“But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness“ Leviticus 16:10
Though, of course, both Simon Hester and Sir Fred Goodwin were chosen by the lot of having been in charge of RBS at some point. One up to the fall, and one after. And like the proverbial bovine both the fankle of Simon Hester’s bonus last week and the government turning Fred Goodwins umbrella inside out (HT to Peat Worrier for that exclusive footage) are barely even symbolically important. Many people in the banking industry are still Sir CDO. Many more are still raking in enormous amounts of money in short term bonuses that severely distort the incentives within the financial industry and then leak into the real economy through exploiting genuinely useful financial instruments such as commodity futures to such an extent that hundreds of thousands of people are pushed into hunger because of pinstriped castles in the sky.
The ongoing financial catastrophe of the last four and a half years are not the fault of two Chief Executives of one company, one of whom wasn’t even employed there until after the crash. It was a systemic failure of the global financial system, particularly in the US and the UK but also around Europe and what was once broadly described as “the Free World” or “the West” and if you’re of a more right-on view point your probably currently refer to as “the Global North”. Not only that, but it was the latest and largest in a series of failures in the dominant political economy of the prior 40 years that stretches back past the current sovereign debt crisis (which is really just the second act of the 2007-2008 crisis) and finds echoes in the Enron and Worldcom scandals and the Argentine Default of the early 2000s, the Long-Term Capital Management debacle and the Russian default of the late 1990s, the Asian crisis prior to that, the Savings & Loans crisis in the US in the 1980s and 1990s and so an ad nauseam.
Obviously with such a broad sweep of crises a huge number of different, conflicting factors played into them. However they also all fundamentally grew from an uncompromising and unyielding faith in the market fundamentalist economic consensus articulated by Hayek and the Chicago School. Sometimes markets work. Sometimes they don’t. Problems arise when they are allowed unchecked and unfettered reign. Problems which cause huge social dislocation, uprooting people, throwing people on the scrapheap before their lives really started and killing people – and that was when they were functioning as designed. Since then they have became utterly dysfunctional even within their own frame of reference, requiring massive public subsidies, three am shotgun mergers and the world staring into an economic abyss so bad I’ve run out of cliches to describe it.
So, on the one hand, we have the worst financial crisis in human history causing untold damage and on the other hand we have the small matter of catastrophic global climate change which is inexorably moving closer and we appear to be increasingly incapable of doing anything about it, partly because of the financial crisis taking up a lot of both monetary and political capital.
But never mind, some guy who was only ever really a cog in the machine in the great scheme of things is going to have to spend five minutes changing the title drop down on his online banking. Whoop.
#1 by Tris on February 1, 2012 - 9:34 am
Soooooo, nothing much to worry about then?
Seriously, good article Aidan. It’s Cameron trying to show that he feels what we feel; he suffers along with us; feels our pain; travels on Easyjet…(well OK, not the last one).
It’s a populist piece, supported strongly by the Daily Mail and designed to get good headlines.
It really sums up David Cameron’s style of government.
#2 by Indy on February 1, 2012 - 11:09 am
I don’t think it is populist though. It’s actually quite pathetic.
#3 by Allan on February 1, 2012 - 7:03 pm
Well, what do you expect from the guy that used to do PR for Carlton Television?
#4 by Aldos Rendos on February 1, 2012 - 9:38 am
Adrian, while I have sympathy with your view, I think the real purpose of the move was to protect the honours system. If we are going to live in a country which honours and recognises people for outstanding contribution, then we have to ensure these honours are given to the correct people, otherwise it makes the whole operation look redundant. On the other hand the Tories saw this an opportunity to scores some quick cheap political points and the took it. I don’t really blame them for that.
#5 by @dhothersall on February 1, 2012 - 10:40 am
The problem with that reading of it is that there are literally hundreds of honours recipients who are far more disgraced than Goodwin. Lords who have been jailed for criminality, for example, or knighted business leaders who have embezzled and cheated. Either Good win opens the floodgates for the rescinding of hundreds of other honours, or this was a purely cynical piece of scapegoating.
