Category Archives: Uncategorized

Remaking the Corporation

Humans have been on earth for around 195,000 years. But it wasn’t till around 300 years ago that we started to defeat famine and plague and so begin to prosper. Global population had remained stuck at a few hundred million. But then it began to take off.  By 1800 it had reached a billion, doubled again to 2 billion by around 1930, since when it has more than tripled to today’s estimate of over 7½ billion.

What had changed? 

Moral philosopher Adam Smith wanted to find out. He identified the division of labour as the prime source of economic progression. He observed how the specialisation of tasks, machinery and equipment revolutionised pin making, massively increasing output and reducing costs. It was the industry and inventiveness of people working together that had driven the industrial revolution, enabled by there being a market for such increased production.

That made the argument for free markets.  The only snag was that free markets naturally evolve to becoming monopolistic and exploitative.  But that’s another story!

The joint stock company, or corporation, was the key organisational structure in which people were enabled to work together.  It raised the finance to fund technological developments as well as the economic growth they generated. It was originally established and protected by royal charter or act of parliament, with investors being held fully responsible for corporate activity.

The 1844 Joint Stock Companies Act made company formation easier and cheaper, with limited liability added in 1855 freeing investors from any responsibility beyond paying for their shares in the company. The full potential for the exploitation and abuse of limited liability was not immediately recognised, but has long since been more fully exploited.

Since then, various Companies Acts have made minor amendments to the corporate concept, but the basic idea was settled: the company was established as a legal entity, enabled to sue and be sued, with its directors required by law always to act in the company’s best interests.

However, there was a flaw in the corporate system of governance.  If a single shareholder, whether a human individual or another corporate entity, achieved more than 50% of the equity, then they had effective control. The company then so owned, would cease, in effect, to be a legal entity in its own right, and became instead an item of private property which the owner could direct as they pleased.

Since the 1980s, the legal requirement for company directors to act in the company’s best interests, has been dominated by a demand to focus on maximising shareholder interests. Milton Friedman expressed that change as ‘corporate officials’ having no ‘social responsibility other than to make as much money as possible for stockholders.’ [i]

While the real legal position did not change, custom and practice did, justified by support for and promotion of Friedman’s assertion of the primacy of shareholder interests.

The quickest and easiest way to make money for shareholders was not by persevering in the manufacture of pins or anything else.  It was most readily achieved through mergers and acquisitions to increase monopolistic market power and/or to enable asset stripping for financial gain which could be more profitably invested in speculative betting. Such M&As might be activated by aggressive stock market raids or by the collusion of company directors acting in their own self-interest rather than their employing company’s. The funds extracted might earn fastest returns increasingly through automated systems, operating in nanoseconds, with price movements being increasingly manipulated by deliberate feed–in of fake news.  The overall result has been a predatory extraction of value from real economy corporations for purely short-term speculative gain by the owners.

Though that predatory destruction is justified by a false argument for shareholder primacy – which is in conflict with the law – the resulting actions are all perfectly legal. The corporate entity, as defined by law, is vulnerable to such predation. In the UK, it has been encouraged by a dominant financial sector supporting political leaders who proudly proclaim their economies as being ‘open for business’. 

There are alternative routes for political economic decision makers to take.  Remaking the corporation in alternative formats could provide protection against stock market raids or illegal collusion of company directors to destruct their legal entity. That could assist rebuilding the real economy to focus on what really matters: sustainability, human rights including those of future generations, equal opportunities, and some level of social balance.

Such protection has been achieved in various ways. Co-operative formation in its various forms – employee co-operatives, customer co-operatives, community co-operatives – all provide protection against predatory attack.

Japan has provided protection for its real economy corporations with its long established keiretsu system of interlocking shareholdings. It includes members of the banking sector which held equity for long periods and did not actively trade in most of the equity they held.  Keiretsu makes gaining the 50%+ of corporate equity extremely difficult for outsider investors, unless agreed by all.

German corporates are protected by the two-tier board system comprising a management board with responsibility for day to day running of the enterprise and a supervisory board with various legally defined responsibilities including the appointment of management board members, but with no common membership allowed. Employees must have 50% of representation on the supervisory board for companies with 2000 employees.

