EZ money – you can Bank on it!

It is just like a circus act – spinning plates as the audience waits for one to fall. When one falls, the act is over and they all fall. The plates – the Eurozone and banks – are spinning still – just – but the spinner is tiring, there is less time to go and the plates are shaking wildly.

 

Both the European banking system and its impact on the Eurozone are in critical mode. The illnesses are not being treated – we are merely ameliorating the symptoms. The new package of measures announced on 29th June provide some breathing space but the banks are the same banks as they were before and the Eurozone has exactly the same problems as it did on the 28th June.

 

Twin Devils: EZ and Banking

 

Banking is a devilish concoction – see my earlier posting: https://jeffkaye.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/banks-and-time-travel/

which focuses on the Mephistophelean trade that banking makes with us – the bringing forward of tomorrow’s wealth into today (with our soul in return). No government since money was invented has properly understood banking or had the ability to control it and democracies are ill-suited to manage the banks, the bankers or their products (although that is not a case made for ending democracy!).

 

On the same day that the EZ nations announced their new answers to the EZ crisis, UK banks were being vilified for their LIBOR manipulations and for wrongly selling interest rate insurance to small businesses (many of which collapsed under the strain of the repayments when interest rates collapsed under the banking-induced downturn in 2008). It couldn’t be made up!

 

The EZ nations horse-trade over more loans to the banks which bypass the sovereign debt obligations of Italy and Spain, amongst others. Banks will get loans directly from the ECB (for example) – which means that Germany will guarantee 50% of the loans, but France, Italy and Spain will also carry a burden.

 

The twin devils are fighting for their existence and the markets applaud every move – but, the problems persist.

 

Twin headache

 

Banks have existed far longer than the EZ and will outlive it. The likelihood is that the EZ nations, fighting for the survival of the Euro, will continue to miss the point. Banks are not, in the main, national entities, they form part of a world-wide consortium. Banks are a supra-economy and their product – money – can be created easily and changes time – lending and borrowing transform today’s problems into tomorrow’s – in a way that nothing else in economics can do.

 

Banks’ ability to transform time (the magical transformation that lending and, to some extent, insurance provides) is exactly what has provided the EZ with its problems – and the issue that wrecked Lehmans and nearly wrecked the US banking system. The banks’ inability to control themselves within reasonable and rational limits of lending has now been transferred to the countries where they are based. Sovereign debt has been amassed to cover the time travelling antics of the banks. Twin problems.

 

Paying it Back

 

Most economists are unclear about the problems that banks provide when unregulated on a macro-economic scale – all governments suffer the same lack of understanding, Money is not just easily created and employed, it effects transfers between time that equilibrium-based traditional economics does not understand. A loan provided to a company at an interest rate with payments spread over many years represents the ability of that company to achieve something now rather than later. The debt is paid off through interest (the economist’s price of money) and over time. Discounted cash flow techniques (based on interest rates) debase the future – eventually, it completely discounts it as though it was worthless.

 

But, the price of money is not just the interest rate. Price is repaid from tomorrow’s debt mountain when the debts pile up beyond the ability of payers to pay. The devastation of the Greek economy and young people’s work prospects in Spain testify ingloriously to this. The price is a heavy burden when the macro-economic effects of out of control banks are misunderstood. Supply and demand curves for money are meaningless when money is more or less free and money becomes free very often in society – which assumes a zero risk. It happened in the 1990’s and it happened just prior to 2007/8 – money was free because it was being created from nothing – by new forms of leveraging in secondary and tertiary markets that no-one understood. Interest rates were of no use as bankers and financiers scoured the market for easy bets (for that is what they were).

 

Now, we face many years of deleveraging – where yesterday’s over-leveraging is paid back – where time travel gets reversed. It must be that the discounted cash flow calculations were wrong – the assumptions were riddled with errors.

 

3D Chess played with blindfolds in different time zones

 

Economic management of banks and of sovereign debt makes assumptions based on projections that are misunderstood. Fund flows and interest rates that are meant to cover the supply and demand parameters miss the critical build-up of debts at a national level and at an international level. It is the mass of debt and the difficulty of managing that debt pile against a continuously changing assembly of poorer and poorer borrowers that constantly defeats bank management. The constant desire to bring forward projects from tomorrow into today – whether by an individual or a company or a government – feeds that process. It is the drive to consume now, the size, complexity and continuous shifts that make the problem so much greater than it was in the 19th Century.

 

3D Chess played with blindfolds and over different time zones looks easy in comparison and the answers are not easy to come by. The answers being implemented are micro-economic in the way that individual banks are required to increase capital ratios, for example.

 

The complexity in a period of deleveraging allied to a need for growth is enormous. Governments cannot (over time) have it both ways. Most developed nations are over-leveraged having borrowed far too much out of tomorrow’s wealth. At the same time, we are being told that we need more growth to help repay the debts. There is a limited intelligence involved here – or just maybe that the limited intelligence of politics is competing with economic reality. We should all be aware that for those countries in a downward spiral there are but three ways out of this: to deleverage (i.e. pay back debts); to reflate and debase a currency; to default – or a mix of the three. In the US and UK, reflation and currency debasement has been attempted; in Greece, there has been a default; elsewhere in Europe, the can keeps getting kicked but it looks more and more likely that German taxpayers will pay out for Italian and Spanish profligacy without the huge institutional and cultural changes that would make the investment worthwhile.

 

What’s the answer?

 

Governments have been trying to control banks for hundreds of years and failed. In the 21st Century, complexity has risen as has the ability of major banks and their staff to manipulate markets and manipulate customers.

 

This is not just a banking or EZ crisis – we have now to question our economic judgement and whether capitalism as we have practiced it for the last fifty years works. Just like corruption, banks and bankers will swarm into any gap that the market allows. It is not much use to anyone to swing the pendulum back and forth on regulation as economies grow or splutter.

 

After all, the problems in banking and in the EZ are problems of economies and problems that are due to a laissez faire relationship with growth as measured by….money (GDP). The only targets that we (not just the UK but world-wide) measure our success in is in money. The only targets are GDP targets – growth targets are GDP.

 

What is the answer? The answer lies in our ability to bring quality (and ethics) into our economic affairs.

 

Quality vs Quantity

 

As the Chinese and other developing nations rise up the GDP scale and as the world continues to use up its natural resources, we have not assessed why we continue to follow 19th Century economic principles that propose that we spend our way to happiness. GDP growth is important as societies develop – as hunger is eradicated, shelter is found, clothing is ensured and jobs provided. How important it is when we are “grown” is the debate that is now needed. Growth in what?

 

The rush for money (what seems to be the mainstay of society) is what has rushed the banks and EZ into the mire. We don’t understand the impact we are having on the next generation and beyond in terms of debts built-up and resources squandered.

 

We now have a quality vs quantity argument that underlies all the short-term “solutions” that we read about. The right answers require the right questions and the right questions may include something like: “do we need to use up tomorrow?” – that is what banking is, a discounted cash flow estimate of the future where everything is translated into numbers and where quality is completely overcome by the quantitative.

 

Numbers are in charge – and therefore banks (based solely on numbers) are at the forefront of such an economy. EZ crises are based on money and the addiction to numbers – GDP and growth. While this continues, so will our willingness to allow banks to seek out new methods of extracting tomorrow’s benefits to today.

 

To untangle societies from the rush for loans and products that banks supply (and EZ countries end up securing – and paying back through taxation) we should address the root cause – our predilection to the amassing of tomorrow’s money or its equivalent at the expense of tomorrow’s quality of life. Our kids and their kids deserve better – ask young Greeks or Spaniards.

 

 

Should Everything have a Price?

Michael Sandel in his recent book “What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets” writes excellently on how the market economy has turned into the “market society”. This view echoes Galbraith and “The Affluent Society”. Galbraith’s warning from the 1950’s has not been heeded – we are now subject to the “market” in everything we do – anything and everything has a price.

 

Sandel cites many examples – such as someone selling their organs, someone saving a place in a queue, schools being sponsored by companies and many others.

 

It could be argued that it was always so. Slavery, the selling of humans in the marketplace, was a common market phenomenon and still exists. Bribery and corruption – the selling of favours or ensuring something goes in your favour – remains common and Iraq and Afghanistan are riven by corruption on the grandest scale. Russia and much of Eastern Europe are held to be gangster nations – like much of the USA in the time of prohibition. Somalian pirates resort to kidnapping as an outcome of pure economic theory.

 

Yet, society does, from time to time, attempt to apply limits in a world where it seems that everything has a monetary price.

 

Market domination

 

The libertarian view that the market should be allowed to rule means that we abrogate our responsibilities. It is the role and duty of civil society (usually through Government) to judge where market rules and where other forms of decision-making are paramount.

 

We make those judgments continually. The right to be safe on the streets is, in most developed societies, made possible by laws which are enacted through general agreement by citizens. It is enforced, where needed, by legal systems and enforcement agencies – again, only there by the general agreement of civil society. In those countries where the market and price dominate, then the danger is that laws and police forces can be bought off. This is the case in many eastern European countries and many countries in Africa. Bribery and corruption rule through what may be called the market society – against the agreement of most of its citizens. As Sandel points out, this is against the best outcome for society – and by a long way.

 

Libertarians may argue that a legal system and an “open society” are the foundations for market economies to work, but the world is a global economy and it is no longer possible for one country to be cut off from the rest. The market domination into so many areas of life is a threat if basic norms do not exist.

 

The market versus societal norms

 

Sandel does not go too much into how society develops its norms – where market pricing should not intrude. We are in danger, of course, of taking on pricing into every form of our lives and there are plans to price our natural resources and to ensure that accounting incorporates aspects of social life into accounting rules – for example, through the Prince’s Accounting for Sustainability Project; through the Natural Capital Committee – which will report into the UK Government’s Economic Affairs Committee, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequor.

 

While this acknowledges the problem in one respect (i.e. we are not properly accounting for externalities like pollution, the loss of natural capital – our rivers, forests and such) it is perhaps giving up the struggle against the market society. By the very nature of accounting in terms of numbers for such “externalities”, we subscribe to the essential condition for market pricing of everything – the market society is allowed to dominate.

 

Our focus on GDP and numbers betrays a failing of society – our inability to see anything outside of numbers – so-called economic wealth. GDP, which rewards only that which can be measured, has been a poor simulation of real “wealth”. Our drive to economic success (measured by how many unnecessary items we make and buy) takes no account of what is really important. Ability to buy is all that “counts” – literally.

 

Societal norms are now up for sale. Instead of a rearguard action against the market society (as against market economics) where we defend those areas of society against pricing (as they should be beyond price), we succumb to pricing everything. This leads to everything having a price – an accounting-driven doctrine, a market society doctrine.

 

Beyond economics

 

Of course, this may be the price (!) we are paying for economic growth and relative economic success. As we become more economically successful and as the world derives basic economic success, maybe our brains are becoming hard-wired to numbers as the only register of what is successful. The left-hand side of the brain is assuming victory over the right.

 

There is no question that the discovery of numbers has made the human successful and to understand and control large areas of science. We have changed the world entirely. Our ability to count is now dominating our lives. Since the dawn of accounting (when we counted our grain), numbers now “account” for everything.

 

Where has been the debate to question the way we account? If numbers dominate everything we do, what outcomes do we envisage, what changes result? If all our successes depend on numbers, then what lives will we lead?

 

This is now beyond economics – which, as George Soros has recently outlined, http://www.georgesoros.com/interviews-speeches/entry/remarks_at_the_festival_of_economics_trento_italy/

has been shown to be terribly mistaken in its misunderstanding of the world. His analysis, that economics, in trying to copy the rules of science has travelled the wrong path. Economics is a social science and, as such, does not have definitive outcomes. But, the situation is worse than Soros makes out.  Macroeconomics is being subsumed beneath a torrent of numbers so that, worse than following a quasi-scientific path, we are now following an accounting outcome for everything.