#6 by Indy on February 1, 2012 - 11:03 am
I heard the start of Call Kaye on this topic this morning and it was really depressing. Of course he is a scapegoat. Taking his knighthood away means nothing. Absolutely nothing.
The honours system itself is crap. I’m all for honouring people who have put in years of selfless service to the community. Those people should be honoured beause they deserve it and they deserve it because they do that work without any expectation of reward. The rest of them can go take a running jump.
#7 by Allan on February 1, 2012 - 6:52 pm
He might be a scapegoat Indy, but you have to remember that many people were the victims of Fred’s “abrasive” management style. All the stuff about picking on poor old Fred will not cut any ice with the people Goodwin sacked both at RBS or at Clydesdale Bank.
#8 by Indy on February 2, 2012 - 8:16 am
I don’t feel sorry for Fred Goodwin. As I said I think the honours system is crap. Awarding a rich banker a knighthood in the first place is a meaningless gesture and stripping it from him is also a meaningless gesture. The whole thing is a sick joke.
#9 by An Duine Gruamach on February 1, 2012 - 11:05 am
It’s a good article, Aidan, thanks. The question then is, as that famous economic forum, Guns N’ Roses, once asked, “where do we go now?”
It is clear and becoming ever clearer that this sort of crisis is always going to happen under capitalism. Some of you may remember a quotation from Eric Hobsbawm I posted a while back, outlining how the repeated crashes of the nineteenth century were all blamed on individual factors unique to each crisis, and not something that was inherent within the system of market capitalism.
In this light, calls for “fairer capitalism” or “responsible capitalism” or “nice n’ fluffy capitalism with bows and ribbons and puppies” just look desperate. If the largest left-wing party in Britain has as the limits of its ambition merely a nicer version of what we have now, then we’ve got a problem. It all seems to focus on bonuses and so on – which, as you point out, are irrelevant to the actual causes of the crises.
The cause of the crisis is the structure of the entire economic system under which we are working, and there is a disturbing lack of courage in admitting that among the people who, with all their university educations in economics, teams of researchers, access to treasure figures etc., ought to be able to see it clearest.
#10 by Aidan on February 1, 2012 - 11:14 am
Sadly I think the fact that a lot of people have university educations in mainsteam neo-classical economics and no experience of actual business (or vice versa – thrusting middle aged captains of industry, normally consulting practices with no education in economics) is part of the problem.
Maybe the best thing we can do is send everybody a copy of Steve Keens excellent, newly revised book: http://debunkingeconomics.com/
#11 by Indy on February 1, 2012 - 11:41 am
It’s not something that one country (or 2 if Scotland becomes independent) can sort out alone, especially when there is a dependence on the whole financial “industry” to underpin economic growth.
David Cameron effectively walked out of the EU not because of the euro crisis but because he believed the measures it might take to deal with the euro crisis could pose a threat to UK financial interests.
But quite possibly action at an EU level to curb the power of the bankers and financial speculators and return control of economic polices to elected governments rather than corporations and credit agencies may be the best chance we have.
There’s a sentence I never thought I’d write.
#12 by gavin on February 1, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Goodwin was really just a child of his times, Scotlands very own Master of the Universe at a time where morals seem to have been deregulated along with global finance. The Lords full of chancers, the Commons with dodgy expense claims and house flippers. Just greed all round really.
I thought Iceland handled this well,just let the banks crash and get the prosecuters involved. There are ALWAYS dodgy dealings in these organisations, lock up the worst and take away their illicit profits. The rest soon learn.
#13 by Allan on February 1, 2012 - 7:02 pm
Good post Aidan.
Obviously the fault does not lie just with Goodwin, as there are other protaganists. The Blair-Brown governments created the conditions for what happened at RBS, HBOS and a whole host of financial companies to happen with their policy of “Light Touch Regulation”. If I were to pick one catalyst though, it would be Robert Peston, the BBC’s business editor. Had he not reported in 2007 that Northern Rock had been to the bank of last resort (when many other banks had been, banks un-named by Peston), then the first run on a Brittish bank for 150 years would not have occured, and the Credit crunch/double recessions would not have panned out the way they did.
http://humbug3.blogspot.com/2010/11/time-to-name-shame.html