|
ECONOMICS, BANKING and the PRINCIPLE of NON-INJURY 
The Principle of Non-Injury thus rests on a Presumption of Liberty, the presumption that the individual enjoys a basic freedom of action unless harming or injuring others.
In business and industry this corresponds to a presumption of Free Enterprise as the basis of Government economic policy.
It is vital to allow individuals' enterprise and initiative to realize its full potential in the creation of prosperity with minimal government interference, formalities and red-tape. The demise of the Soviet Union with its satellite countries illustrated dramatically the abysmally low standard of living achieved through central State planning.
Even in “free market” economies, it is important to avoid over-regulation. Even in self-styled capitalist, or free-market countries, business is becoming increasingly over-burdened by government regulation, much of which is not directly concerned with ensuring fair play in the market place. Excessive regulation places a heavy financial burden on business which must eventually be borne by its customers resulting in higher prices and a correspondingly lower standard of living.
However it is equally important to ensure that citizens do not enhance their own prosperity at the expense of others through unfair or dishonest practices. A high standard of living and prosperity is already technologically within our grasp, and we have human talent in abundance which is constantly creating new ideas and new products; there is no need to obtain wealth through the disadvantagement of others.
Government should intervene promptly when necessary to ensure that business is not carried out in ways which are detrimental to co-workers, customers, or the environment.
Law is brought into being to prevent those actions which are harmful or detrimental to others. But the law is limited to providing the protection of liberty from identifiable infringement, and should avoid oppressive or intrusive law which itself constitutes a prime erosion of liberty.
This applies in the field of economics as a policy approach, not of unregulated Free Enterprise on the one hand, nor of Socialistic takeover by the State or burdensome over-regulation on the other, but a policy falling between the two, a policy of Socially Responsible Free Enterprise.
Under the guidance of this policy the role of Government in the area of the economy, business and commerce is clearly defined; its essential task is to identify those areas of potential commercial conflict in which the actions of some participants may be detrimental to others, then to prevent such actions through appropriate legislation.
A Policy of Non-Injury would not permit Government to own or operate commercial services. The role of the Private Sector is creative and productive; the role of Government is regulatory. If Government does its essential job of making sure that business and industry conducts itself in a socially responsible manner there is no need for nationalization.
Indeed, Government ownership and operation of any commercial service or business invalidates Government's ability to legislate without bias; to whom does the citizen complain about industrial pollution when the Government owns the polluting industry?
Infrastructural services operating as monopolies should be established as managerially and financially autonomous enterprises. Given their unique position however, they would naturally be subject to especially stringent regulation and supervision.
A particular case in point, in fact the dominant issue of the moment and indeed the central controlling factor of any economy, is the monetary and banking system. And here, western governments have failed dismally to provide sufficient supervision and regulatory discipline.
Roads, bridges, piped water, electricity, telecommunications, these and many more constitute vital elements of a nation's infrastructure. But outweighing them all in importance is a properly functioning monetary system. A nation's banking system is a vital – the most vital part of its infrastructure. Yet we dispose of sewage more efficiently. This is a failure of governance, pure and simple.
Our present economic/financial system doesn't work. It is open to, and frequently subjected to extreme abuse, and fails to provide support for industry and development. It requires some fundamental reforms if it is to deliver the prosperity of which it is capable.
BANKING REFORM
The Big Crash starting 2008 brought with it a widespread awareness of the extent to which banks have bent over backwards to invent ever more complex gambling devices without apparently any thought that gamblers might one day lose their (or our) shirts, awareness, too, of their gross misuse of resources at their disposal and scant regard for their status as guardians of the nation's monetary system. The complexity of the risks they were increasingly taking and their subsequent downfall will surely be repeated unless action is taken on fundamental banking reform.
The first and essential reform must be the complete separation of Investment, from Utility Banking.
Utility Banking, conservatively managed, provides a safe home for everyday banking needs at local level.
“Investment Banking”, involving excessive reliance on one sector such as property, and the more complex investment exotica, should be conducted as separate, ring-fenced entities, selling clearly and accurately described and monitored investment funds into which purchasers would invest knowing the precise activities undertaken and relevant risk/reward ratios. Those who choose to place their money in such funds would know what they are doing and the risks they are taking. If the fund collapses they lose their money. No one else is affected. Complex risks and speculation would no longer be undertaken clandestinely, masquerading as simple deposit-taking banking.
Separation of these two functions is not a new idea. “Glass-Steagall” was the 1930s regulation in the US that separated banks' function as utilities from their gambling activities; it came out of their belief that banks' speculation on the stock markets with their savers' money helped cause the crash of 1929 and the Great Depression. Its repeal in 1999 by the Clinton administration was driven by powerful banking interests, a textbook case of politicians bowing to the finance industry, which had conducted a $300m lobbying assault.
Certainly there is ample justification for much tighter regulation. The nation's monetary and banking system is the most systemically vital of all its infrastructural services and facilities, and as such requires optimal safeguarding against any form of abuse. Additionally, government being the banker of last resort, is fully entitled to ensure that banking operations should never again impose upon government finances to the extent where even governments are pushed to the point of near-bankruptcy.
The separation of banking functions coupled with much tighter regulation are obvious remedies against future banking collapse, as is an overall limit on personal credit-card debt and tighter mortgage regulation.
But for the longterm investment needs of trade and industry, large and small, we need a new element, a new weapon: investment banking serving and supporting its clients through a longterm commitment to, and secured by, the business itself.
|
