mugz

Robert Misik wrote an interesting article in this week’s Freitag, a German newspaper (http://www.freitag.de/positionen/0913-sozialismus-krise). Misik discusses the problem of presenting alternatives to our present capitalist system. The word “socialism” is often heard in leftist circles and the tone of the mainstream debate on how to rescue the system sounds much more radical than we’ve heard in a long time. Across the party spectrum in Germany the ideas of nationalizing banks has become normal. One thing he spoke of is particularly noteworthy. He mentioned how the financial sector is innately unsuitable for the game of free market capitalism. Actors in the free market are subject to the dangers of risk. This is what makes the system more “efficient”. If a company or even a market sector fails to survive the dog-eat-dog fight on the field, they collapse and disappear. A particular company may be eaten up by a competitor or their business may simply close and their products disappear. Banks, on the other hand, can not collapse or simply file for bankruptcy and then open up shop down the street. A bank has it’s customers money on their books. The federal government insures that the customers will not lose their money in case the bank fails. This means a bank can partake in risky business without fear of bankruptcy. Up until the 1980’s the US had a system of stringent regulations to prevent banks from abusing this situation. The deregulation in the era of neoliberalism has presented banks and other financial institutions with an invitation to take advantage of the system. Today we have a situation where financial institutions are broke, they don’t have the collateral for the money they have lent. They can’t be allowed to go bankrupt like businesses in other sectors because customers would lose their savings. This all shows that banks should either be nationalized or more strictly regulated. I would vote for nationalization. In the last 20 years we’ve seen how easy it is to abolish a regulatory system.