Is a place where money makes money by buying and selling ownership of certain companies all around the world. At this moment in time money is being “lost”. You know, like when you go down to the shops and you find the $20 note you had tucked into you pocket before you left has suddenly worked its way out onto the pavement on the way.
The stock market is a bizarre concept in many ways but one thing is commonplace, the herd instinct. When the mass of brokers and agents that fly high in the charged atmosphere of the world markets suddenly start heading for safer waters then a stampede is on. This happens with the stock market every now and then, fairly famously in 1929 which in turn generated the depression of the 1930’s. In recent times, in 1987 the markets underwent a similar “correction” which produced another period of depressed economic activity.
There is an argument that the crash of 29 did not actually cause the depression of the 30’s rather the depression was part of the same cycle, one that was exacerbated by poor monetary policy and bad government decisions. Their is no real argument that the wild speculation of the early 20’s which drove the stock market up until its crash was fundamental to its subsequent demise. People borrowed money to buy stocks believing that the ever inflating stock prices would return a suitable profit, it was a get rich quick scheme! Unfortunately when panic set in, a lot of people got poor even quicker.
Times have moved on but somethings do stay the same, people and their behaviour for one. We have seen an almost unprecedented bull market in recent times, as the stock market has surged to new heights on an almost daily basis. Does this mean that all of these companies have suddenly tapped into new and highly profitable markets and that the world has discovered new sure ways for making money? Or are we simply witnessing the herd at work, people wanting the stock market to be their financial saviour and building their castles on the surface of its ever expanding bubble?
When money gets lost on the stock market in a big way there is a distinct likelyhood that people who didn’t gamble on rising stock prices will end up being hurt as well. Spreading more paper money around after people lose their shirts on a crash risks devaluing the currency and severely courts the possibility of high inflation. Not doing anything might be a tough choice but how else will we move away from gambling on the future to actually doing something concrete? The great depression ended in the US after the New Deal kick started economic activity with renewed nation building activity and laws designed to regulate more tightly the financial markets. Unfortunately unemployment remained high until the WW2.
From the viewpoint of 2007, what has changed? There has been a long period of economic growth, some of which is surely based on speculation. If companies such as Microsoft are considered blue chip then it is clear that the market is obsessed by day to day profits and has no capacity for the broader concerns of a fairer and more equal society. There has been a worrying trend to more casual credit in recent times as people have struggled to maintain their standards of living. Coupling our national economy with the world at large might appeal to certain vested parties but there are considerable risks as the fallout from the so-called sub-prime fiasco demonstrates. Anyone who thinks the recent turmoil on the stock markets won’t have an impact on the rest of us is living in fairyland.
New propaganda today about how protected our local petrol retail market is, courtesy of our ABC and generous reporting of Rudd’s foray into Bali. Both of these story continue the long standing practice of manipulating the public news services in order to set an agenda and regulate debate. In the case of the petrol story, whilst there is very real pain for large sections of the Oz public when it comes to increasing petrol prices, such increases also serve to illustrate how totally dependent our society is on the dwindling resource which in turn should really raise questions about what we are doing to address the problem. Focusing the debate on the easy hip pocket nerve merely serves to perpetuate the notions of powerless and unconscious consumers served by a ruthless corporate state.
Imagine the petrol runs out tomorrow. The country completely collapses. Petrol, diesel or avgas are the lifeblood of our world. Period. We might at a pinch solve some of the easier personal transport issues with the small electric vehicles making their way slowly to market but at their current rate of supply it will be 2100 before they have a sizeable impact. Simply not even in the slightest, is any urgency being expressed about what is going to be a incredibly difficult problem, its just business as usual. Car makers are plodding along, hand in hand with oil companies and governments continue to pretend that petrol and cars are here forever. 15 million cars in Oz alone, zillions of kilometers of roads, planes flying in and out of Sydney every 2 minutes and an entire society utterly hooked on cheap transport, which is likely to run out of fuel in most people’s lifetime.
Which is what makes Bali almost laughable. Of course one of the ironies is that without modern transport, the Bali conference wouldn’t be possible or even needed. Global warming is a direct consequence of the human race liberating all that carbon trapped under ground into the atmosphere. The science is pretty solid, as are the limits to world oil supplies. Grand speeches by our Kev might help his public image in the short term but what is really required is action. Talk about targets and ambivalence about figures because of their potential economic effect demonstrates how little real political will exists to make the sort of changes that might save the planet. Put simply, debate about targets because they might adversely affect a national economy (ie one based on burning shitloads of fossil fuels to drive a consumer society) reveals how desperate the situation is.
We still have some options. This small window of opportunity is available to us collectively and peacefully, to make the radical changes that are really needed and to develop sustainable alternatives. It is a absolutely huge task but we are in the best position to do it. Applying what we already know to start solving these problems has to begin today, waiting until 2020 or whenever is pointless. The problems will be bigger and the available resources will be less. Solving the problems begins when governments start acting and not just talking. There are no silver bullets, fixing this mess is going to involve pain for a lot of people but it is going to be a lot less painful than doing sweet bugger all which is a recipe for disaster.
In his book “Manufacturing Consent” Noam Chomsky talked about the role of big business in the media industry, illustrating the role media outlets have come to play in managing dissent in society and disseminating the views of only a few. The pressure that businesses can exert on other businesses is aptly demonstrated here. The process is hardly surprising but is really only part of the story.
The internet is a considerable threat to conservative forces around the world. The Chinese government is famous for its highly restricted policing of the internet, yet big business did not see this fundamental attack on free speech as any impediment to doing business with the Chinese (link,link,link). Looked at critically, the companies engaged with the Chinese are fundamental to strategic control of the internet with direct influence at the desktop, router and search junctures. Complimenting the control of internet access is an attempt to police the software components (link,link) whilst at the same time employing an army of spies to keep up surveillance on the population.
The Chinese approach is showing other governments how to do it. Whilst few governments have both the desire and ability to adopt such a blanket approach to IT, the repression of bloggers and restrictions on internet access continue. Also continuing are government laws to tighten copyright restrictions. It is worth noting that Google owns YouTube and whilst the terms of service on YouTube might technically be breached by the Egyptian blogger, the effect is to marginalise dissenting information to fringe outlets and thus limit its potential exposure. YouTube as a business needs to protect itself with such terms or run a very big risk of being sued out of existence, so risky material has to go elsewhere presumably with less of the YouTube benefits.
These events are not part of a grand conspiracy but they do reflect the general direction that big business and government are moving as they exert control over the new media world. Financial threats, control of infrastructure, laws that favour the few over the many, and repressive policing all add up to a very dark shadow threatening to eclipse the bright new technological light.
In 1922 Walter Lippmann wrote “That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough.” You can get his book as an eBook from here. It might not be so freely available one day.