Profit and loss...
The idea that we live in a democratic society is always invoked by our leaders. The fact that our freedom is actually based on access to capital is a fact so transparent that there isn't even a need to hide it. Take the news that Tony Blair is joining J.P. Morgan as an adviser who will provide "strategic advice and insight". One comment was:
"... some might question why banks would hire politicians. 'You wonder what they see in them as to some extent they are wasting assets... Blair knew notoriously little about economics.'"
Why pretend this is anything other than what it is? J.P. Morgan is purchasing access to the social network Blair built up over his time as Prime Minister and Blair is profiting from the opportunities afforded him while he served in public office. So it goes:
"In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests... got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press... they found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers...An agreement was reached. The policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month, an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies, and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers."
2 original comments:
Hey Mark,
“The idea that we live in a democratic society is always invoked by our leaders. The fact that our freedom is actually based on access to capital is a fact so transparent that there isn’t even a need to hide it.”
If, as it seems, you’re saying that freedom should be based in democracy, then I don’t agree. Democracy is merely the power to remove or change a government; what that government does in the meantime need have nothing whatever to do with freedom. In theory societies can be free even if undemocratic – and democratic societies can certainly be unfree, particularly when the two are conflated, leading to that strange conception of the democratic (ie, the majority) will as sovereign (eg, almost everywhere in the West).
Secondly, I don’t agree that freedom is based on access to capital. That sounds more like power to me. Freedom is merely the absence of coercion, and you can have no access to capital whatsoever and still be free of coercion.
Just swinging by randomly :) . Hope all’s good. Happy, um, last three birthdays….
Rich
Comment by Rich — 18 January, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Rich, was just re-reading this as chatting about J.P. Morgan to a friend… you rock!
Comment by Mark — 2 March, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
