The Stratfor Global Intelligence report suggests that there was an international system that shaped the international economic system, and that from 1500-1991 this was pretty static, but that the last 20 years are marking a major change. Such analysis is beyond my knowledge but the article certainly articulates it well. It also coincides with the Reformation era to the third 20th century global outpouring of the Spirit.
Jesus came to the Graeco-Roman world. This is the axis currently that is under huge pressureSince early 2000s the major theme that has been the focus for many is the Imperial spirit, the ‘taking up of the Roman way’. For those with a European focus the realisation that there have been successive ‘days’ in the Gospel history, and that a major cradle for the Gospel was the European continent, from where the mission went out (Catholic and Protestant) carrying a good seed but an Imperial package, has meant repentance, prayer, the willingness to experience exile, to explore the pain and joys of finding a totally new configuration and setting.
So now we have a European and all-but global crisis. This is not going to end. There is a new world that is being birthed, or at least a new configuration of the former world. Jesus came to the Graeco-Roman world. This is the axis currently that is under huge pressure. From there it can only spread East and West. The centres of the Spanish and Babylonian Empires are certainly going to find themselves right in line.
The banking world has to be re-configured. That might be the most visible aspect but it is not the only aspect off our world that is being re-configured.
We live in days of huge significance. Democracy has died a death in the West. I have written before that the democratic process cannot be equated with democracy. Things are the way they are because of the democratic process. For example, increasingly money is being used to manipulate political scenarios.
A huge sign is the Occupy tents on the ground of St Paul’s, the very place where the Corporation finds it roots in 1066, that gave birth to one of the major centres of global finances and its autonomous structure (I am speaking of the City of London, the square mile). The ‘Lord Mayor’ sits as a trustee on the board of St Paul’s. Symbolism all the way of what we have come to.
So what does this mean for us? True democratisation is the work of the Spirit. ‘They all received’, ‘they all spoke’, ‘we all hear’. It is the reversal of Babel (and all towers confuse language).
Who knows what will come through the crisis politically and economically, but surely it is a new day here for the body. The day of democratisation. The Roman way, the titles, the personality glitz culture? We say ‘goodbye’.
Rome might be burning, some might continue to fiddle while Rome burns… I think it is time to sing a new song.
Yes!
I think, intuitively, many people understand this though they could not articulate it. But what I really find fascinating is the different responses. There are those who embrace the change or even seek to be active in its inception. There are those who madly hold onto what they have known, resist all change, even when it is obviously needed. I guess it comes down to one’s level of risk aversion.
I presided through 4 periods of class yesterday. I never taught a thing from the front, not enough of my own students were present. Instead, the computer lab filled up with more advanced students in the same program to work on their projects. I’m fine with that. Between helping different students do their assignments I had a number of interesting conversations. With a couple of students I spoke about the massive changes coming to their world, quickly and what that might mean for them. Others have their ambitions squarely on making money with the assumption that things will remain has they have been. Some are frantically trying to figure a way foward, one with the most financial advantage but also, one that they would enjoy, that suits their desires. All fascinating discussions and all related to your topic Martin. If the world is changing, and quickly, then we all must choose if we are trying to save the old world or willing and eager to try out a new song.
c.
You hum it, I’ll play it!
Excellent stuff, goes right to the heart of the matter.
Yes!
I like.
I had that feeling when leading figures in the City were calling “for the 50p tax rate to be axed to boost economic growth.” They still don’t get it do they?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/nov/11/cameron-hints-top-rate-income-tax-stay?INTCMP=SRCH
I can see plenty of arguments why the 50p tax rate should be abolished. Not everyone paying that is a banker and there is a sensible argument that it is anti competitive and discourages entrepeneurs
If that was the case then Denmark and Sweden should be lacking entrepreneurs! The people paying the 50p tax rate are taxed at the same rate as everyone else below a certain level of £150,000 and it is only above that 50p rate is levied (assuming of course that they haven’t found some loophole to apply to their tax affairs), unless things have changed so much whilst I have been out of the country. The question is what would those who earn above £150,000 do with their extra £15,000 a year? It has not been shown that lower tax rates leads to trickle down to rest of society in a very efficient manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
while we don’t know for sure the shape of the Laffer curve between 0 and 100% (we do know that at a tax rate of either 0% or 100% nothing will be raised), consensus opinion worldwide is that tax revenues are maximised with a top rate somewhere between 40-50%.
I am sure the statisticians will show the overall negative effects of the recent top rate increase in the UK.