 

Where are the norms for society? Who are the guardians?

 

The financial crash of 2008, which is still playing out in 2012, opened up severe cracks in our economic system. It is also opening up divisions in society between the very wealthy and the large swathe of middle-income earners who make up most of civil society. These divisions show how we are valuing society and show clearly that pricing is not working. The value given to bankers and bonuses (no risk activities for the individuals who can only lose their jobs, not their wealth and no risk activities for the banks, who are too big to fail) shows a dramatic failing in pricing – in which we apparently put all our trust.

 

Pricing mechanisms are not working successfully, yet we place more and more of our faith in pricing as the only arbiter of success.

 

We now price (or will soon be attempting to price) everything – from CO2 to education, from healthcare to shoes, from our rivers to our right to pollute – everything with a price.

 

Yet, macro-economics (the economics of society) is a social science – it is not based on rigid rules. It is (as Soros rightly states) bound up in decisions and thoughts of men and women.

 

Pricing is one outcome of a social science that is not unquestionably right in every case – it is actually, mostly wrong and most economists are only good at describing what has passed (i.e. rear view mirror gazers).

 

Accounting was originally a micro-based activity – to help regulate and tax individuals and firms. It is now being used to price everything.

 

Are there any alternatives to pricing everything?

 

Of course there are, but it is becoming tougher. The Bribery Act in the UK (following a mere 34 years after the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the US) is an example. Society has (at least in the UK) decided that winning contracts or influencing economic decisions should not be subject to corruption. In China, as Jonathan Fenby’s excellent “Tiger Head Snake Tails” so ably describes, bribery and corruption have existed for many years but (at least at home) it is not considered acceptable. In many other countries in the developing world, it is.

 

But, we know that price is in play throughout society. The best lawyers cost huge sums and only the wealthy can afford them – so, our legal system is subject to pricing. The best education is paid for; the best healthcare is paid for.

 

With wealth divisions becoming wider, pricing is everything. It is time for a real debate in society on how economics needs to be changed to reflect reality and how accounting for everything (and a price for anything) may not be the answer. The invisible hand of the market should not be allowed to grab everything.

Do we Value the Charitable Sector?

As the Coalition Government slips worryingly through its third year, the value given to the Third Sector (or the Civil Society) is more uncertain. The Big Society is being challenged as it has not been for many years through financial austerity in national and local government. This has had a dramatic impact on charities in the UK that have been set up to serve the community and who rely on government (national and local) income. In Osborne’s last budget, charitable giving has been hit hard by limiting that which is tax allowable to £50,000 in any one year for individuals.

The charitable sector is strong in the UK, but threatened by this reduced government spending, reduced spending by companies and potential reductions in individual giving as we tumble back into recession.

The variety of charities is vast – from those set up to further medical research, those working to improve health and welfare, those set up to do international development, social clubs and societies, sports clubs and a host of others. Even schools are charities under UK law. This makes it hard to understand the role they have in society.

However, they stand alongside the Governing sector (government) and the products and services sector (business) and the fourth sector or fourth estate – journalism. Maybe that’s also where many NGO’s lie these days – funded to do investigations into society as newspapers once were. The fourth estate now contains many NGO’s – the likes of ONE, Enough, Global Witness, parts of Greenpeace, Oxfam, Save the Children, Amnesty and many others – where charitable work continues alongside the investigations and journalism and lobbying.

The Charitable Sector – Filling the (Massive) Gap

The role of charities is therefore complex – even if in the minds of most funders it is primarily to provide help to those sectors of society that are left out by the State and by the remainder of civil society. Charities exist to drive funds and assistance locally, regionally, nationally and internationally where it is deemed that government does not, cannot or will not.

Whether it is DEC (Disasters Emergency Committee) or similar assisting in emergency international funding, or Oxfam or Save the Children, or local hospices, each has been set up by individuals who saw a gap in care and raced to fix the problem. The whole area of social business has also sprung up in between business and charities. The roles are evolving as niches appear where need is believed to occur – it is a complex and adaptive system that is constantly evolving.

Each society is developing its own way from the bottom up – very few governments are sufficiently totalitarian to impose its blueprint on its people. In North Korea, this may be so but elsewhere government and business leave gaps that the market cannot satisfy and that civil society attempts to fill.

If the role of the charity sector (outside of the fourth estate incumbents) is to fill the gaps that business and government leaves – because they identify the need first, provide funding that is otherwise unattainable, provide better expertise, more focused concern or whatever other motivation – then how should society be developing to maximize its positive effectiveness? While this note focuses on the UK, it is as relevant to the international community.

Valuing the Charitable Sector

 

It is now time that government in the UK (and elsewhere) took a long, hard look at the charity sector and saw it as a real sector of the economy. The last budget was a good example of how taxation and benefits were structured towards businesses and individuals and where civil society (or the Third Sector) was seen as a peripheral activity. This was a slight on that sector.

The seemingly thoughtless and throw-away issues such as the limit of £50,000 on tax-free giving was typical of government not seeing the organized part of civil society as being defined in any special way. It is surely time that civil society – the charitable sector – is defined as separate from the business and individual taxed community and that we establish a set of income and expenditure statements from government that shows clearly how well or badly we are doing in that sector – at least in money terms. This would then clearly show how well or badly governments are also doing.

At the time when the Natural Capital Committee under the newly appointed Dieter Helm is calling for an accounting for natural resources / natural capital, it is time for the charitable sector to be similarly “valued”.

Impact Valuations – What does this mean?

On a basic level, an understanding of the tax taken from the sector (mainly through VAT, plus income tax and national insurance – both company and individual – paid to staff) should be provided annually at least by Government – maybe the office for National Statistics. That can be set against the tax benefits that may arise through gift-aid benefits for those who provide funds to charities. At the very least, an Annual Report should be made by Government (almost a CSR report) but verified and commented on by Charities Commission and maybe more independently-minded organisations). This would be completely different to the current Charities Commission Annual Report – which is a micro-analysis of how it spends its £29.4m. The report has to be a macro-economic one.

Stage two would be an analysis of the sector’s public “goods” – a value of the huge and positive impact that charities have in the UK and internationally. This will be its “Impact” at a macro-economic level.

If natural assets can be “valued” (providing an accounting value as Dieter Helm wants), then so can charitable activities. This is being demanded by many funders before (certainly trusts and foundations) before they fund charities, while individual givers often want to know more about an individual charity beyond the “gut-feel” instinct that propels them to give.

This macro-economic valuing would give the charity sector an independence. It would mean that civil society could begin to understand just what contribution the charitable sector provides in terms that begin to be understandable.  Nick Hurd, the Minister for Civil Society, would have a far more meaningful brief. Currently, he sits in the Cabinet Office (under Francis Maude) – but, the brief is very wide and less economically focused than it should be. The key, of course, is how we go beyond pure economic modeling (our GDP of quantity not quality) to measure the benefits we receive from natural capital / assets (which the NCC is set up to assist with) and from civil society itself.

Just as the value of education is not the money that the government spends on education per head (based on the Academy where I am Chair, £9.35m of income is spent on 1450 students – a “value” of £6,448 per annum – although at least this has some calculative affect. Even here, of course, the cost is reduced by the government’s take of income tax from staff, National insurance from staff and schools), so the value of charities should be assessed and the (often adverse, sometimes positive) impact of government intervention should be made known.

This is not a simple task, but a critical one. As we enter a world of real austerity (especially in Europe), we are underestimating the cost of cost savings on society – at best, we ignore them.

We are well into the 21st Century – time we thought in 21st Century terms and valued those things that materially contribute. The NCC may be making a start with natural capital: it is a good time to start making real progress on valuing the macro-economic benefits of our charitable sector – before it is too late.

Banks and Time Travel

So, Mr Stephen Hestor of Royal Bank of Scotland was pressured into giving up his bonus by a Parliament that threatened to vote against it.

So, Mr Fred Goodwin gets be-knighted by a committee advising the Queen.

Ancient institutions – the royal family and the House of Commons – are playing that old game (which the politicians invariably lose) about who is in charge – government (be they democratically elected or through birth) or the banks? Governments (at least the democratically elected bits) change with the whims of the electorate – banks and banking survive because money is the root of all our economic prosperity – banking is the provider of dreams.

It is a very old game. Since well before Nathan Rothschild strode above the travails of mid-19th Century politicians who were desperate for his bank’s money to fund their economies and wars, banks and bankers have formed their own super-economy – one that economists and politicians have progressively failed to explain or manage.

While the Royal Bank of Scotland saga focuses on bankers’ pay and the balance of reward between employees and shareholders (i.e. who should gain most from banks’ profitability), this misses the crucial issue completely.

What is it that makes banks and banking so critical to world economies in a way that no other industry is so that we are willing to allow them monopolistic rewards – the rewards akin to a totalitarian regime? More than this, how is the overall financial services industry – of which banks are just part – changing and how does it need to change to best serve people and real wealth producing companies, people and our governments in the 21st Century?

What are banks for?

At a simple level, banks are there to provide the alchemy to the economic system – they are asset transformers (David Llewellyn – the New Economics of Banking – 1999). Banks and financial institutions transform money received into money loaned. They transform short-term into long-term. They make tomorrow’s needs available today by making money work hard.

This transformation process (the essence of monetisation ever since the ending of barter economies) has been a crucial bedrock on which economic growth is based. The wealth effect of the asset transformers has been to bring forward tomorrow’s growth into today or next year’s into this or the next generations into this one. This time travel – the bringing forward of the future – is seen whether it is Governments spending trillions today to pay back in future generations, companies bringing forward projects on the basis of payback in three to five years all the way to purchases made on credit cards to pay back (or not) in a month or six. Banks and financial institutions have developed ever-more sophisticated ways to drive the transformation.

Sub-prime problems in 2008 showed, like most banking crises, the fault line in the world’s financial system – the cracks that often appear in that bedrock.

Pressure builds up just like the earth’s crust before an earthquake as financial institutions offer more and more high risk promises to transform the future to the present. In this case, promises to those who could never repay to buy properties they could never afford. It could have been corporate over-stretching. It could have been government over-spending – as it has now become: a massive sovereign debt crisis in the western economies.

The short-term bonus culture of the banks was and remains a symptom not the problem. The battle between senior bank employees and their shareholders is not the problem. The essential risk nature of banking (and there never has been a safe period when bankers were just bank managers who would not give loans – this is a myth circulated while banks were providing high risk loans throughout the corporate and national world) is that the asset transformation process (this time travelling capacity to bring forward tomorrow into today) is deemed to be so critical to the world’s economic system that banks (and many other financial institutions) are deemed to be vital and their survival guaranteed by governments. This has led inexorably to the current sovereign debt crisis in Europe and the ability of senior banking staff to act as monopolistic winners over both the banks’ shareholders and the rest of the economy. As David Kynaston wrote about the reasons for more recent banking excesses : “the most important is the arrival of the insidiously tempting one-way bet.”(David Kynaston – City of London – 2011)

So what (if anything) can be done to change this?

The Threat to the Time Travellers

As Llewellyn’s paper in 1999 suggested (and this was before the banking mayhem of 2008), banks are undergoing major changes that technology (for example) is forcing. Banking (for so long run by insider networks who knew each other and government ministers intimately, went to the same schools and spoke the same language) is now more open to other institutions (whether supermarkets or Virgin) and trading companies are better equipped to tackle the markets directly (corporate bond issues being the main way of doing this).

Yet, traditional banking methods and the banks’ place in the economy (especially in London) feels similar to what it has done for 200 years even if the competition is growing from other institutions and from overseas (Chinese banks – owned and dependent on the Chinese State – especially). Defence of our banks by our government against the newly developing nations financial institutions is one impediment to progress.

This could be a tipping point, though. Money and monetary systems will remain the kratogenic blocks on which economies slide and which cause massive earthquakes from time to time, but the banks’ position within these systems will change. Digitisation and the spread of wealth into the developing nations of China, Brazil and elsewhere will fracture the monopoly position of western banks and the West’s financial institutions. This may well be a good thing as monopolies are inherently massive impediments to improvement and sustainable growth.

A problem is that western economies that are dependent (or believe they are) on their banking system (London and New York especially but Paris and Frankfurt and elsewhere hate the prospect of losing their monopolies) will fight tooth and nail to prevent or at least slow the pace of change.

The other impediment to change is that those who are in charge of the change process – governments – don’t really understand the nature of banking. Tinkering at the edges (whether bonuses or knighthoods) is a waste of effort. Enlarging capital bases and splitting the casino elements of banking (which would be allowed to fail) from the more traditional lending elements of banks is moving to the right lines if (and this is the critical issue) there is an understanding of how this addresses the massive risks that banks are engaged in (and always have been). Many have argued that this splitting (providing only banks which are less susceptible to macroeconomic shocks should be given last resort assistance) is a cornerstone requirement.(Rochet, J-C Macroeconomic Shocks and Banking Supervision – 2008)

The enlarged capital bases and splitting of key activities into Chinese wall separated entities are hints of the crucial risk factors but not the answer in themselves. For risk and uncertainty are two entirely different features. Risk can be assessed, uncertainty cannot – a set of unknown unknowns. Individual bank risk at the micro-economic level may be manageable through higher capital ratios but take all the banks together and does an amalgam of micro-economic management techniques bulk up to a macro-economic solution?

As digitisation and competition (from other corporations and from newly developing countries) grow, it will lead to more opportunities to time travel. Yuan-based promises are no different from $ or € or £. The risks just get higher.

The critical issue is to manage the degree of tomorrow’s future wealth that we are willing to risk having now. Just like burning oil and gas today has a direct impact on our future generations, so monetary time travel can suck in tomorrow’s wealth. Just ask the Greeks (and Portuguese and the 50% of young Spanish without jobs) whether they agree with monetary time travelling – taking too much of the future for consumption now.

This is a hard call. Growth (at least that measured in the altogether faulty way that we measure GDP – quantity not quality) is at the core of our being. Banking has fuelled that core essence. Reducing the scope of banks and other financial institutions to bring tomorrow into today is a huge macro-economic decision that national banks (like the Bank of England) have to take on responsibility for.

National Banks – their role in macro-economic management of the Banking System

This is not just about bank regulation – it is about the how (at a macro-economic level) the risks and uncertainties are managed on a national and on a world-wide basis. Systemic and earth-shattering breaks in the system can only be better managed when international macro-economic indicators are understood and somehow controlled.

Transaction taxes, capital ratios, splitting bank operations are, I repeat, micro-economic devices. Macro-economic devices now need to be devised and international mechanisms established that regularly evaluate the banks’ individual exposure to macroeconomic factors. (Buch, Eickmeier, Prieto – Macroeconomic Factors and Micro-level Bank Risk – 2010). Building a model of this exposure using 21st Century macro-economic modeling techniques and used within an international banking framework, could be the starting point to better management of extreme banking risk.

But, it will take a transformation of international mindsets and international agreements to take 19th Century economic and political models into the 21st Century. Technology has moved on and presented individual banks and financial institutions with the ability to further manipulate economies and left governments in their wake. This needs some rebalancing and governmental management institutions need to be set up to oversee the critical part banks play in our world and to establish the macro-economic monitoring systems that are needed to avoid economic collapse.