There are many alternative corporate formats which provide the necessary protection from destruction. They could also include combinations of the various systems noted here. It has also been proposed to make limited liability available only if the corporate formation is compliant with agreed protective conditions.

The purpose of this article is not to identify a magic solution, but to flag up the need to remake the corporation so that it might create value for the real economy, rather than making it vulnerable to financial predation for the benefit of the few, and even that only for the short term.  In the long run, as the Covid pandemic constantly reminds us, we are all in it together.

[i] Friedman, M., (1962), ‘Capitalism and freedom’, Chicago: Chicago University Press, p133

Was Roosevelt Right? Or Keynes? It matters for 2021

The 1929 Wall Street crash signalled the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics. The subsequent austerity driven Great Depression almost finished the job and brought F D Roosevelt to the US Presidency. He introduced the New Deal investments, the second wave of which he introduced observing that  “We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace – business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism and war profiteering. They had begun to think of the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs.  We know now that Government by organised money is just as dangerous as Government by organised mob.” 

A decade previously J M Keynes had ended his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money with the observation that “the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, , are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men … are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

Who was right? Was it organised money that had messed everything up? Or was it economists? Or were they both right? Was it organised money being slaves to defunct economists? Or rather than ‘slaves’ were the various components of organised money, the corrupted and criminal slave drivers and exploiters of economists and everyone else? And does it really matter in 2021?

Neoliberal economics ended its reign of power after the Gt Depression, but it was carelessly left ‘lying around’ as Friedman put it, before adding his own distinctive variations such as the primacy of stockholder interests over customers, employees and all other stakeholders.  Then in the 1970s the eruption of inflation – caused by OPEC’s 300% rise in oil prices – together with economic stagnation – arising from the decline of 2nd industrial revolution activities – gave organised money and its defunct economics an opportunity to take over as political driver once again.

That does matter for 2021 because it appears, after four decades of neoliberal economics it is again being recognised as ever more obviously dysfunctional and unsustainable. In many ways we are in a repeat of the situation Roosevelt inherited. The 2008 crash was followed by a decade of defunct economist driven austerity. Only things are much more urgent now with global population having tripled since Roosevelt’s day. And we are much more aware of the many destructions we are now wreaking on planet earth. Moreover, we are reminded of all people’s interdependence, if we ever needed to be, by the coronavirus pandemic. In 2021, it all matters far more than it ever has previously.

New book, Remaking the Real Economy, acknowledges the positions of both Keynes and Roosevelt as well as the fundamental critiques provided by leading economists who reject being dominated by organised money. More importantly Remaking the Real Economy identifies the necessary actions for the real economy to be remade so as to achieve sustainable progression.

The first action has to be the setting aside in its entirety of defunct economics, not leaving it ‘lying around’. Understanding of the microeconomic processes of organisational systems has to be based on observation of reality rather than the blind application of mathematical models which bear no relation to the real world. Only then will organised money by constrained within sustainable limits and the real economy remade.

The American Challenge for us all

So the new US government, if it is to deliver to the next generation of working Americans, will need to have the courage to take on ‘Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance industry, the fossil fuel industry, the military industrial complex, the private prison industrial complex and many profitable corporations who continue to exploit their employees.’ [i] That’s according to Bernie Sanders, who’s been around a fair bit and should know what he’s talking about.

He reckoned they’d be facing the most desperate situation since the austerity driven Great Depression which followed the 1929 Wall St crash. Well, Bernie’s memory isn’t that good!  For the record, Roosevelt’s version of those he had to take on – which he referred to as organised money – included ‘business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.’  He said they had ‘begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs.’[ii] More recently that section has grown to include, the shadow banking sector, financialised business, supportive strands of academia and the media now led by social media, and a political sector of richly funded think tanks and lobbyists.   

Organised money is clearly far more powerful now, than it was in Roosevelt’s day.  And it still, as Trump demonstrated only too forcefully, regards government as a mere appendage to its own affairs. And that is not just in the US, but also in the UK and beyond.

But Sanders was surely right suggesting that the new government will have to have the courage to take organised money on, if it is to achieve genuinely sustainable progression.  

It doesn’t need to be a head-on confrontation between two directly opposing forces. The one thing that has become apparent from planet earth’s ecological predicament, currently being emphasised by Covid-19, is the real interdependence of all humanity, present and future.

Organised money is not some criminal conspiracy to take over the world and exploit it for their own self-interested purposes.  The constituents of organised money are, like most other sections of society, made up of 79%, or thereabouts, of perfectly decent people who wish first of all to survive and prosper, and while doing so, to contribute positively to making the world a better place.

The 79% are likely to regret actions they take which have the opposite effect. A bright young person works hard through school, gets to university and completes, say, a good BSc in quantum physics and electronics.  They have the world at their feet.  They have been educated to contribute to some future progression. But the system such young graduates are invited to enter, offers far greater rewards if they join the ranks of organised money, rather than seeking to develop and apply their scientific training and knowledge. Moreover, they will be persuaded that the greater reward is a reflection of the greater value they will be contributing to the world. So it is not unreasonable that they become takers of value rather than its creators. Their scientific knowledge and understanding, that could be deployed, as intended, to advance society, is simply thrown away.  In short, those young people are corrupted, by the system imposed by organised money.  It is the system that does the damage and needs correction, not the individuals who join it in order to make a living and develop as human beings.

That is what Remaking the Real Economy is all about – –  It is the system the new American government will have to take on.  The brainless neoliberal economic modelling will have to be replaced by government decision making based on knowledge and understanding of the long term macrosystems within which all humanity exists.  And it will need to give full weight to human values on which decisions will in due course surely be judged.

[i] Sanders, B, (2020), ‘How to avoid a second even worse Trump’, The Guardian Opinion, 26th November.

[ii] Roosevelt, F D, (1936), Address at Madison Square Garden, New York, 31st October.  Original record held at FDR Presidential library  & Museum.

Remaking the Real Economy – Escaping destruction by organised money

Remaking the Real Economy is what this blogsite has really been all about ever since it began in April 2009. The first posting – ‘Free market capitalism vs company law’) – began as follows:

“A key tenet of free market capitalism is that businesses should focus exclusively on maximising shareholder value and not allow other considerations, apart from compliance with the law, to intrude on their business activities. As demonstrated in ‘The Rise and Fall of Management’, approaches such as corporate philanthropy, corporate social responsibility and business ethics, are only justifiable if they add to profitability. This appears to be a clear and simple model for businessmen to work.

But the law, for example the 2006 Companies Act, charges company directors with the duty to care for the best long term interests of their company, having regard to the interests of all its stakeholders, not just its shareholders. In fact this has been the case since mid-nineteenth century when limited liability was first established.”

So how far have we got since then? Well, progression has not been very impressive. Remaking the Real Economy is specific about what needs to be done – see further details at Policy Press including 20% discount.

Focused on the realities of organisational systems, the book offers a practical alternative to economic dogma. The paragraphs below are quotes from its cover:

“Pearson’s book is a ‘tour de force’ written from a position of management experience and robust academic research,” Mihaela Kelemen, University of Nottingham.

“Subtle theoretical reflection is combined with meticulous research to yield a ground-breaking analysis.  Highly recommended..” John Hassard, University of Manchester.

“At last, a business and economics book for critical thinkers … a stunning critique of microeconomic theory and practices that so damage our society.” John Carlisle, former Professor at Rhodes University South Africa and Sheffield Hallam and co-operative consultant-practitioner.

This book reveals how mainstream perspectives work for the benefit of  the organised money establishment, while causing all manner of destructions, inequalities and frauds, all conspiring against the common good.                  There is an alternative.

Economic Practice or Theory? Remaking the Real Economy or Destruction?

Devastating though the coronavirus undoubtedly is, it must not be allowed to obscure the fact that the world was already headed for some destruction. Covid-19 is a side show compared to those existential issues facing the world, largely resulting from the combination of reckless industrial expansion combined with the population growth it enabled.

Moral philosopher Adam Smith was motivated by the sudden economic growth generated by the industrial revolution, to inquire into The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. He started by observing the practical processes of manufacturing and noted the unprecedented gains in productivity from the coordination of specialised operations. In pin making he noted a productivity gain of over 240 times. From that practical account of the work and its outcomes, Smith drew some conclusions as to the creation of wealth, the details of which were later elaborated by what Drucker referred to as the management revolution.

As moral philosopher, he also developed ideas as to how that wealth might best be accumulated, employed and distributed among “ranks of people” as well as allocated to state provision of defence, justice, education and public works and institutions “which may be in the highest degree advantageous to a great society.”

