FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

A Tectonic Shift in Hegemony at the G7

Between each individual and entire humanity, however, stands the Nation, with its special language and literature, with its peculiar origin and history, with its special manners and customs, laws and institutions, with the claims of all these for existence, independence, perfection, and continuance for the future, and with its separate territory; a society which, united by a thousand ties of mind and of interests, combines itself into one independent whole.

–Friedrich List

The recent volte-face of  Henry Paulson concerning taxpayers money  – flashback: Sept 23 , Senate Banking Committee  “Some said we should just stick capital in the banks, take preferred stock in the banks. That’s what you do when you have failure,” Oct 10, Press Conference “We can use the taxpayer’s money more effectively and efficiently, get more for the taxpayer’s dollar, if we develop a standardized program to buy equity in financial institutions,” Does indeed mean failure.

The Oct G7 meeting was a real kick in the teeth for the currently prevailing American System of Finance, ( i.e Federal Reserve, IMF and World Bank)  and the machinations of it’s aspirations in form of best laid scheme.  It marked a tectonic shift in terms of macroeconomics and hegemony in the financial channel of  Globalisation. European Union to America: ‘We don’t want your solution, we don’t want your money’.

Of course that wasn’t stated directly, there is a code to be complied with, and a world of discrete meaning in Diplomacy. As in:

 “We will have to coordinate internationally, but beyond that there should be room for nation-specific solutions,”
German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck

“We should not imagine that we will have a harmonised response that will be the same for everyone, quite simply because you cannot apply the same method to market situations that are different,”
French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde

“Governments need to move on from simply agreeing on a general approach”.
UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling

One wonders how a firebrand maverick like Hugo Chavez in his ‘diplomacy’ would have put it. Words in which sulphur figured no doubt, and hygiene in a financial setting – accompanying  a  less than polite decline in suggestion of alternative – to do with sex and travel perchance?

The world, it seems, has had enough of the American Dream as has been hi –jacked by Bankers and their ilk and who seek total global dominance. An excellent recent article by Chris Floyd this newsletter summarised the consequences of such hi-jacking lucidly in terms of  how  the Political Agenda in America is shaped:

“So remember well the lessons of this new October crash: The money to make a better life, to serve the common good, has always been there. But it has been kept from you by deceit, by dogma, by greed, and by the ambition of those who have sold their souls, and betrayed their brothers and sisters, their fellow human creatures, for the sake of privilege and power.”

The portrayal of America as involving  rugged individualism of entrepreneurial spirit in the land of opportunity, the freedom and primacy of the market and taboo against even contemplation of interference by State, is no more than a cruel distortion befitting  cynical calculation of Horatio Alger like  tale as reinforcing dream; and in stark contrast to the nightmare reality of the absence of care for the  welfare of citizen in a State which represents the interest of a few as corrupt, dishonest and greedy at the expense of  the many who are loyal, honest and hard working. There has been a progressive and  deeply cynical narrowing of interests in representation in American Politics, the poor lacking any real representation, denied any real place on the agenda in the singularity of focus;  in the narrowness of money fostered world view by such as  campaign contribution and lobbying group.

This become the American Nation as travesty of constitution, and as mockery of  promise inscribed on Statue of Liberty.

Thus to the opening quote, by an Economist whom I am thankful to have had my attention brought recently, and also to the subject of hegemony in context of fuller consideration of the significance of the G7 meeting as being disputation over the meaning of ‘Nation.’ such context.

It has been contended that the Anglo-American world view rests on the shoulders of three individuals. Isaac Newton in Science, John Locke in Politics, and Adam Smith in Economics.  The  laissez- faire approach to economics is at the heart of American Politics. Evidence the outrage in many quarters at  Paulson’s Bail Out for Banks as running completely contrary to the dictates of laissez- faire as American way.  In proposing such a move there is recognition of an alternative approach – and manifestation of abject hypocrisy in form of ‘one law for the rich, another for the poor’. Not enough that the burden of taxation be raised on the back of the citizen as opposed to  from Corporation or the wealthy;  the nose of citizen must be rubbed in it – by using such taxes to further support the wealthy in protecting them from consequences of loss as moral hazard! The ruggedness of individualism extends to the callousness and monstrosity of ‘patient dumping’ where the welfare of the poor are concerned, but when wealthy individuals are involved, State intervention is required to protect welfare. No money for physical health of poor citizen, but plenty of money where the financial health of the wealthy is at risk.

It was perchance communication of such role of individual within Nation as Political Reality the American Way which bore fruition in the schism apparent at the G7 meeting. The problem is with how money shapes Nation. Do other Nations wish the American model of individuality and political reality, with it’s glaring disparities in wealth and quality of life, and prioritisation concerning need and greed? The European Nations represented at G7 answered this question negatively, and in such answer there is a change in the wind of quite some significance.

There is also potential difference in approach concerning the State taking equity in financial institution of similar significance. In the EU approach, the State will have a say, or vote, in how the company is run. It will also have a say concerning reward for top executives. In the UK, one senior corporate executive of a now State run bank has resigned.  One wonders if the State intervention model adopted by the United States will also mean a say in the running of the company?   Or indeed, concerning reward for executives. Or corporate ‘heads rolling’ on block of State as owner for that matter.

One thing is for sure, and that is that the macroeconomic channels of Finance as a means of determination of individuality within Nation, as expressive of major aspect of Globalisation, no longer quite conveys the hegemony of American vision to such extent as was intent in the best laid scheme.

I for one, rejoice in such contemplation, while hoping for improvement in the way  America treats the Individual in relation to being a Nation – as in quote from Friedrich List.

STEPHEN MARTIN can be reached at: stephenmarti@yahoo.com

 

Your Ad Here
 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Stephen Martin can be reached at: stephenmarti@yahoo.com

Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail