Revolution in unfettered finance

My brother left me a posting from the 'Australian'; page 33 FT International, Monday June 25th 2007, for comment.

Martin Wollf; man with grey white hair (in his own photograph) and held together by his steel rim glasses and braces and waistcoat, starts the article quoting from half a dozen people, all of whom (except Leon Trotsky) are unknown. Leon of course is well known; there was a Trotskyist Society at Uni when I was there. What were their hallmarks: "Revolution".

Marty tells us what? First that the old establishment of distinct national business elites (what does that mean?), stable managerial control over companies, and long term relationships with financial institutions - is disappearing into economic history.

He says it is replaced by the triumph of the global over the local, the speculator over the manager and of the financier over the producer. The transformation of the mid 20th centurey managerial capitalism into global financial capitalism.

That is his thesis. Does he satisfactorily enunciate the evidence? What does it mean? At first blush it holds no key to comprehension of anything I want to know at the moment. "Marty - GO HOME" I can see in the banners along Davey Street tomorrow. But we don't even know where Marty is: he could be in the Philipines, or Washington, London, or Bruny Island.

Marty says the financial sector is unshackled and knows no bounds. New economic activities and new wealth, but also a new social and political landscape.

Bullshit Marty. There is no new social and political landscape; it is the same old tripe. Prove it.

First, he says "Finance has exploded". Bullshit again. We just simply have the situation where there is a lot of loose capital and bastards out there thrusting it down our throat. Reminds me of the old joke about genitalia thrust down the throat, but no time for that now. This is the finance page.

Then Marty quotes some figures. Well he may as well talk about the distance from the earth to Uranus. What relevance do these selectively and inarticulate numbers have? None. They sound as if they support his proposition, but I can sense a man who has to publish, and is sourfacedly pushing his paper at the fax machine to get his nonsense in before the deadline.

Second, he says, 'finance has become far more transaction oriented'. Fair enough; but again, this is nonsense.

Third; he says, a host of comlex new financial products have been derived from traditional bonds, equities, commodities and foreign exchange. True, but so what? We all know it is just another way of chasing the football around the park. When the music stops, we all have to take a seat, and there are more bums than cushions. Marty, what is your point?

Fifth (there is no fourth, probably because of the difficulty most inarticulate finance writers have with spelling it: is it "forth" or "fourth" they ask? The editor leaves it to the sub-editor, and then they leave it out altogether: for certainty.

Anyway, Marty's fifth is not a half bottle of scotch, although that would have been better for his belicose bullshit - at least it would have had a ring of colour. Fifth, he says, the new capitalism is ever more global. Does that mean by easy action you can ship your capital notionally or actually from one sovereign State to another without complexity or delay, and with some degree of certainty of being able to move it on further or get it back if you like? Well, perhaps that is true; but again, so what?

Marty says that the sum of international financial assets and liabilities owned by residents of high income countries jumped from 50% at some time to 330% in 2004. Bullshit Marty. You don't even know 50% of what, and how can you have 330% of anything? There is only 100% so go back and sit on your stool in the corner.

I'm only half way through Marty's article and I've stopped trying to digest it. Better to have the apple crumble and ice cream left for me on the kitchen table than more "Marty Tripe". I've skimmed the rest, and I think it is best summed up by Marty's concluding paragraph: "our brave new capitalist world [I hate it when uneducated bastards unrealistically cite Aldous Huxley's Brave New World to attempt to give themselves credibility: this article has nothing to do with that Brave New World - except that the author in the Australian is an epsilon minus Bokanovian monster oxygen starved at stage 48 in his Ford life plan]. has similarities to that of the early 1900's. But, in many ways, it has gone fare beyond it. [That is, Marty says it is like something, but is not like it at all. Thus, Marty should have rolled over and smoked another joint and just stayed in bed]. "It brings exciting opportunities": [well done Marty - more exhorbitant language with no meaning in an ocean of unrelated gibberish]. "But its also untested" [nonsense, nonsensical, irrelevant, and without context or relationship]. "It's creating new elites" [I've got to give up - Marty is now pure flatulence].

So, my brother, don't get deceived by the posturing of the newpaper filling their metaphorical journal britches with droppings from the Ooh Ahh Bird. If it don't make sense first up, it isn't right. We've been around long enough.

Cheers. Snowy.