That was the real subject matter for political-economic decision making. However, Smith also conjectured about theories of value which were later picked up by Ricardo and many others, developing what Marx later referred to as classical political economy. By mid 19th century that was being based on a mathematical modelling rather than the realities of production.

Thus, two distinct strands of explanatory analysis developed from the industrial revolution. One strand was based on the observation of real individuals, organisations, processes and systems. The other was based on the internal logic of mathematical models without reference to realities.

Theoretical modelling was necessarily based on a lot of simplistic assumptions such as self-interest maximising human beings, profit-maximising business units, and markets free from government regulation producing the best allocation of resources. Being purely mathematical they could make no accommodation with human values, with evolution over time nor with the social and ecological systems within which such economic processes function.

Subsequent generations of neoclassical-neoliberal economists have elaborated much further detail to that theoretical web, notably including the change of business aims from profit maximising to having ‘no social responsibility other than to make as much money as possible for stockholders.’

Right from the start that theoretical orthodoxy was subject to challenge and rejection. As early as 1862, Ruskin argued it lacked “applicability.” Nevertheless it was applied. Alfred Marshall, author of the first standard economics textbook which led economics to mathematical definition, pointed out the unreality of assumptions which the mathematics required. and their so called laws regarding “profits and wages that did not hold even for England in their own time.”

Economists agree the unrealism of neoclassical modelling. It was nicely summarised by Routh in The Origin of Economic Ideas, ignoring facts as irrelevant and as basing “its constructs on axioms arrived at a priori, or ‘plucked from the air’, from which deductions are made and an imaginary edifice created … orthodox economics becomes a matter of faith ad, ipso facto, immune to criticism.”

The outcomes from application of that highly theoretical orthodoxy are ever increasing levels of inequality, both within economies and between. Piketty’s analysis of Capital in the Twenty- First Century showed that a market economy based on private property, generated forces of divergence. They resulted from the fact that in such free markets, the % return on capital has been greater than the rate of growth of income and output. Wealth earned from the past grows faster than wages. The entrepreneur is therefore encouraged to move from real economy operations to the financial economy where their returns will increase faster, becoming ever more dominant over those without wealth.

At some stage that process will inevitably have to be reversed by some enforced redistribution of wealth. That will be achieved either by agreement. Or by disagreement.

Continued destruction of the real economy is justified by conformance to the neoclassical economic theorising, rather than focusing on practical realities. The result is not just continuously mounting levels of inequality both within and between nation states. It involves environmental destructions which will deprive future generations of a habitable domicile on planet earth.

That much is known. But yet, the powers that be do very little to achieve change. For them, the coronavirus may be a welcome distraction from their fundamental duty to contribute positively to ensuring humanity’s survival and progression.

21st Century Robber Barons

A current concern is the re-emergence of organised money – the newly dominant, amoral, self-perpetuating financialised establishment. The robber barons emerged late 19C and in US were treated to anti-trust legislation such as the Sherman Act which broke up Standard Oil in 1911 and regulation as a public utility was inflicted on such as AT&T in 1913. Nevertheless the financial sector continued to dominate till the 1929 Wall St Crash, after which the world became, for a while including WW2, more cynical of the sector and its role.

Client experience with the Office of Fair Trading which enforced both consumer protection and competition law, and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission tells an interesting story. In the 1970s they were powerful bodies, which prevented anti-competitive M&A and were empowered to break up anti-competitive corporates. Since the 1980s, and especially since 1986 ‘big bang’ computerisation of capital markets, those regulatory powers have been progressively weakened.

The current generation of robber barons, the creators and controllers of the IT titans such as Apple, Google, Facebook, Amazon etc, are quite different. A year ago the Economist published an article (Taming the Titans, The Economist, 20.1.18) which acknowledged they had become increasingly dominant. Though The Economist was predisposed to defending them, it recognised the dangers they posed and raised the question of how they should best be controlled. Increasingly they not only dominated the market but were the market themselves (as platforms).

Many of their services appear to be free but customers pay for them by giving away their data. The Economist estimated their then current stock market valuations suggested they were expected to “double or even triple in size in the next decade.” Amazon had 40% of on-line shopping in US. Facebook had over 2bn monthly users, holding sway over the media industry. And in some countries, Google processed over 90% of web searches, Google and Facebook controlling over two thirds of online ad revenues.

