Crisis? Which one?
Ben Eltham’s article and one in a similar vein appearing in Crikey point out some of the very obvious implications for everyone else of the current stock market turmoil, outside the rather quaint picture mainstream news (particularly TV) is painting of stock holders big and small losing their money. In this picture we are assailed with technical reports about how big the fall has been or which government has been forced to act. These reports have been complimented by the human interest angle which seems to consist of reassuring interviews with financial experts (is there such a thing) or vox pops with worried small time investors.
Yet as others have correctly observed, and Ben’s article talks about this, the really big questions are not getting much of a run. Of course it probably doesn’t suit the agenda of a multinational news organisation to discuss how the globalisation of all markets has created an environment totally without rules and regulation, one that operates outside the reach of any national government policies. An examination of this situation would clearly show that the root cause of this latest fiasco is not the collapse of the so-called subprime market in the US but rather the complete capitulation of governments everywhere to the neocon notion that globalisation and deregulation are in everyone’s best interests, something that has not only led to the current global financial turmoil but also led to globalised media players.
Yet we have an equally big crisis on our hands, perhaps one that threatens to make the current little fracas almost inconsequential. The obsession of news makers with the collapse of capitalism has very neatly moved the topic of climate change completely off everyone’s agenda. The Australian government’s $10 billion financial stimulus clearly demonstrates not only how impotent national governments have become (and one could argue they have voluntarily surrendered) but also indicates just how how little they are prepared to do to address the carbon challenge. Although $10 billion is small change in the matter of global finance it could go some way to building long term national infrastructure that could help this country prepare for the inevitable consequences of global warming. That the government instead has chosen to spend its (our) money in a way that is intended to stimulate the economy also shows that when it comes to climate change and the economy, none in government are actually prepared to act in the long term interests of the country. Its all about short term expediency which is exactly the thinking that got us into this mess.
The other thing about this economic splurge is how it can easily be seen as a wasted opportunity. Giving away money to people might well be popular for a short time but the return on investment is pretty fickle. Chances are high that come the next election in 2010 the voters will have long forgotten this largesse and the world will be two years further down the track to catastrophic climate change. Decisive action now might actually produce a political payoff by 2010 but you would actually need some courage of your personal convictions as well as the support of likeminded individuals to go down that path. It would appear that Kev and his disciples prefer the advice of the Gerry Harveys of the world and still believe in spite of the obvious contradiction that the capitalist system will sort it all out.