last resort as been done here. Yes, the recieved economic wisdom of the past three decades has been that state owned companies are evil, inefficient and that everything should be left to the free market, but in reality capitalism has always been happy to let government clean up its messes. In this case, the government has made clear this is a temporary measure, with Fortis to be privatised again once it has stablised, the company will be run according to normal capitalist rules rather than for the common good and the day to day running of Fortis will remain in the hands of the same people who run it now. In other words, nothing will change and the only positive thing the government has done is rewarding the same people who almost ran Fortis in the ground with their slice of the seventeen billion euros…

What’s more, that seventeen billion had to be borrowed on the financial markets, so interests will need to be paid over it. Sure, the profits Fortis will make might cover these costs, but in the short term and the current climate this is unlikely. Which means there will be more budgetcuts next year, less to spend on social welfare, especially as we’re still comitted to fighting an expensive (and of course, immoral) war in Afghanistan which also doesn’t come cheap. This at a time when the need for social welfare will surely grow, considering the collapse of the world financial system going on around us and the effects on the real economy this
already has.

No, this isn’t socialism, this is just socialism of risks and privatisation of profits: same as it ever was.

Credit crunch hits Holland

Fortis executive flashes rescue plans

So there it was on every front page this morning: Fortis, one of the largest banking and insurance companies in the Netherlands has been nationalised. What’s more, it’s been nationalised by no less than three countries: Holland takes over 49 percent of the insurance branch and pays 4 billion dollars, Belgium pays 4.7 billion for the same percentage of the banking branch, while Luxembourg invests 2.5 billion euros in the Luxembourg based interests of Fortis. Finally, the ABN Amro bank, which Fortis had just bought the Dutch branch off less then a year ago is to be sold, perhaps to ING, another finance giant, best known for taking over Barings when Nick Leeson had managed to bankrupt it…

So far the effects of the American mortgage crisis and subsequent credit crunch seemed to have barely hit the Netherlands, but with this part nationalisation it seems we too are no longer immune to it. The big question is whether Fortis is just the first to fail, or whether like the UK or America, we’ll see the whole financial sector collapse like a house of cards. There are other banks who, like Fortis, had to write off investments in the American mortgage markets this year and last, but none of these losses, including those of Fortis are big enough on their own to bring down any of the big banks. What made Fortis vulnerable was much simpler: a decision to get involved in a long and expensive hostile takeover at the exact moment that it became clear just how much of a disaster the US mortgage situation really was. This meant that Fortis had to find billions of euros it didn’t have itself to pay for its share of ABN AMro at a time when nobody was willing or able to lend it to them as cashw as tied up in the every increasing death spiral of the US mortgages.

So Fortis lost a lot of money, its shares plummetted and its customers moved their savings to other, more safer banks. Despite frequent denials and optimistic press releases, the end was near. Negotiations between Fortis and the Dutch, Belgian and Luxembourg governments started this weekend, and when one Fortis executive left the meeting on Sunday night, details of the rescue plan were clearly readable on the concept agreement he flashed the press, as seen in the picture. Which is how we know ABN Amro is to be sold and the chairman will lose his job, as officially only the part nationalisation has been agreed upon.

I’ve got mixed feelings about this. While it’s fun to gloat about how quickly dyed in the wool capitalists are converted to “socialism” when it’s their ass on the line, this isn’t the kind of socialism that actually benefits the workers themselves. What’s more, with the current plan the government doesn’t even get a controlling stake in Fortis, so has little to show for its generous investment. And generous it certainly is to pump four billion euros into a doddering company when plans to provide e.g. daycare for everybody founder on millions rather than billions. It puts the lie to the oft heard argument that “we just can’t afford” higher social benefits, or improved healthcare, or anything else that would actually improve the lives of ordinary people. Especially when you see how much money Fortis has wasted chasing after ABN Amro…

Nationalise the succesful companies, not the failures

As someone who had been saying for the past few years that things like Nixonian wage and price controls would be considered beyond the pale in a world that, I thought, understood and appreciated some basics of free markets more than it did 35 years ago, well, it’s a good thing my jaw has dropped so much on the past week’s news that I have room to fit a lot of crow.

Is there anything more sad than a disillusioned libertarian once he discovers his beloved mistress capitalism isn’t as pure as he thought she was, but is quite willing to undergo intervention if that suits her interests? Well, yes. Brian Doherty’s discomfort is after all safely theoretical, a vague unease that the economic laws to which he dedicated his political life are being overturned now capitalism has failed again and the people responsible need the help of the state to bail them out, again. Unlike like many of the people who’ve lost their jobs, their houses or both in the process, Brian’s safe. Capitalism always needs its useful idiots.

One such useful idiot is the near-mythical taxpayer, who is going to pay the costs of all those emergency nationalisations and bailouts their governments have committed themselves to, from Northern Rock to AIG. Because it’s never the strong, succesful companies that are taken over, but the wrecks left behind once the shareholders and executives have sucked them dry. Not that there’s anything new to this pattern. Remember Railtrack?

Or, further back, look at which industries were nationalised by the great social democratic governments of Europe in that great wave of nationalisations after World War II, especially in Britain. The railways, coal mines, British Leyland, all industries that were in trouble, losing their profitability anyway, to the point were state interference is welcomed as much as resented. And it then fell to the state to dismantle these industries and deal with the fallout of this, like a eneration of unemployed miners after the 1984 Miner Strike. Even those industries that were re-privatised by succesive Tory and Labour governments still leaned heavily on government support, directly or indirectly.

Which is whay nationalism this way isn’t a victory for socialism or even social democracy, but just another way in which profits are privatised but risk nationalised. What we need is not the propping up of empty husks, but the nationalisation and put into the public trust of all key industries, a reworking of society in such a way that cooperation, not competition is its central
organising feature, where “to each according to their needs, from each according to their abilities” is its motto. To do anything else is just keeping capitalism alive to cause more disaster.

Solicitere

It’s back to the eighties again, considering the complete and utter collapse of the Anglo-American financial world and the sombre news from the budget in Den Haag: can mass unemployment be far behind? If so, this old classic by the Janse Bagge Bend is shockingly relevant again.