Rhine Capitalism

18 April 2014

Friday


rhine castle

Thursday’s Financial Times included a special supplement on “Frankfurt as a Financial Centre,” and this supplement included the article “Deutsche Börse hopes that its philosophy has global appeal.” And what is the philosophy of Deutsche Börse AG? According to chief executive Reto Francioni, the philosophy of Deutsche Börse AG is “Rhine capitalism.” So what is Rhine capitalism?

deutsche-borse-group logo

Here is a quote from Reto Fancioni from the Financial Times article that employs this interesting formulation:

“We share the same basic belief that the market economy also has to fulfill a social obligation, and that the ‘Rhine capitalism’ model of an economy buffered by corporations and focused on the long term, with strictly regulated markets — which are free for that very reason — is fundamentally superior to the Anglo-American capitalism model of deregulation.”

Further along in the same article we find the following:

[Deutsche Börse AG] hopes that its philosophy of a capitalism based on long-term careful planning will find a more receptive audience worldwide.

If you take a minute to read the mission statement and core values on the Deutsche Börse AG website you will find the usual corporate platitudes, though the following sentence underlines the quotes above from the Financial Times article:

We stand for integrity, transparency and the safety of capital markets. We support regulation that advances these qualities.

A New Year’s reception speech by Reto Francioni on the Eurex Group site repeats some of his thoughts on “Rhine capitalism” in a slightly different context. After stating his strong support for the European idea — saying that “there are no alternatives” to a united Europe — Francioni goes on to say:

…we share the same basic belief that the market economy also has to fulfill a social obligation and that the “Rhine capitalism” model of an economy buffered by corporations and focused on the long term, with strictly regulated markets — which are free for that very reason — is fundamentally superior to the Anglo-American capitalism model of deregulation.

This very interesting claim, however, was preceded in the speech by this…

I am a fan of good regulation. But I stress the word “good”, meaning professional. After all, we are involved in a global competition in regulation.

…and this…

The US remains a pioneer in many respects… They are ahead of us in re-regulation of capital markets and they made use of the crisis to rapidly create new and effective banks and stock exchange
organisations which have been strengthened through mergers and disciplined through sanctions.

Francioni really sounds like he’s trying to have it two ways here: he acknowledges that the US is ahead of Europe in re-regulation but then also holds that “Rhine capitalism” is distinctive because it does not endorse the Anglo-American model of deregulation. So which is it? Is the US leading in re-regulation, or is it guilty of a reckless deregulation that stands in stark contrast to “Rhine capitalism”?

Francioni is talking like a politician when he talks about Rhine capitalism embracing regulation and being the stronger for it while saying that there is a global competition in regulation so that “good regulation” is called for. I doubt that you could find an Anglo-American banker who would have anything but praise for “good” regulation. For this statement to have any content at all it would need to explain the difference between good regulation and bad regulation, preferably citing actual examples of each.

Setting aside Francioni’s double-speak about regulation, what are we to understand by “Rhine capitalism” on the basis of his public pronouncements? We can include within “Rhine capitalism” at least the following:

1. the market economy has social obligations

2. corporations “buffer” the market economy

3. the market economy should be focused on the long term

4. the market economy should be strictly regulated

5. free markets are free in virtue of being regulated

6. regulation of the market economy should be professional

All of these are nice ideas, but they all beg the question. What are the social obligations of a market economy? Are they the obligation to increase the wealth of a society, or to attempt to impose an elusive “safety” and “stability” on markets? How do corporations “buffer” the market? Are corporations to have privileges over and against sole proprietors and partnerships in their role as market buffers? Or is this rather a veiled criticism of the role of private equity? What is the long term for Rhine capitalism? Are we talking about ten months, ten years, or ten centuries? I certainly don’t see in Europe (not to speak of the Rhineland) any more willingness to fund the future than I see in the US. What is a strict regulation, and how are we to distinguish between good and bad regulation? Between professional or unprofessional (amateurish?) regulation? How much strict regulation means that a market is free in virtue of its regulation?

Although I don’t expect that my questions will be answered, I don’t ask them merely rhetorically. I really would like to know exactly what “Rhine capitalism” is, though I think the key to understanding the idea is this: Rhine capitalism is not Anglo-American deregulation. In other words, whatever the British and Americans are doing, we aren’t doing, but we’re still capitalists.

