N.B.: I dispense with any political correctness here; but hope that a couple of the ideas come through as seeds for additional thought.   By the way, this article by Bret Stephens is more profound, relevant and astute than one might think; as it reaches the core of our foreign policy dilemma.

 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578480811652337252.html

Comment: “The Kissinger Question” by Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal May 14, 2013

Mubarek should have been propped-up in Egypt rather than abandoning an ally and de-stabilizing the Levant courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Gaddafi had changed course and no intervention at this time was necessary—President Obama knows we created our own problems in Libya.  Syria needed quick action two years ago; but now is a mess thanks to Al-Assad’s backing by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.   Joseph Nye, former assistant Secretary of Defense wrote on the war in Iraq, “…reckless in its inadequate preparation for an effective occupation.”   Just for good measure, add in the failure to reach a Status of Forces Agreement which serves to compound the problem.  And the chief point,Russia should have been added as the fourth and principal member of the Axis of Evil—as their signature is prominently displayed on nearly every trouble spot in the world.   The list goes on and on.

Foreign policy for the last few years was managed by the Four Ladies of the Apocalypse (fondly a moniker coined for the Libyan intervention)—Slaughter,Clinton, Rice and Power.  The keynote has been some misguided idea that “democracies” don’t fight with each other or some such nonsense.   Yes, freedom is ultimately necessary for peace: but freeing people into chaos without planning infrastructure is a fools errand.   Witness Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan—how about that French Revolution, to which is generally alluded.  Has anyone ever heard of Napoleon?

This comment is part hyperbole to make a point (notice bombing nuclear facilities in Iran and North Korea were left out): and that is: laissez-faire foreign policy strategies will not get you there.  It’s as if our foreign policy has been: take a full understanding of every successful principle in Sun Tzu’s Art of War, and then do the exact opposite.  

Congratulations President Obama

The idea that the vote goes to the entire shareholder body is difficult. If Rip Van Winkle awakened from a deep somnolent state, and was asked to review this aspect of the Dodd-Frank legislation, he would probably take a pill and go back into hibernation.

What person(s) or  organizations without much real world hard won experience, even conceived of this idea. It’s a Board’s job! The obvious answer: if a BOD can’t direct company management and its compensation committee doesn’t use correct principals, change the Board. These unusual solutions only become the “eventual problems”.

Nothing gets done efficiently, except the creation of inhibition and stultification.

I believe in the principals of Westphalian states–most particularly, it’s rules or dirigisme. But how do you have expanding GDP and job creation in the midst of all this complicated drivel. The regime goes too far.

Over the weekend of April 15th, the G-20 finance ministers and central bank governors, comprised of some, but not all, of the 20 largest developed economies, met in Washington D.C.    This was a continuation of the dialogue which was promulgated by the G-20 document of April 2009 namely: Declaration on Strengthening the Financial System.   The Declaration vested “enhanced capacity” to the former Financial Stability Forum–now re-named the Financial Stability Board (FSB).   For clarification, the FSB is a group which is housed and is functionally a part of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), in Basel, Switzerland.  The BIS acts as the central bank for other sovereign central banks, such as the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, Bank of China, Reserve Bank of India, etc.  The BIS currently has fifty three central bank members, comprising the vast majority of global economic activity. The Declaration also appointed the IMF with an enhanced role in the arena of financial and regulatory monitoring.   Additionally, a G-20 Communiqué was issued after the meeting. *

 According to Euro News, one of the stated intentions was expressed as: 

 “… to avoid a repeat of the global financial crisis the G20 nations have decided to put the policies of seven of its members, the US, China, Britain, Germany, France, India and Japan under the microscope. The IMF will seek out imbalances in debt, trade, and budget deficits, although its conclusions will not be binding on members.”

 “The guidelines operate a little bit like a net which actually holds those of the countries that violate or do not respect the guidelines and the net is a little bit tighter for those countries that are considered of systemic importance because they represent more than five percent of the GDP of the G20”, said French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde.

 This regime or set-up raises questions here in the U.S.   Question one: Why are these particular entities, the BIS and FSB (which are made up of various central bank representatives) being vested with so much latitude and—when the central banks themselves exist to be of service to their States of origin?   Additionally, the central banks in many cases are owned by their private commercial banking members.    Question two: Although the IMF is performing better work than it did in the past (even though that past is quite checkered), is it really an organization in which we want to abdicate our faith to in terms of monitoring our own economy or in their parlance, “put… under the microscope” so as  to be judged?

 We see that the conclusions won’t be binding.    However, notice Minister Lagarde’s language above, “…the net is a little bit tighter…”   Is that the non-binding net for “violators” and “disrespectful” participants?    Would there be embarrassment or moral suasion (persuasion and pressure) for non-compliance?  What influence will this have on buyers of sovereign debt or on cross border trade agreements?   How does it affect the dollar as a reserve currency?   How will the Rating Agencies react to these analyses since they have had very little a priori vision (ability to analyze beforehand) in the past?   There could be many other serious unintended consequences.

 And so in the final analysis, principles of sovereignty could be being bypassed by international entities and coalitions, and without the approval of the United States Congress.  It’s an interesting system being put into place which has the force of a treaty, and yet does not need ratification.

On 2 April 2009, the G-20 issued the: Declaration on Strengthening the Financial System. The Declaration vested “enhanced capacity” to the former Financial Stability Forum–now re-named the Financial Stability Board. It also seems to have appointed the IMF with an enhanced role in the arena of financial regulatory reform. Several reports and articles have since been produced, many of which are quite comprehensive.

The G-20 document references many component parts; one of which deals broadly, with compensation. This is the subject of the post by Professor Ferrarini and Ms. Ungureanu.

However, before I turn attention to my comment, I would like to make an observation. We still live in a world which subscribes to a Westphalian system (well discussed by Padoa-Schioppa in his intellectually breathtaking Per Jacobsson Lecture). Much of the declaration reads as if it were some form of treaty by sovereign governments. As these types of issues do not garner much press or interest for that matter, and are not very well understood by legislators (empirically evident in the U.S.), the liability extant is that it will meet with opposition when finally understood by those with responsibility. Surveying several legislators, economics and business professors, bankers and business chieftains in the U.S, it is interesting to note that 99 out of 100 have never heard of the BIS–much less one of its secretariats the FSB.

The idea of misalignment of compensation being a central cause (of the Turmoil of 2007) is a “red herring” of immense proportion. It’s tantamount to a medical doctor chasing the symptoms of a patient rather than dealing with the source of the illness.

The turmoil and consequent damage caused globally was primarily a failure of sovereign governments and central banks to monitor and understand what was occurring under their charge. This primarily was a U.S. problem of faulty legislation and poor use of regulation; but most importantly, monitoring in an holistic fashion. Putting forth the idea that “greed” (let’s call it what it is) can be regulated is unrealistic and counter-productive–as well as counter-intuitive.

It is a fact that Wesphalian systems are dirigistic and need to set rules and guidelines–especially in the insured banking sector. Yes leverage requirements, yes de-construction of too big to fail institutions offering too many diverse products and services, yes prudential supervision, yes reform of CRA’s, etc. But the attempt at moderating compensation from outside of the internal entity or organization by an authority that is not part of the actual Sovereign is a non-starter and will not gain traction.

The turmoil developed over a 25 year period; very specific events occurred in the timeline which led up the collapse. It’s time to revisit those events.

Comment by Stephen R. Ganns — April 13, 2011 @ 7:04 pm

Good article!

Seems we need a distinction to be able to differentiate the parts of capitalism–which have somehow become fused. Digressing for a second, the societal considerations seem to be inherent in the Westphalian system of which we are a participant. That system is dirigistic–setting up the rules or guidelines–which are needed to make sure the impact to the society operates toward the greater good. Once the rules are in place, the system can operate freely.

It seems that the problem is one of definition and non-differentiation between Free Enterprise and pure Finance, or as it has been coined, Financial Capitalism.

The reason the distinction between Free Enterprise and Finance is so important today, lies in the fact that free enterprise or free markets have always generally been able to achieve a natural equilibrium based on supply and demand. However, speculative “financial” practices tend to force real production economies to become unbalanced. This generally creates the “boom and bust” phenomenon. Unfortunately, the two concepts still remain fused today and synthesized in the public’s mind within the definition of capitalism-just as Karl Marx intended it in the mid 1800′s when he coined the term as a pejorative or strictly negative term.

Free enterprise is an economic system in which markets are created by private businesses to sell their goods and services to the general public.

The basic components of capitalism’s current properties would include:

1. Real assets, property, facilities and equipment are privately held.

2. The economy creates equilibrium through the concept of supply and demand– essentially driven primarily by demand, those who need goods and those who have supply.

3. The concept of best use of natural and human resources and the marketing of those resources successfully to consumers to gain maximum exchange.

4. Limited government regulation exists as a dirigisme to ensure fair play and to prevent market manipulation.

5. However, it is worthy of note that this does not imply in any way an anarchy. Government would lay out the ground rules to keep the markets from being undermined or manipulated. This is completely consistent with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” as taught in “…The Wealth of Nations”. Why? Simply because in his earlier work (which was continually revised), “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” which speaks of social responsibility, could be referred to as a “visible hand”, thus creating a binary and balanced system going hand in hand.

By finance or financial capitalism, we mean the use of capital or wealth to create more wealth including the charging of interest and speculations in different types of financial products such as various types of investments, equities, options or other derivatives. In defining finance by these particular uses, functions and habits, it can be seen that the nature of finance is not centrally (directly) involved in the actual production process. It is generally a facilitator, aiding production, as in providing capital for daily operations or expansion or consumption. This is finance’s true value.

Viewing the current turmoil of 2007, it can be seen that the “capital markets” have frozen dramatically, seriously hindering production, consumption and free enterprise. Question becomes: what would cause this imbalance to occur between these two forces?

We can solve for that.

Stephen R. Ganns

http://yaleherald.com/opinion/remaking-capitalism-for-the-greater-good/

Invaluable program at Yale.
A few thoughts on Egypt which first appeared on      TheIndependentFiduciary.Org :

Let’s review the recent events in Egypt against some of the data and principles of Sun Tzu.

Intelligence, and the use of agents were central to Sun Tzu’s strategies and methods. Today, this would constitute having a good and reliable “intelligence estimate” or assessment of the situation leading to predictions of a high probability. Another attribute of intelligence is that it is covert or secret–the elements of surprise and “mis-direction” contribute majorly to probable victory.

SunTzu laid out and codified many principles which would be too numerous to mention in this blog–although it would make a great subject for a written piece to analyze current events: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: the Turmoil in the Middle East, etc.–against his strategies.

Simple fact: these are campaigns, well thought out and planned, utilizing the workable principles of war. Yes, social media acted as a light speed facilatator, and yes a students organized the various tactical maneuvers the public sees on television. But make no mistake–these events were well thought out in advance, coordinated, timed, planned using intelligence far superior to the “opponent’s” intelligence. Any other assertion is simply folly.

Who had the accurate intelligence assesment in Egypt? Who has the accurate intelligence assessment in the other countries currently undergoing social unrest in the Middle East? Who’s winning the coordinated campaign? Who ’s using the correct principles of warfare? Who stands to gain from these events?

I guess eventually, we will know.