While things move fast and some new tec giant killing upstart is feasible, the probability is fading as barriers to entry are rising. Facebook owns the world’s largest pool of personal data. Amazon has more pricing info than any other firm and is ever increasing its heft. China’s tec firms have the scale to compete but have yet no access to Western consumers. If trends continue consumers will suffer.

Better use could be made of existing legislation eg preventing anti-competitive takeovers, such as Facebook’s acquiring WhatsApp and Instagram. Also, it should be recognised that personal data has become the currency with which customers pay for products and services. So, just as in 19C, intellectual property was given protection by patent law, so the ownership and exchange of data also needs specific and limited protection laws.

The Economist concluded with the following points:
“If a user so desires, key data should be made available in real time to other firms – as banks in Europe are now required to do with customers’ account information. Regulators could oblige platform firms to make anonymized bulk data available to competitors in return for a fee, a bit like the compulsory licensing of a patent. Such data sharing requirements could be calibrated to firms’ size: the bigger platforms are the more they have to share. These mechanisms would turn data from something titans hoard to suppress competition, into something users share to foster innovation.

None of this will be simple. But it would tame the titans without wrecking the gains they have brought. Users would find it easier to switch between services. Upstart competitors would have access to some of the data that larger firms hold and thus be better equipped to grow to maturity without being gobbled up. And shareholders could no longer assume monopoly profits for decades to come.”

But, no action has been taken and even serious discussion has been limited.

On 15th March 2019 it was reported that Apple had unveiled their strategic push into video, news and finance, boosting its digital media and cloud services and reducing reliance on the iPhone. Apple chief executive Tim Cook unveiled a revamped Apple TV app which includes both original tv plus the ability to subscribe to third-party services, a games subscription service, a credit card in partnership with Goldman Sachs and a digital news and magazine bundle. These initiatives, while not particularly innovative in the Apple tradition, threaten to substantially increase Apple’s market power against the common good. Similar initiatives by the Facebooks, Googles and Amazons of this world, can be anticipated.

The proposal to use current legislation, eg to revitalise the OFT and M&MC in UK, so as to unscramble anti-competitive M&As and prevent them being repeated, seems a sensible start. As does applying patent law principles to big data to require data sharing.
Even the Economist agrees with that, but will it happen?

The Worst Possible Brexit

Why would the worst possible Brexit be of the slightest interest? Well, possibly because, on our politicians’ track record to date, the fact it’s the worst makes it the most likely to be inflicted.

It seems probable that Brexit with no deal will be ruled out. The Prime Minister’s deal has been soundly rejected by parliament. So they will most probably be driven to request an extension of Article 50 to give more time to come up with an alternative plan. But Slovenia, Greece or possibly Cyprus, will reject UK’s application because, for some curious reason, they want UK to remain in the EU. So UK is then forced to revoke Article 50 in its entirety, thus remaining as EU members.

So the Remainers will have won? Not quite.

Our EU membership will not be as it was before all this nonsense was started off by David Cameron and George Osborne. The current air of uncertainty will persist. Companies operating in UK as a member of the EU – eg the UK motor industry – are unlikely to have much confidence in our continued membership and their future investment decisions will be shaped accordingly. And, having messed the EU around for the best part of 3 years, the UK (and possibly Cyprus) are unlikely to be the most influential leaders of much needed EU reform.

But what will happen in the UK? Perhaps the current minority government will decide its time is up and call a general election. That will be won by one of the two main parties who will then most likely form a minority government committed to fulfilling the expressed will of the British people ie Brexit.

The Liberal Democrats might previously have made some contribution to debate if not having much influence over events. They would at least have offered an alternative perspective for consideration. But they appear to have lost the will to survive.

So, the UK will be back where it began. Apparently unwilling, and now increasingly unwelcome, members of the EU, with the 2016 expressed will of the British people echoing down the Westminster corridors, possibly being repeated, embarking on another three years of Brexit paralysis, led by who of the likely contenders?

That seems the worst possible Brexit, as well as being entirely feasible.