Of course, there may still be a moral argument for higher rates of tax for the wealthy in order to force down income inequality. We should be aware though that such a “moral” choice would almost certainly result in lower living standards for all, including the very poorest.
Good luck with this one Joanna!
)
Ever one for the challenge Chris
Nigel in the Human Development Report 2010, produced by the UN, Brazil is cited as a positive example of how cash transfers to the poor and progressive policies that “have resulted in better wages for people with a lower education” have significantly reduced inequality and yet this had all been done without a significant increase in GDP. I cannot see any evidence that this has resulted in a lower standard of living for anyone else.
Hi Joanna, I’m not an expert on Brazil although I would ask you to bear in mind that their top rate of income tax is just 27.5% currently.
Leaving the specifics behind, the point I am making is that taxation on income is de-motivating for the earner and that past a certain point it significantly impinges on the effort the individual is willing to put in. This means in aggregate, lower levels of activity in the economy etc etc
Hopefully this is non-contentious?
Studies done suggest that effect starts to kick in hard above 50%
I do not understand this argument. Bankers are all evil now and of course the financial crisis has nothing to do with our greed. The truth is employing people is very expensive and full of red tape and if you over tax people it is bound to affect their ability to either employ someone or they are spending less in the economy which will cause a loss of jobs too
And it is only fair, good luck to you too Steve!
I’m sure you will enjoy this article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/07/one-per-cent-wealth-destroyers
The subtitle gives it away, really.
“Our common treasury in the last 30 years has been captured by industrial psychopaths. That’s why we’re nearly bankrupt”
I have seen this Chris and I think although I am sure it has some valid points it simplifies the situation. Plus what do people want some for of communism. Also with regards to Africa I bet for the wealthy there are it is no different
I think the way to understand all of this is not through specific policies. If we step back a little bit what becomes clear is that we humans, social critters that we are, tend to form collectives of varied scales. Once a collective is formed – from tribe, to village to mega city – there has to be a way to govern it for the well-being of the collective since not all people behave well all the time. That governance includes choices made about resource collection, sharing and allocation. Our current system of governance and economics is based on a set of assumptions about the world that may no longer hold true. We have spent lots of time attempting to tweak the current system because a few, powerful people are able to hold the rest of us in that position (and will use force and violence if needs be to do that). The current system has been demonstrated over and over again to not serve the majority of the collective well. The resources are not distributed fairly or with the mercy that is demanded in a system that deals with mortal creatures. So change is needed, badly. Change is difficult as those that hold power in the current system do all that they can to resist change (as in their minds that can only mean that they lose). Whether we end up with businesses, taxes or anything that is in the current system remains to be seen. Humans over the centuries have organizsed themselves in a variety of ways to meet a variety of needs within varied ecological contexts. We are creative as well as social creatures. I can’t say I know what’s going to come but I’m pretty clear on what we are leaving.
c.
It is a fair point about Brazil but I think the UK is different. Education overall is better and I know some people have very difficult backgrounds but there is also great opportunities for those who put in the effort
I can think of many in my husband’s family who would be very frustrated with that comment Steve. Some of them have worked very hard and been stymied at every turn by the conditions up in the North East. Brazil has also got much in the way of opportunities but also much in the way of obstacles. The main point taken by the UN report was that it is possible to redistribute wealth to those who need it most, albeit with a social contract, without growth in the economy. If it’s possible for Brazil, it should theoretically be possible elsewhere too.
I have been thinking of your comment on bankers earlier. Banking once upon a time was thought of as a boring occupation with steady men at the helm, but somewhere along the line certain elements of it have become like a casino and in other areas the managers were under pressure to lend more and more, encouraging more and more people into debt. That was wrong and the whole ethos behind it was wrong. It was also wrong of people to borrow more and more to get more and more things, so yes bankers are not solely responsible for the mess. The gamblers at the top with connivance from those in authority have been responsible for the biggest messes though.
Joanna I totally accept the North East has had it tough but so has much of Britain but to compare poverty in Britain to poverty in some parts of the world is not fair
There has been different types of banking for a long time and we have all historically done well out of the banks. Have they screwed up yes, are they greedy yes, but I think bankers represent all of us. Everyone feels entitlement now to so much and it is all our greed that has really caused this mess
I hope things pick up for your husband’s family
Arrhh! Poverty and relative poverty, I could write an essay and probably have Steve, since I am on the path to a Masters in Managing Sustainable Rural Development and a Post Grad certificate in Development Management and so poverty in its different guises are all things I have covered over the last three years. Poverty I have found is not always related to material wealth or lack of it but to a lack of choices based in power relations in the area in which people live. Those in poverty often cannot work their way out of their situation because of the powers in control. A bit vague but there are stories after stories on that theme.
As for owning our part in the mess created, couldn’t agree more
Chris I disagree with you and I wasn’t talking about people living in poverty or in bad situations, I thought I was making a point about Europe and the west in general as this was what the post is about
OK I’m getting sucked into this one, but only briefly. Sorry but this is just too simplistically binary to let it alone. It just isn’t true.
First the mythology that gives rise to that feeling of entitlement is not based on greed in those who feel that entitlement. The mythology is predicated on a definition of normality and it takes the authoritative definition of what they say it means to be a person in this society.
Second, a huge amount of the uptake of easy credit is being triggered by need not greed. When the systems fail, when companies do not pay their bills, when tradesmen are facing bankruptcy from bad debts from bigger, more powerful businesses, when people are made redundant in late careers and credit, in the hope of trading through the crisis brought about by endemic failure seems to be the only way through it is hugely unfair to call this greed. For many people for quite a long time it has been a matter of the only hope the system offers for survival. The fact that the system itself is failing merely means that the least indebted are penalised. The problem most people have in terms of facing the demands of unsecured debt is that they simply do not have enough of it to have any power. The immense debts, the almost unimagineably huge debts give great power to the debtor. As the banks have proved.
Chris
I am sure there is credit taken up for the reasons you state but I am sorry I disagree as well. There is a feeling of entitlement to at least 2 holidays per year, meals out, certain brands I must have. Don’t forget most of the debt that was amassed was when the economy was in a good position. What were considered real treats and luxuries not long ago are now taken as the norm.
And don’t forget expecting to live beyond thirty, have an education, access to healthcare, the right to a fair trial, to speak your thoughts and so on. We can’t view one set of social changes, hard fought for, as progress and assign the rest to greed. The two examples you mention are habits of the west, some people might feel deprived if they can’t have them. Some will be, depending on how deeply they feel entitled, be seriously affected and willing to use credit to get them, in order not to fail as a person. The so called standards of living are ‘mimes’ in the sense that Gerard and Adorno etc define them.
Of course greed is around and within us. But it is pretty useless as an explanation without qualification. Is it wanting or getting more than we need? But need for what? Is it wanting more than others have? Is that all others or a particular sort?
Commodity-based greed, as has been so well established by now, is fundamentally a mimetic desire, a learned behaviour. But using the term as if it defined blame does not take us anywhere. Mimesis is inevitable, it even sits as a root meaning to the concept of discipleship. What we have to question is the object, not the subject. In other words, we need to be conscious of the forces that determine the objects of desire. What it is that we accept as normative, because these are the things that will define the need to belong.
Greed as blame is pointless, undefined, and not even a basis for discussion let alone definition. It might come into play as part of a true understanding, but it will never be the foundation of such an understanding.
Interesting that “NORTHERN” Rock was an institution very much from the North East that people from the region were extremely proud of. The next two biggest culprits that nearly brought down our banking system were Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland.
Perhaps it’s us Londoners who are suffering at the hands of idiotic management from the regions!!
(tongue firmly in cheek, please don’t jump on me)
Almost jumped then saw the tongue firmly placed in your cheek!!! Thanks for the humour…
Back on to the OP
Jane (who posts here occasionally) reminded me recently of your picture Martin of the facades swinging up and then swinging back down again.
As the establishment in NYC closes down the protests in Zuchotti Park, I wonder perhaps are we seeing the first signs of a swinging back down of the facades?
I for one hope that the conversations that have been started by these protestors around the world will continue now and that what they have loosed in terms of questioning the status quo will not be completely bound up again.
Sorry Nigel, I missed your point about the income tax but I fail to see that taxing income is demotivating. I lived in Denmark for three years and people seemed pretty motivated there; their high rate of tax did not put them off, however, they expected that services would good in recompense. So I really do not see how high taxation puts people off, unless they are no buying into the philosophy or trust the government to spend it “wisely”
Joanna, we are missing each other by such a great margin with our respective views of reality that this discussion may well be heading for a dead end.
I envy your confidence in the ability of the state to spend our money wisely. I don’t share it however.
I am sure you are aware that the first incidences of income taxation in both the UK and the US were designed in order to finance foreign wars. Little has changed since then of course other than the rate of tax which has been inexorably climbing.
I can hear what you are saying on the motivation point in that somebody already paying 48% may be less bothered about being asked to pay 50%. As tax payers we are like the proverbial frog in the gently warming water on the stove. We know what happens to the frog eventually don’t we….
