5 ms·

"There is no sector in the modern United States or Britain that is willing to stand up to big banks in the political arena. And top financial-sector executives

by thrush 13y ago

"There is no sector in the modern United States or Britain that is willing to stand up to big banks in the political arena. And top financial-sector executives continue to enjoy such high prestige that they are still called upon to run public finances. Politicians continue to defer to the supposed wisdom of these individuals." ... looking at you, kid (tech sector)

jrkelly 13y ago
Churches are the first thing that leapt to my mind. The new pope seems to be headed this way: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-system-inequality-money-2013-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-sys... And religions have done this historically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)
- saraid216 13y ago
  It's worth noting that "churches" isn't the monolithic system that they sound like. There are a significant number of clergy and churches who are in it for the money and may as well count as part of the financial sector for the intents and purposes of this discussion. Pope Francis is making statements, but I don't know what he can do beyond talking, and assuming he has useful actions to take, if he will take them.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    While not a Catholic, I think Francis's accomplishments in this area are both overrated and underrated. They are overrated because he isn't saying anything that the last four popes did not say in terms of the actual issues. But they are also underrated because what Francis has done is to put the pieces together differently. He's essentially pointed out that the Church's teachings on economics (again going back more than a century) are central because the modern capitalist structure leads to everything the Church deplores in the modern world. It leads to independent retirement (throwing old people away, in Francis's words), and that to abortion. In essence, what he's done is to step back from the fights of the 1960's and return to the fights of the 1930's, and for this the Progressives seem to love him..... What the Catholic Church can accomplish is the further development of Distributist thought, as an alternative to Capitalism. But Distributism is no longer just a Catholic thing. I was introduced to the concept by a Russian Orthodox priest, and I find many of the most Distributist folks I know are Neopagans (particularly Asatru).
    - toyg 13y ago
      The difference between Francis and his predecessors is that he actually started a shakeup of internal structures, rather than keeping the debate on a purely theological level. This is what "progressives" like. His two predecessors could talk a good game, but when chips were down they would invariably nominate dodgy ultra-conservatives to take care of finances and would use Vatican Council II as a fig leaf over a de-facto structural alliance with US-sponsored capitalism, because Cold War. This Argentinian fellow has made some remarkable statements (on priest weddings, among other things), and if he follows through on them, the Church could change radically. He's also dismissed part of the old guard, promoting more "liberal" figures; among other things, he's finally admitted that the shady IOR (the Vatican bank) will have to clean up its act, and nominated new managers to do just that. In terms of economic doctrine, I personally don't see much of a difference in what he's saying, compared to his European predecessors, but I admit I haven't studied this closely. What is clearly changed is the willingness to harshly criticise the North-American model. In a way, this guy is the first post-Cold-War pope; US donations are faltering (because of pedo scandals) so their political weight is diminishing inside the Church, and Bergoglio himself represents a South-American view of the world which is much more critical of traditional US policy in all sectors, including economic ones.
      - einhverfr 13y ago
        I don't know about shaking up internal structures. Certainly in terms of who has been excommunicated, there has been no change. What he has done is moved the economic teachings from a branch of Catholic social teaching into a more central role. I think that's easy to understate. But that's not the same as taking a new position on the issues. And I think the liberals have vastly overstated the way in which Francis seems to be one of them (he has excommunicated a bishop for calling for the ordination of women for example). > "What is clearly changed is the willingness to harshly criticise the North-American model." I don't know. Rerum Novarium, Centicimus Annus, etc. all included similarly harsh language. That's not something I see as different. It's just that Popes were ignored when they said this. In fact John Paul II complained heavily that such criticism of Capitalism were ignored by so many Catholics.... > "Bergoglio himself represents a South-American view of the world which is much more critical of traditional US policy in all sectors, including economic ones." I think that's an important point actually, and I think it puts his attacks on independent retirement as poisonous fruits of capitalism (i.e. a society that "throws away old people") in a certain context. But the corrolary here is that he has legitimated Dorothy Day's withering attack on Social Security and thus attacking causes even more dear to the American left than abortion.
zt 13y ago
Really? Financial regulators and Secretaries of the Treasury often come from big banks or the lawyers that serve them. We can debate whether that's good or bad, but the tech sector's luminaries (whoever you want to argue they are) aren't asked to run large parts of the public sector. I think we'd be better off if they were but that sort of revolving door doesn't exist currently.
einhverfr 13y ago
You can't stand up to the financial sector if you are an investment-funded venture. That way is suicide. The problem is that once you get to a certain size, a significant part of your shares are owned by investment banks.
- thrush 13y ago
  It seems that what you're pointing out is basically no company can stand up to the financial sector because they are too dependent on them. But at some point if your right hand is causing you too much pain, you'll have to cut it off. I wonder how close we are to that point. I'd like to see the financial and insurance sectors run primarily by tech workers and leadership. I think this could help neutralize the problem. I think this alludes to zt's comment as well.
  - einhverfr 13y ago
    Right. However, it won't be the established players or even the VC-funded startups that can do this. It will be a shift from investment-funded firms to lifestyle businesses, and it won't be sector specific.

