Skip to main content

Financial Oligarchy vs. Feudal Aristocracy

by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh – Anthony A. Gabb

Under the feudal mode of production, peasants were often allowed to cultivate plots of land for themselves on a rental basis. However, those tenant farmers rarely succeeded in becoming landowners in their own rights because a major share of what they harvested was taken away by landlords as rent, often leaving them with a bare subsistence amount of what they produced. When the harvest was poor, they incurred debt. If peasants were unable to pay off their debts, they could find themselves reduced to the condition of serfs or slaves.

Today, under conditions of market dominance by parasitic finance capital, a similar relationship can be detected between the powerful financial oligarchs (as feudal lords of our time), on the one hand, and the public at large (as peasant population of today), on the other. In the same manner as the landed aristocracy of times past extracted rent by virtue of monopolistic ownership of land, so today the financial oligarchy extracts interest and other financial charges by virtue of having concentrated the major bulk of national resources in their hands in the form of finance capital.

The Marxist term wage-slaves refers to those who, lacking capital or means of production, have only their labor power to sell to make a living. This describes the vast majority of people in today’s capitalist societies whose sole means of subsistence is the sale of their capacity to work. “Just as the feudal-era serf had no choice but to enslave himself and his family to the manor-house lord, the modern-day serf must indenture himself to banks to own a car or home or buy a college education”.

In the latest edition of her book, Occupy Money, Professor Margrit Kennedy shows that today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector: bankers, insurance companies, non-bank lenders/financiers, bondholders, and the like. Obviously, this means that, as Ellen Brown points out: “By taking banking back . . . governments could regain control of that very large slice (up to 40 per cent) of every public budget that currently goes to interest charged to finance investment programs through the private sector”.

Distribution Effects: Escalation of Poverty and Inequality

Like the feudal rent, the hidden tribute to the financial sector, the nearly 40 percent of consumer spending that is appropriated by the financial sector, helps explain how wealth is systematically transferred from Main Street to Wall Street. The rich get increasingly richer at the expense of the poor—not just because of greed or the blind forces of the market mechanism but, more importantly, because of deliberate monetary/economic policies, which have steadily come under effective control of the financial oligarchy. Indeed, the very mechanism of money creation and/or monetary policy itself exacerbates inequality.

Although obfuscated and/or mystified, the planned or premeditated mechanism by which redistribution of economic resources from the bottom to the top takes place is fairly straightforward. The insidious mechanism of redistribution in favor of the financial oligarchy is expertly sanitized and benignly called monetary policy. Private central banks (such as the Federal Reserve Bank in the U.S.) are usually the main institutional vehicles that carry out the monetary policy of redistribution. Central banks’ polices of cheap or easy money benefits, first and foremost, the big banks and other major financial players that can outbid small borrowers who must borrow at much higher rates than the near-zero rates guaranteed to the big borrowers.

By thus gaining privileged access to nearly interest-free money, the financial elites can enrich themselves in a number of ways. For one thing, they can snap-up income-producing assets at the expense of small borrowers who lack access to cheap money. For another, they can boost the value of their wealth by creating an artificial demand (such as stock buybacks) for those ill-begotten assets with the cheaply borrowed money. In addition, they can skim vast wealth by loaning out the cheap they obtain from central banks to everyone below the top of the wealth/income pyramid—at near four percent (mortgages), at seven or eight percent (auto, student and other loans), and above 15 percent (credit cards). Obviously, this would funnel much of the national income stream to those who can borrow cheap and lend at much higher rate.

Instead of regulating or containing the disruptive speculative activities of the financial sector, economic policy makers, spearheaded by central banks, have in recent years been actively promoting asset-price bubbles—in effect, further exacerbating inequality.

Proxies of the financial oligarchy at the helm of monetary/economic policy making apparatus seem to believe that they have discovered an insurance policy for bubbles that burst by blowing new ones:

Both the Washington regulators and Wall Street evidently believed that together they could manage bursts. This meant that there was no need to prevent such bubbles from occurring: on the contrary, it is patently obvious that both regulators and operators actively generated them, no doubt believing that one of the ways of managing bursts was to blow another dynamic bubble in another sector: after dot-com, the housing bubble; after that, an energy-price or emerging market bubble, and so on”.

It is obvious that this policy of effectively insuring financial bubbles would make financial speculation a win-win proposition, a proposition that is aptly called “moral hazard,” as it encourages risk-taking at the expense of others—in this case of the 99%, since the costs of bailing out the “too-big-to-fail” gamblers are paid through austerity cuts. Knowing that the central bank/monetary policy would bail them out after any bust, they go from one excess to another.

This shows how the proxies of the financial oligarchy, ensconced at the helm of central banks and their shareholders (commercial banks), serve as agents of subtlely funneling economic resources from the public to the financial oligarchy—just as did the rent/tax collectors and bailiffs of feudal lords collected and transferred economic surplus from the peasants/serfs to the landed aristocracy.

Contractionary or Anti-developmental Nature of Parasitic Finance Capital

As mentioned earlier, today between 35 percent and 40 percent of all consumer spending is appropriated by the financial sector. Not only does this redistribute resources in favor of the financial oligarchy, it also drains the real sector of the economy of the necessary resources for productive investment and economic development.

Experience shows that, contrary to the extractive or parasitic private banking, public banking has proven quite beneficial to the developmental objectives of their communities and/or nations. Nineteenth century neighborhood savings banks, Credit Unions, and Savings and Loan associations in the United States, Jusen companies in Japan, Trustee Savings banks in the UK, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia all served the housing and other credit needs of their communities well.

Perhaps a most interesting and instructive example is the case of the Bank of North Dakota, which continues to be owned by the state for nearly a century, and which is widely credited for the state’s relatively healthy budget and its robust economy in the midst of budgetary problems and economic stagnation in many other states. The bank was established by the state legislature in 1919, specifically to free farmers and small business owners from the clutches of out-of-state bankers and railroad barons. The bank’s mission continues to be to deliver sensible financial services that promote agriculture, commerce and industry in North Dakota.

Explaining how the Bank of North Dakota utilizes people’s savings for productive credit and/or investment, Eric Hardmeyer, president of the bank, points out, “Really what separates us [from private banks] is that we plow those deposits back into the state of North Dakota in the form of loans. We invest back into the state in economic development type activities.” The bank president further indicates that in the course of the last dozen years or so “we’ve turned back a third of a billion dollars just to the general fund to offset taxes or to aid in funding public sector types of needs”.

Contrary to the case of North Dakota, most other states, burned by interest payments and other financial obligations to private banks, are forced to cut investment on public capital formation, to slash jobs and liquidate state-owned properties or state-sponsored services—often at fire-sale prices. Consider California, for example. At the end of 2010, it owed private banks and other bondholders $70 billion in interest only—44% of its total financial obligations of $158 billion. “If the state had incurred that debt to its own bank,” writes Ellen Brown, “California could be $70 billion richer today. Instead of slashing services, selling off public assets, and laying off employees, it could be adding services and repairing its decaying infrastructure”.

At the national level, the U.S. federal government paid in 2011 a sum of $454 billion in interest on its debt—the third highest budget item after the military and Social Security outlays. This figure amounted to nearly one-third of the total personal income taxes ($1, 100 billion) collected that year. This means that if the Federal Reserve Bank was publicly owned, and the government borrowed directly from it interest-free, personal income taxes could have been cut by a third. Alternatively, the savings could be invested in social infrastructure, both human and physical, thereby drastically augmenting the productive capacity of the nation and elevating the standard of living for all.

It can reasonably be argued that the ravages wrought on today’s economies/societies by parasitic finance capital’s extraction of economic resources are even more destructive than was the extraction of feudal rent to the social fabric under feudalism. There are at least two major reasons for this judgment.

For one thing, the landed aristocracies’ appropriation of the major bulk of economic surplus, or rent, required production and, therefore, employment of the farming labor force. This meant that although the farming workforce was, of course, exploited, it nonetheless benefitted from production—albeit at poverty or subsistence levels of remuneration. In the age of finance capital, however, profit making or surplus extraction by the parasitic financial oligarchy is largely divorced from real production and employment, as it comes largely through parasitic appropriation from the rest of the economy. As such, it employs no or a very small percentage of labor force, which means that, today, the financial sector generates income/profits without sharing it with the overwhelming majority of the public.

For another, whereas periodic cancellation of unsustainable peasants’ debts by landed aristocracies were considered as restorative measures for maintaining the feudal mode of production and social structure, under today’s rule of finance capital such healing measures are ruled out as omens of economic catastrophe. Historical records show that debt cancellation in the Bronze Age Mesopotamia took place on a fairly regular basis from 2400 to 1400 BC. Ancient documents decoded from cuneiform inscriptions have led many historians to believe that the Bronze Age tradition of debt cancellation in the Near/Middle East may have served as the setting or model for the Biblical pronouncements of debt relief.