All the best to you
This conversation confuses me. Sorry but it does. These discussions on tax monies generally miss the point but I guess are an important aspect of whether or not Rome is burning. While modern income taxes may be quite recent, taxation is not. So when you talk about entitlements lets forget holidays and sick leave and drug plan cards – things I would love to have. Let’s instead discuss essential health issues like shelter, access to affordable water, sanitation. These things are what people need to live and what billions around the world lack. In the time period I study, water service was taxed according to what kind of use was made of it. Folks who irrigated urban agriculture paid one rate, millers paid another, people who piped it into their homes (they paid for the infrastruture into their house) for sanitation paid yet another. Whenever infrastructure needed maintenance and repair a long list was made of subscribers to that service and then the town deputy went door to door to collect the tax. Failure to care for the system imposed penalties.
So here is what people learned over time. A system based on subscription by those who could afford it, and that left those who could not without sanitation and water, was not sustainable. Diseases travel and if the folks in the poor end of town suffered from some waterborne disease, so too did the rich. In other words, at some point we figured out that funding things like bridges, roads, sewers, water facilities and pipes all worked better if everyone chipped in some amount that they could afford. Even today most roads are funded by gas taxes.
So the discussion about taxation has to deal with different kinds of taxes, progressive vs. regressive taxation (ie. sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately harder) and the reason for the taxation. A simplistic response of the state can’t handle it and why would you trust it isn’t good enough. The infrastructure we need to keep trade going, people educated and healthy requires better thinking than that.
I don’t know how things are expected to function in the kingdom. But I do know that when human beings form collectives and then decide to create multi house settlements, questions of sanitation, water provision, food, travel and transport have to be answered and they have to be answered by the collective. Dealing with material realities and funding the allocation of resources are the next questions. Without those considerations a conversation on taxes goes nowhere quickly.
c.
2nd thought: Rome is burning. That means the particular system we have lived with for the past, umm, 500 years (actually modern capitalism can be dated back to 11th and 12th century Venice) is coming down. So what follows? To query the number of holidays an employee is ‘entitled to’ or to state, al la Ronald Reagan, that the state is irresponsible when it comes to taxation, is to think within the Roman box. That is simply an argument of degree not of type. By the way, I agree that the state is irresponsible with tax funds. When it gives big, very profitable corporations tax breaks so that those corporations pay no taxes – that’s pretty irresponsible. When it funds bailouts for bankers who destroyed many trillion dollars of global wealth in their investment casinos, including the pensions of needy seniors, that’s pretty irresponsible. When it chooses to let many millions of its own population, especially its children, live in abject poverty, denied decent education and medical care, I consider that irresponsible. So yes, lets get our thinking outside the Roman box and into what God wants. What does the Kingdom look like? That’s our question.
c.
Wow – so many comments. THANKS to everyone – I have been on the road so missed most of the comments.
I think most interesting times. Maybe a few comments into this – who would want to be a politician, or one who influences economic policies? Not me for sure. Bankers and the general public: I agree with you Steve that we cannot demonise the bankers. The system of banking as we have it is strange though: maybe 2.8% of ‘money’ in the UK exists – this is why a run on the banks is so feared. Even quantitative easing (by the BofE) puts so little more money into the system, as the majority of money is created by the commercial banks as an electronic transaction. The banking world is unique in that it does not simply do business, it creates money!!! Many businesses would love to do that.
And most of us are all part of a Western world that we live in, it is fallen, and the question is how do we live in it and not be of it. I find the book of Revelation to be such a provocation. Certainly totally unsure about it being predictive in the sense of unveiling the future, but instructive as far as unveiling the present and where the present will head to if left unchecked. I can only assume if there comes a point where the saints are called to come out of her (Babylon) that they were up to that point of time in her.
Do I think it is time to come out of her? No idea, but I certainly feel it is time to be clear of the spirit that is so strong there.
Good balance I think, Martin. I would draw attention to the little video from Positive Money in the mini blog where this is explained. The most obvious thing it expresses, although indirectly, is why the language of the economy is normally couched in terms of confidence and trust: essentially in terms of faith. When we understand that banks are little more than databases of promises, of debts claimed and acknowledged, and so little money actually exists outside the debt narrative, then the almost religious nature of the global economy becomes clear.
As to the time to ‘come out of her’, I doubt anyone knows. But it might be an idea to think a bit about what this exodus might involve, what its promised land looks like, and what we might actually do to achieve it. A return to a cash economy might be one step, but hardly crosses the border, so an embrace of what alternative?
Intercesssion for transformation still seems the most accessible stance.