I worry that, in the wake of a devastating financial crisis, European bankers selling themselves to a suspicious public now focused on resentment of “the one percent” by defining “Rhine capitalism” as a vague alternative — the one thing that is clear is that it is not Anglo-American deregulation — are really selling a bill of goods. Francioni offers all kinds so reassuring ideas about a carefully planned, strictly regulated market that fulfills social obligations, but we are right to be suspicious of this in the same way that the working class is right to be suspicious of wealthy bankers. Bankers who claim to do good usually end up making a mess of things, and the bankers that usually benefit society the most are those than focus on making the most money.

. . . . .

signature

. . . . .

Grand Strategy Annex

. . . . .

Regulating the Poor

28 March 2012

Wednesday


Last January in Ica to Lima I quoted a famous line from Anatole France:

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”

And last September on Twitter I wrote:

We shouldn’t say that anything is “banned,” only that it has been “denied to the poor.” The rich can always satisfy their wants and needs.

I don’t think that there has been a sufficient appreciation of the intimate relationship between law and poverty.

Our legislators like to pretend that they are making laws that are universally applicable to everyone within a given nation-state, and the mass media is complicit in this illusion by reporting on an egalitarian society that simply does not exist. Of course, our legislators have plenty of practice in this art, because every two or four years they must go out on the campaign stump and pretend as though they are “just plain folks” when they are not.

There is an old saying that, money can’t but you happiness, but it does allow you to choose your own kind of misery. So it is that the wealthy have choices denied to the rest of us, and among these choices are opportunities to avoid any law felt to be onerous or an inconvenience. The rich live in a libertarian anarchy in which all things are possible.

This I take to be F. Scott Fitzgerald’s point at the end of The Great Gatsby when the narrator says:

“Tom and Daisy — they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made…”

The same essential idea was expressed with less poetry and more viciousness when Leona Helmsley, the “Queen of Mean,” was quoted as saying, “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes.”

Despite the persistent idea of equality before the law in democratic societies, we all have known, even if we don’t much talk about, the fact that the rich are not subject to the same laws as everyone else. Back before abortion was legal in the US, if a girl from a privileged family got in “trouble,” she went to Sweden for a safe and legal abortion, or she was sent to have her child in Europe where such things carried less social stigma. Today, abortion is legal in the US, but the political climate in large swathes of the US means that an abortion is almost impossible to obtain in some states, but for those for whom travel out of state presents no difficulties it is not a problem, though it is a problem for the poor.

The middle classes don’t have the scope of free action that the wealthy possess, but they do posses some scope of action that the poor do not. For example, the middle classes have just enough money that, if they prioritize some particular interest or activity, they can choose one or two or maybe three areas where they will exercise their freedom — whether these areas might include private schools, exotic vacations, or boutique health care.

And to mention medical care brings us back to the topic of yesterday’s Three Alternatives to PPACA. It is important to understand that the debate over health care is really a debate over what health care the poor will have, and then this debate is really a debate over how the poor will be regulated (in ways that do not regulate other segments of society).

Regardless of what measures are imposed on the US population as a consequence of PPACA, the wealthy will continue to enjoy the best medical care that money can buy. They can afford to pay into whatever system they need to pay into, and then still buy themselves whatever they want outside the system (or above and beyond minimum requirements). It is those without options who will be stuck with the system and whose lives will be most profoundly affected by it. And, as I noted yesterday, most of those who have no health care or no health insurance at present do not have it because they cannot afford it. They will be the ones forced to face either unaffordable premiums or fines.

Neither the wealthy nor the middle class will have to make painful decisions about cutting back on food or cutting back on electricity or cutting back on heating in order to meet health insurance premiums (and thereby ensure that the insurance industry continues livin’ large), but these are issues as real to the poor as the monthly worry of making rent and having enough to eat.

Thus we can say in precise analogy with the earlier quote from Anatole France:

“The health care law, in its majestic equality, obligates the rich as well as the poor to purchase health insurance, to choose between paying bills and paying premiums, and to face fines if they cannot afford the premiums.”

. . . . .

signature

. . . . .

Grand Strategy Annex

. . . . .

%d bloggers like this: