An alternative view of capitalism.

Having grown up and lived all my life within a Democratic, Capitalist System I know no other and am the beneficiary of the System in many respects but this does not mean that I am blind to its faults. Not at all! As my one loyal reader has pointed out there is much in a capitalist system that creates injustice – great disparities in income between the “rich” and “poor”, for instance. And greed. While greed is certainly not confined to the capitalist system it seems to offer greater opportunities – just recall the antics of Wall Street brokers and financiers in 2008. This was just pure greed – and look what happened! Millions of people forced out of work; millions of people forced out of their homes as (greedy) banks and mortgage providers foreclosed loans.

Then there is the globalisation of Capitalism. This is where my one loyal reader is greatly puzzled. Why, he asks, should Australians, as an example, be paying more for their bread just because there have been poor wheat harvests in Russia, Ukraine and the USA forcing world wheat prices to record levels? There is (currently) no shortage of wheat in Australia. There is (currently) no drought in Australia.

I agree. Our Australian (domestic) wheat price should not be set by financiers in Chicago or where-ever.

I know I will be told that the “free market” will set the price and that it will all balance out in the end. But the thing is that the market is not “free” and it never has been. Many American farmers receive subsidies; French farmers are paid not to plant crops; the Chinese Government keeps the value of the Yuan artificially low to encourage exports; God knows what the Russians and Ukrainians do but I am sure it is not strictly legal; dumping products (selling produce at below cost) happens world-wide; subsidies and other currency manipulations are common throughout the world and distort the “free” market. So the “free market” is not free at all.  

The same argument applies to the general price of any food product. It is never that there is an actual world-wide shortage of food. It is just that we waste so much and store so much that food is not available where it is needed most – mainly sub-Saharan Africa.

Food is often stored – removed from sale – by unscrupulous (greedy) “free-marketers” who will keep the food until the price has increased to a level that they feel is appropriate. This is wrong! To withhold food from starving people because the price is not high enough is immoral, appalling and plain wrong! Food is a basic human right and should never be withheld. To withhold food because some poor people cannot pay the price demanded is obscene.

This happens in a “free market”. This is “allowed” by the Capitalist system but still does not make it “right”.

Bank bashing is serving its end!

It is a pleasant change to have my beliefs and ideas vindicated! As my one loyal reader will know I have been hammering away for years about the culture fostered by bank management that serves shareholders before their customers.

I have always maintained that profits should be the result of “service” and not the other way around. It seems that some banks are waking up to this fact. For instance the CEO of Citigroup, Vikram Pandit, was recently reported to have said that, "Banks have to start serving clients and really serve them, rather than serving themselves." At last some good sense and vindicates what I have been saying for years!

This “novel” concept has received support from a very surprising source, Elizabeth Murdoch (daughter of Rupert of recent newspaper notoriety) has recently said “Profit must be our servant, not our master," adding that colleagues needed to accept that they had a responsibility to each other and not just the bottom line.She also said that "It's increasingly apparent that the absence of purpose - or of a moral language - within government, media or business, could become one of the most dangerous own goals for capitalism and for freedom”.

Wow! Well done Elizabeth. I could not have expressed it better myself!

When all is said and done how many banks actually know what providing a “service” really means? Using my old standby the Oxford English Dictionary “service” in this context – is defined as, inter alia, “An act of helping or benefiting another; an instance of beneficial, useful or friendly action; the action of serving, helping or benefiting another; behaviour conducive to the welfare or advantage of another.”

In the context of a bank I believe that a bank should look to helping and benefiting customers - and I do NOT mean shareholders. By customers I mean people like me – a depositor, someone with a mortgage or a loan. I do not believe that any bank actually understands the need for or promotes a culture of “service” (certainly not in Australia at any rate).  

A “customer” is locked into whatever they have signed up to, regardless of changed circumstances. The bank  is not interested in anything but the money – the “bottom line” – and the customer can go hang. This may be legally “correct” and according to the letter of the law but is it according to the “spirit” of the law? Is such a legalistic approach providing a “service” to the customer? It may “serve” the bank and please the shareholders but does it engender good will with customers? Does it engender a feeling of trust with customers? Does it promote the welfare of customers? Does such an approach actually help customers?

Of course not! Banks have a lot to learn. This is why I continue to bash banks.

Whistleblowing has its roots in Injustice!

As always I rely on my one loyal reader and the support I receive. I know that this reader is concerned about the increasing injustice reported daily. Injustice affects us all and has a toxic and corrosive effect on society generally.

People know when they are doing  wrong – lawyers, accountants, real estate agents milking Trust Accounts, for example. So do businesses. So do banks. So do Governments. So do religious organisations. They are all aware of wrong doing but they keep doing it!

As I have stated many times before the root of injustice is unethical conduct – people, businesses, governments either for personal gain, trying to gain unfair advantage or to avoid scrutiny or to cover-up some dubious conduct. This applies to all levels of human conduct.

Now we have the serious allegations (they are still just allegations) that a commercial subsidiary of the Reserve Bank of Australia  has been offering bribes to encourage sales of the bank notes that it prints. This is the banker bank and is owned by the Australian Government! If the allegations are proved this will be a REALLY serious affair.