by thrush 13y ago

jrkelly 13y ago

Churches are the first thing that leapt to my mind. The new pope seems to be headed this way: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-system-inequality-money-2013-11 http://www.businessinsider.com/the-pope-on-the-financial-sys... And religions have done this historically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubilee_(biblical)

saraid216 13y ago
It's worth noting that "churches" isn't the monolithic system that they sound like. There are a significant number of clergy and churches who are in it for the money and may as well count as part of the financial sector for the intents and purposes of this discussion. Pope Francis is making statements, but I don't know what he can do beyond talking, and assuming he has useful actions to take, if he will take them.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  While not a Catholic, I think Francis's accomplishments in this area are both overrated and underrated. They are overrated because he isn't saying anything that the last four popes did not say in terms of the actual issues. But they are also underrated because what Francis has done is to put the pieces together differently. He's essentially pointed out that the Church's teachings on economics (again going back more than a century) are central because the modern capitalist structure leads to everything the Church deplores in the modern world. It leads to independent retirement (throwing old people away, in Francis's words), and that to abortion. In essence, what he's done is to step back from the fights of the 1960's and return to the fights of the 1930's, and for this the Progressives seem to love him..... What the Catholic Church can accomplish is the further development of Distributist thought, as an alternative to Capitalism. But Distributism is no longer just a Catholic thing. I was introduced to the concept by a Russian Orthodox priest, and I find many of the most Distributist folks I know are Neopagans (particularly Asatru).
  - toyg 13y ago
    The difference between Francis and his predecessors is that he actually started a shakeup of internal structures, rather than keeping the debate on a purely theological level. This is what "progressives" like. His two predecessors could talk a good game, but when chips were down they would invariably nominate dodgy ultra-conservatives to take care of finances and would use Vatican Council II as a fig leaf over a de-facto structural alliance with US-sponsored capitalism, because Cold War. This Argentinian fellow has made some remarkable statements (on priest weddings, among other things), and if he follows through on them, the Church could change radically. He's also dismissed part of the old guard, promoting more "liberal" figures; among other things, he's finally admitted that the shady IOR (the Vatican bank) will have to clean up its act, and nominated new managers to do just that. In terms of economic doctrine, I personally don't see much of a difference in what he's saying, compared to his European predecessors, but I admit I haven't studied this closely. What is clearly changed is the willingness to harshly criticise the North-American model. In a way, this guy is the first post-Cold-War pope; US donations are faltering (because of pedo scandals) so their political weight is diminishing inside the Church, and Bergoglio himself represents a South-American view of the world which is much more critical of traditional US policy in all sectors, including economic ones.
    - einhverfr 13y ago
      I don't know about shaking up internal structures. Certainly in terms of who has been excommunicated, there has been no change. What he has done is moved the economic teachings from a branch of Catholic social teaching into a more central role. I think that's easy to understate. But that's not the same as taking a new position on the issues. And I think the liberals have vastly overstated the way in which Francis seems to be one of them (he has excommunicated a bishop for calling for the ordination of women for example). > "What is clearly changed is the willingness to harshly criticise the North-American model." I don't know. Rerum Novarium, Centicimus Annus, etc. all included similarly harsh language. That's not something I see as different. It's just that Popes were ignored when they said this. In fact John Paul II complained heavily that such criticism of Capitalism were ignored by so many Catholics.... > "Bergoglio himself represents a South-American view of the world which is much more critical of traditional US policy in all sectors, including economic ones." I think that's an important point actually, and I think it puts his attacks on independent retirement as poisonous fruits of capitalism (i.e. a society that "throws away old people") in a certain context. But the corrolary here is that he has legitimated Dorothy Day's withering attack on Social Security and thus attacking causes even more dear to the American left than abortion.

zt 13y ago

Really? Financial regulators and Secretaries of the Treasury often come from big banks or the lawyers that serve them. We can debate whether that's good or bad, but the tech sector's luminaries (whoever you want to argue they are) aren't asked to run large parts of the public sector. I think we'd be better off if they were but that sort of revolving door doesn't exist currently.

einhverfr 13y ago

You can't stand up to the financial sector if you are an investment-funded venture. That way is suicide. The problem is that once you get to a certain size, a significant part of your shares are owned by investment banks.

thrush 13y ago
It seems that what you're pointing out is basically no company can stand up to the financial sector because they are too dependent on them. But at some point if your right hand is causing you too much pain, you'll have to cut it off. I wonder how close we are to that point. I'd like to see the financial and insurance sectors run primarily by tech workers and leadership. I think this could help neutralize the problem. I think this alludes to zt's comment as well.
- einhverfr 13y ago
  Right. However, it won't be the established players or even the VC-funded startups that can do this. It will be a shift from investment-funded firms to lifestyle businesses, and it won't be sector specific.