Economic Management Isn’t Just Applied Theory: It’s Much More Important Than That

Moral philosopher Adam Smith’s inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations started with observation of a pin making workshop, noting the tremendous cost savings that could be made by people specialising in different production tasks, collaborating in the overall manufacturing process.

The practical processes of production, as in pin making, were repeatedly adopted, with remarkable success by those involved in the first industrial revolution and in manufacturing and all real economic processes ever since. Understanding how those organisational systems work is the key to understanding the economy and how it might best be governed for a sustainable and prospering population. But it hasn’t been taught as an academic subject area.

Smith also conjectured about the labour theory of value – the value of anything being dependent on the amount of labour involved in its production. Those thoughts were were picked up by Riccardo, Say and others leading to the development of classical economics as an academic subject.

Its dubious theoretical foundations led economists to try to develop it as a ‘science’ in the form of mathematically based neoclassical economics. Its abstruse theories, hypotheses, models and unrealistic assumptions have all been falsified many times, but they’ve remained in place as a widely taught subject with increasing influence over those who rule.

Ruskin likened it to ‘alchemy, astrology, witchcraft and other such popular creeds’. All it lacked was ‘applicability’.

Almost every facet of it is wrong. For example, markets free from regulation, tend naturally to mutate from being competitive towards cartel and monopoly, being controlled for the benefit of the monopolist rather than the customer. That tendency was recognised in the US in the age of the so called ‘robber barons’ and regulated by the passing of anti-trust legislation such as the Sherman Act, and post the 1929 relearning experience by further regulation such as the Glass-Steagall Act limiting the power of would be banking monopolists, which Roosevelt referred to as ‘organised money’, Government by which was ‘just as dangerous as Government by organised mob.’
Continue reading Economic Management Isn’t Just Applied Theory: It’s Much More Important Than That

Brexit Again

Now the repercussions of leaving the EU are more apparent, a second Brexit referendum seems the only democratic way forward. And if the vote went for Remain, then we must endeavour to make changes within the EU that might go some way to satisfying all UK voters.

EU originated out of determination that Europeans should not start a third world war. Political union was part of the motivation right from the beginning. But by the time UK joined in 1973, that idea had seemed to be more on the back burner, the main gain being recognised as economic. That was what the UK joined for. Having a European parliament was never of huge interest to UK.

We should have vetoed creation of the European parliament in 1979. But as new members we failed to do so and it was duly established as a debating and rubber stamping chamber. It lacked the power to initiate legislation, its role being to approve and debate decisions made by the European Council and the European Commission. Enthusiasm for it, measured as voter turnout, has declined in every election since its formation. At the last election, turnout was less than 43%. Next year’s turnout will be interesting.

Enthusiastic Brexiteer, Daniel Hannon, described his experience when he first reported to Brussels as a newly elected MEP. He was given 1st class travel expenses from UK to Brussels irrespective of costs incurred which would enable him to trouser £1000 a week tax free. He was also given €14,000/month to pay staff who might include members of his own family, plus €4,000/month to cover general expenses. He was also provided with free and fully equipped office accommodation in both Brussels and Strasburg.

Given that there are 751 MEPs, it is not surprising that annual costs total over €1.8 billion. A political vanity project which adds little to the realities of EU functioning.

If a second Brexit vote were to go for Remain, then the UK should opt out of the European Parliament and invite other EU members not determined on full political union, to do the same. That strategy should be an essential part of the Remain offering in a second referendum.

Limiting the Tyranny of Organised Money

50 years ago, outdoor advertisers, Mills & Allen Ltd, was taken over by Barclay Securities Ltd, stripped of readily saleable assets, and a proportion of employees were declared redundant. Barclay was a financialised associate of arch asset stripper Slater Walker. It was headed up by one John Bentley, who became a media star, proclaiming ‘the theory of what we are doing is to release half the cash, half the assets and half the number of people employed’. That was how he rapidly became a multi-millionaire.

That was 50 years ago – so what’s new today? Well, technologies have changed and everything happens much faster now. Today, the equivalent of Barclay Securities would measure time in nanoseconds.

And it’s over 80 years since F D Roosevelt proclaimed that ‘government by organised money is just as dangerous as Government by organised mob’. By organised money he specified ‘business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism (and) war profiteering.’

So what’s new today?
Continue reading Limiting the Tyranny of Organised Money