Also just recall the recent Olympic Games – taking drugs to gain an unfair advantage. Then there was the Tour de France – more drugs. Also of course there is the unethical conduct of banks and financial institutions – greed, manipulating interest rates, money laundering, betting on credit default swaps and fraudulent practices; the Catholic Church and paedophilia; businesses – poor customer service, greed, price gouging, squeezing suppliers to lower prices and general anti-competitive conduct; individuals involved in crime – be this “white collar” fraud, violence, sexual or physical abuse. Then there are the breaches of human rights by ALL governments (think Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib and “renditions”; China and the Falun Gong and official corruption; the basket case that is North Korea; Russia with endemic corruption and Putin’s attempt to crush all dissent; Australia and the “stolen generation”, the treatment of asylum seekers and the Defence Force sexual abuse scandal – and so on and so on. The list is unfortunately endless).

This type of conduct, which hurts people either physically or emotionally, is often carried out by people who show a complete lack of empathy – an inability to feel what another person is experiencing. They show no remorse, are callous, have poor behaviour controls, are impulsive and fail to accept responsibility for their own actions. This evidence of anti-social behaviour is typical of people who usually would have high scores on the relevant clinical checklist for psychopathy.

On the face of it, psychopaths are often highly intelligent, charming, outgoing people, who are eager to make a positive impression. But this behaviour is a façade and an imitation of what they know to be socially acceptable: the so-called “mask of sanity”. The clinical checklist for psychopathy refers to "glib and superficial charm, grandiosity, need for stimulation, pathological lying, conning and manipulating ", and such like.

You may think that sounds like some of the businessmen and politicians we know!

Research shows that high-functioning psychopaths are often very successful people. On the surface they appear to be confident and calm and seem to have their act together. The Human Capital and Management Library says: "High-functioning psychopaths...tend to rule the world. They rise to the highest levels of power in politics and business."

Research also indicates that about ten per cent of CEOs could be diagnosed as psychopaths compared to about one per cent of the general population who show this same tendency. What allows these people to manipulate and control others is their ability to do so on a very rational, logical level with no feelings of emotion or empathy for the other person.

The importance of whistle-blowers stems from the fact that most of the unethical, unjust and downright criminal behaviour in government and in commerce that has been exposed, has been exposed by people with a conscience – whistle-blowers! Without whistle-blowers how would we know, truthfully, how any government, of any country was actually governing? Without whistle-blowers how would we know truthfully, as tax payers, how our money was being spent in any jurisdiction? Without whistle-blowers how would we know, truthfully, how our law enforcement officers were performing? Without this knowledge provided by whistle-blowers how could there be any trust in the performance of any branch of any government or any company or corporation? Every one of them has something to hide. Every one of them has a skeleton hidden somewhere (as do we all as individuals).

Whistle-blowers perform the very important function of shining a light into the dark corners where these activities are normally hidden and exposing the perpetrators of injustice for what they are.

Remember the advice Polonius gave to his son Laertes:

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man. Hamlet Act 1, scene 3, 78–82.

Long live whistle-blowers!

Manners Maketh Man

‘Manners Makyth Man’ is the motto of the establishments founded by William of Wykeham, (1324 - 1404) - Winchester College and New College, Oxford.  

I would not like my one loyal reader to think that I was at all discriminatory regarding women. Quite the contrary – I have always considered women to be a jump or two ahead of men – after all human life is created within them. This is a fact that deserves a high order of acknowledgement. It should, therefore, be obvious that I am not being sexist when I use the word Man – it is generic and means the species homo-sapiens – so most certainly includes women.

But to get back to what I want to say about manners. The old Winchester College (English Public School) motto that “Manners Maketh Man” may be old fashioned and from a different time and different generation but it still has value today. Manners – good manners (and not just etiquette which is different) – are recognised in every society and culture as important. Obviously they vary from culture to culture and within societies but the fundamentals are the same everywhere.

Manners are important as a respectful acknowledgement of the rights of others (worthy or not). Generally (and I must be careful what I say here), generally, good manners are an indication of the level of refinement in a person. People with no manners; those who are offensive in their behaviour; those who use abusive language; those whose conversation contains a high proportion of expletives are generally considered as impolite or vulgar and lacking good manners. Good manners give an indication of how one treats others and how one expects to be treated by others. In other words – how good a person is – and we all want be considered good.

There are, of course, those people who use their (apparent) good manners and (superficial) personal charm for their own ends. Confidence tricksters (con men or women) often appear to be charming and well mannered people but always, very obviously, use these attributes for their own nefarious purposes. The opposite of this are those people with hearts of gold – kind and generous - but who are rather uncouth in their behaviour and speech.

In my book the importance of “good manners” lies in the fact that they are based on ethical principles which affect general behaviour. I always remember being impressed by something I read about Capt. Scott’s Antarctic Expedition in 1912. Scott apparently insisted on “good manners” – he believed that good manners reduced the opportunities for friction in a group of men forced to live together in a confined space for an extended period.

Generally it can be said that good manners set a standard of behaviour that those, in the culture concerned, understand and try to adhere too. Fundamental to good manners is ethics. And fundamental to ethics is the precept that a person’s behaviour should be governed by the standard of behaviour they would expect from others – in other words, treat others the way you would like to be treated. Someone who is ethical is, kind, generous, just, honest, courageous and temperate in manner (there is that word again). There is no other viable alternative.

So, in a way it is true - manners do make Man (as in a good person).