Careful studies of those records indicate that, contrary to today’s perceptions (shaped largely by the influential financial interests) that debt cancellation may lead to economic disorder, as epitomized by the too-big-to-fail refrain, those earlier practices of debt relief were carried out precisely for the opposite reasons: to restore economic revival and social harmony by undoing the ravages of debt wrought on the economy and the overwhelming majority of the population. Freedom in those days meant real, economic freedom—freedom from debt bondage—not the abstract or hollow concept of freedom promoted today.

The type of economic freedom being referred to was the royal act of cancelling back taxes and other personal debts, restoring traditional family landholding rights and freeing citizens who had been enslaved for debt. These royal interventions ensured rather than encroached on general economic freedom”.

What is to be Done?

Many critics of parasitic finance capital have called for a robust regime of regulation of the financial sector. Experience shows, however, that as long as the dynamics and structures of the accumulation of capital are left intact, regulation cannot provide an effective long-term solution to the recurring crises of financial bubble and bursts.

For one thing, due to the political influence of powerful financial interests, financial regulations would not be implemented in a meaningful way, as evinced, for example, by policy responses to the 2008 financial implosion and the ensuing Great Recession.

For another, even if regulations are somehow implemented, they would provide only a temporary relief. For, as long as there is no community or real democratic control, regulations would be undermined by the influential financial interests that elect and control policy-makers. The dramatic reversal of the extensive regulations of the 1930s and 1940s that were put in place in response to the Great Depression and World War II to today’s equally dramatic deregulations serves as a robust validation of this judgment. This means that the need to end the recurring crises of the capitalist system requires more than financial regulation; it calls for changing the system itself.

Other critics of parasitic finance capital have called for public banking. The idea of bringing the banking industry, national savings and credit allocation under public control or supervision is neither complicated nor necessarily socialistic or ideological. In the same manner that many infrastructural facilities such as public roads, school systems and health facilities are provided and operated as essential public services, so can the supply of credit and financial services be provided on a basic public utility model for both day-to-day business transactions and long-term industrial projects.

As pointed out earlier, provision of financial services and/or credit facilities after the model of public utilities would lower financial costs to both consumers and producers by about 35 to 40 percent. By thus freeing consumers and producers from what can properly be called the financial overhead, or rent, similar to land rent under feudalism, the public option credit and/or banking system can revive many stagnant economies that are depressed under the crushing burden of never-ending debt-servicing obligations.

Even in the core capitalist countries public banking has occasionally been used to save capitalism from its own systemic crises. For example, in the face of the Great Depression of the 1930s, and following the Hoover administration’s unsuccessful policy of trying to bailout the insolvent banks, the F.D.R. administration was compelled to declare a “bank holiday” in 1933, pull the plug on the terminally-ill banks and take control of the entire financial system. The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, introduced by President Roosevelt (four days after he declared a nationwide bank holiday on March 5, 1933) and passed by Congress on March 9th, guaranteed full payment of depositors’ money, thereby effectively created 100 percent deposit insurance. Not surprisingly, when the banks reopened for business on March 13, 1933, “depositors stood in line to return their stashed cash to neighborhood banks”.

Similarly, in the face of the collapse of its banking system in the early 1992, the Swedish state assumed ownership and control of all the insolvent banks in an effort to revive its financial system and prevent it from bringing down its entire economy. While this wiped out the existing shareholders, it turned out to be a good deal for taxpayers: not only did it avoid costly redistributive bailouts in favor of the insolvent banks, it also brought taxpayers some benefits once banks returned to profitability.

Both in Sweden and the United States once profitability was returned to insolvent banks their ownership was returned to private hands! It is perhaps this kind of capitalist governments’ commitment to powerful financial–corporate interests that has prompted a number of critics to argue that one definition of capitalism is that it is a system of socializing losses and privatizing profits.

In the absence of incestuous business–political relationship between Wall Street and the government apparatus, nationalization of banks and other financial intermediaries is not as complicated or difficult as it may sound; since banking laws already empower regulators to impose extraordinary controls and close supervision over these institutions. It is certainly easier than public ownership and management of manufacturing enterprises that require much more than record keeping and following regulatory or legal guidelines.

Indeed, in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial implosion, the U.S. and British governments became de facto owners of the failed financial giants such as Citibank, A.I.G, the Royal Bank of Scotland, and Anglo-Irish Bank. Through the provision of enormous amounts of public funds, these governments effectively became the main investors in the collapsed institutions. Were it not because of political and/or ideological reasons, they could have easily made their de facto ownership legal ownership.

The fraudulent compensation of Wall Street’s gambling losses at the expense of everyone else is testament, once again, to the demagogical pretentions of the champions of austerity and neoliberalism that the government should stay out of the market’s affairs.

While public banking could certainly mitigate or do away with market turbulences that are due to financial bubbles and bursts, it will not preclude other systemic crises of capitalism. These include profitability crises that could result from very high levels of capitalization, from insufficient demand or under-consumption, from overcapacity or overproduction, or from disproportionality between various sectors of a market economy. To do away with the systemic crises of capitalism, therefore, requires more than nationalization of banks; it requires changing the capitalist system itself.

Source and references:


Related:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

WikiLeaks paper reveals Congressional think tank specific techniques for 'persuading' audiences

This document was obtained by WikiLeaks from the United States Congressional Research Service. The CRS is a Congressional "think tank" with a staff of around 700. Reports are commissioned by members of Congress on topics relevant to current political events. Despite CRS costs to the tax payer of over $100M a year, its electronic archives are, as a matter of policy, not made available to the public. Individual members of Congress will release specific CRS reports if they believe it to assist them politically, but CRS archives as a whole are firewalled from public access. This report was obtained by WikiLeaks staff from CRS computers accessible only from Congressional offices.
globinfo freexchange
A report from April 12, 2007, was "Prepared primarily for congressional staff members called upon to help prepare speeches for Members,” and “provides basic guidance on obtaining speech material, using it to prepare a speech draft, and presentation.”, as we read in the abstract. …

Mystery solved: here's why the Western mainstream media suddenly 'discovered' the war in Yemen

globinfo freexchange
Why it took so long for the Western mainstream media to 'discover' the war in Yemen and the war crimes committed by the Saudi coalition in full co-operation with the US?
One might think that the humanitarian disaster there - caused also by the blockade of goods for the relief of the civilians - has become so obvious, condemned multiple times by the UN, that the media finally forced to speak about it.
In previous article we attempted to explain the 'unexplained phenomenon' and the fact that CNN surprisingly returned to the issue to openly condemn the US support to the Saudi coalition atrocities against civilians in Yemen.
Yet, despite that the Saudi regimes have been, traditionally, the best allies of the Western neocolonialists, this time, the US had serious reasons to overthrow the Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). And, surprisingly enough, at the center of this underground conflict lies an attempt by the US to privatize Aramco, Saudi Arab…

Recent US elections confirmed that progressives will have to fight two monsters at once: Donald Trump and corporate Democrats

failed evolution
Nancy Pelosi's speech after Democrats took the House in recent US elections was not just a huge disappointment. Many progressives became furious about her empty speech, which was full of the most obsolete political generalities and cliches.
But it was not just that Pelosi didn't want to committ that Democrats will fight for specific issues - in favor of the vast majority of Americans - that returned in the political debate by Bernie Sanders and the progressive movement.
She actually 'gave the finger' to the progressives straight and clear.
If you don't believe it, just check her own words: “... we will strive for bipartisanship. [...] we have a bipartisan marketplace of ideas that makes our democracy strong ...
Translation: ‘We will do business as usual. The bipartisan dictatorship will remain strong and under the control of the plutocratic elite. Nothing will change, don't bother.
That's all you need to know.
Here is another evidence that the c…

The Snowden files: NSA's plans for a hundred percent coverage of every square inch of the planet

NSA wants to take its battlefield targeting alert system that they used to kill people in Iraq and in other war zones and implement it globally, so that they can target anybody anywhere.
globinfo freexchange
Suzie Dawson, asylum-seeking journalist and current President of the Internet Party of New Zealand, is being targeted by New Zealand intelligence agencies as a result of her activism in the Occupy movement and against the TPP, among other causes.
Dawson spoke with Jimmy Dore and made some astonishing revelations coming from Edward Snowden that were very little known. Here are the most impressive:
According to the NSA, it takes a whole village for them to spy on the UN. That's a direct quote they worked with the State Department and the CIA to spy on and monitor and infiltrate the United Nations.
The NSA was literally planning a system of global control. They refer to it in their documents as the global network and they want that spying network to cover the entire globe. They actua…

The establishment apparatus fabricates another poll to 'adjust' popular preference in favor of Joe Biden, against Bernie Sanders

globinfo freexchange
In late August, we identified an effort by Politico (rather sloppy), to present Joe Biden as the most suitable leader for the Democratic party, based on the fact that he could beat Donald Trump.
The sloppiness of the effort was proved by the way in which Biden was promoted against Bernie Sanders, despite that the latest was beating Trump with the same percentage, according to Politico's poll.
It was CNN that came now with another poll to contribute to this pro-Biden operation and actually verify the title of our article back then. That is, corporate Democrats will promote Joe Biden against Bernie Sanders. Indeed, as usatoday reports:
           Former Vice President Joe Biden holds a wide lead over the other potential candidates to challenge President Donald Trump in 2020, a CNN survey found. About a third of respondents named Biden as their choice to carry the Democratic banner in the next presidential election (33 percent), while Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders cam…

Liberal plutocrats preparing ground to wipe out progressives and directly take over the Democratic party in US

globinfo freexchange
Through his own humorous style, comedian Lee Camp pointed out something quite serious. As he explained, Facebook's founder and CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, fulfilled all the conditions necessary to run for president of the United States.
One key condition is certain and obvious: tons of money.
Another one, is to pretend to be religious. And this condition is, of course, particularly important in the America of Donald Trump. Indeed, as Camp says, the former Atheist Mark Zuckerberg has suddenly found religion.
And the most recent fulfilled condition by Facebook's boss, was to secure the alliance with the US deep state.
Indeed, on October 11, Facebook announced the removal of 559 pages and 251 accounts from its service, accusing the account holders of “spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” The primary thread connecting victims of the purge seems to be that they are critics and/or opponents of the American political “mainstream” or “establishment.”
Also, as Ben Nort…

George Soros tried to get rid of Yanis Varoufakis because the neoliberal regime could not handle Greece and Ukraine simultaneously

globinfo freexchange
In a recent interview at the Greek channel, Crete TV, the former Greek Minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, made some interesting revelations. Among other things, he actually confirmed what the blog thought until now to be an exaggerated far-right conspiracy theory. He essentially confirmed that George Soros intervenes directly to political leaderships, substituting political institutions in Europe and elsewhere.
Varoufakis said that, on June, 2015, George Soros tried to contact Alexis Tsipras via his own ‘channels’. In the interview, Varoufakis claims that he had no idea what Soros wanted to talk about.
As Varoufakis also writes in his book Adults in the Room: My Battle with Europe's Deep Establishment, for years he has been falsely portrayed by the pro-troika establishment and the anti-Semitic Right as Soros’s stooge in Greece.
Yet, Soros’s message to the Greek prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, came as a perverse vindication. ‘Fire Varoufakis! Europe cannot affo…

Major cheerleader of the Iraq war says entire Arab world is completely dysfunctional!

globinfo freexchange
           I got news for you. The entire Arab world is dysfunctional right now. Completely dysfunctional. And I think it has the potential to be a giant Yemen. A giant human disaster area.
Guess who said that, and most importantly, why he said it:

For a moment we thought that a miracle was about to happen. We thought that Thomas Friedman would become one of the few exceptions that would declare regret for supporting the Iraq war, in a self-criticism short 'crisis'. You know, the war that was based on big lies and opened Pandora's box for the Middle East chaos. But no. It was too good to be true.
As Ben Norton of the Real News explains:
For the past two years, many leading pundits have been portraying Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) as essentially the savior of the Middle East, if not of the world. Thomas Friedman is probably the most egregious example. But Thomas Friedman is a powerful New York Times columnist, a so-called expert on the Middle East. And he, of c…

New poll gives evidence that the establishment upgrades the identity-politics weapon to crush Bernie Sanders and his progressive movement

globinfo freexchange
Another suspicious poll came out to promote various establishment options against Bernie Sanders. As the Hill reports:
President Trump trails Michelle Obama, Oprah and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) by double digits in potential 2020 presidential races, according to a new poll.
Trump also trails several other female candidates in potential races, although by slimmer margins, the Axios poll conducted by SurveyMonkey found.
The poll shows Trump trailing by 13 points to Obama among registered voters polled, by 12 points to Oprah and by 10 points to Harris. He's also down by 9 point to Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) among registered voters surveyed, by 6 points to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and by 5 points to his 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The closest race would be between Trump and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the poll found. Warren has a 2-point lead among registered voters, according to the poll.
The poll includ…

The real reason the knives are out for Mohammed bin Salman

In the six weeks before Khashoggi’s disappearance, MBS not only managed to anger the U.S. military-industrial complex but the world’s most powerful bankers.
by Whitney Webb
Part 4 - Trouble in neoliberal paradise
While it is impossible to know MBS’ exact reason for getting cold feet in his once-ambitious plans to privatize the kingdom, we can guess. Indeed, there is a reason that MBS’ elders in the Saudi Royal family have long rejected neoliberal reforms and the mass privatization of their economy.
A 2016 report from Foreign Policy succinctly states why past Saudi Royals have avoided “free-market reforms” as the older generations of the House of Saud “understand the fragility of a monarchy whose brittle pillars rest on the quiescence of conservative clerics and a merchant class hostile to the free-market reforms that will undercut their privileges.” However, far more Saudis than just the “merchant class” have grown accustomed to the largesse of the Saudi state, as the majority of Saudi c…