Pornography of Poverty – the ethics of economics

It's been a long time since last I splurged upon thoughts that have entered my mind, without much in the way of reasoned research or in fact editing. Perhaps this may turn out as an unintelligible mess, devoid or focused intent and nonsensical to fore. Who knows maybe time has permitted a conditioned sharpness to my written opinion. I guess we shall see. So as my sleep deprived mind often as night descends into lucubration and reflection, today's conjured thought will find it's way here for your reading pleasure or perhaps confusion by bludgeoned views. Perhaps that's enough cautionary self derision for now and I should now seek to properly introduce this topic.

Many years ago in a former guise as failing songwriter, I wrote a song that had the same title as this essay. The subject focus was somewhat similar in general intent but slightly more specified. That particular song was an observation of how in the developed, financial secure Western world any harboured levels of guilt found in our opulence can be allayed by noted reflection of course and support of them, even with financial contribution. Every year we watch the comedic output of the in vogue entertainers of the time in attempts at self ridicule and re-enactments of their respective comedic greatest hits with the focus to bring attention to poverty throughout the world and indeed in our own country. I wish in no uncertain terms to pass any criticism towards such events as comic relief. This event alone raises astronomically vast sums towards attempts to make others lives better. Of course in a sense this remains a drop in the ocean for much of the troubles in the globe, yet still the efforts and intent should not be overlooked. Cancellation of third world debt would bring much more significant benefit. The debts possessed by third world countries where the interest alone can supersede a country's GDP needs re-evaluation. Even the most nihilistic city trader I like to believe would not consider these debt profiles today, of course this could be blind optimism of the general good of people, given someone must have set these up in the first place. The musician Bono may correctly receive much negative attention for fronting campaigns to end these issues, given his own vast wealth and his methods of tax avoidance, but at least some attention is brought.

I have slightly gone off topic here, or perhaps more correctly remained dancing the merry jig of a digression of the intent of this view for too long. So back to he point. In the political landscape there is essentially for all intents and purpose two ideologies that exist. There is the left and right wing, whether that be Labour or Conservative or Republican or Democrat. Yes perhaps these simplistic lines of intent may be more blurred now than ever. The birth of New Labour some 14/15 years ago crystallised that blurring of the lines in Britain. Gone were the simple truths of the major left wing political party's centring around Socialism and the right around Capitalism. The truth is the modern world is more capitalist in it's ideals than ever before. Look at China the last significant vestige of Communism on the planet and soon set to be the world's biggest economy in the next decade or so on all fronts. China opening it's doors to trade and capitalist ideals has catapulted it to mass prominence.

So if the lines are now blurred how does the political landscape align itself with the concept of ethics in its economics if there even is any consideration. Well the blurring is not all that new. At their very core either political ideology is best understood at their extreme forms. For socialism read Communism and for the right read Fascism. Both completely different ideals at the core, but don't both ideas bring mass control, reductions to freedoms and a dystopia idea. Politics or at least politics of major partys mellowed and perhaps this evolved to the world today, where not too long ago a Labour government introduced tuition fees for students. These are the points that perhaps we best understand of the key divisional split. The right favours a distinct meritocracy and the left a dispersement of wealth to the less fortunate. Perhaps this glib overview gives an insight to my leanings with it's phrasing. If I can try and remain Bi-Partisan, I would state that the right's intent is to reward the successful through lower taxes, reduced public spending and overall governmental involvement. In a sense this is a political ideal, I agree with. A conservative civil servant, Copperthwaite was sent to a far away country in the Commonwealth in the sixties to oversee the government and apply ideas. He introduced a simple measure. He removed taxation for all low income earners and reduced the proportion of taxation paid by the wealthier. This radical change gave rise to investment, allowed a key development of spending and allowed for trade and a strong manufacturing base. The vast increase in wealth in the country actually generated vast revenues for the government and established some of the best public services in the world. This small island that was for all intents and purposes a shanty-town became on the world's leading global financial centres. That island was Hong Kong, the same ideals were later adopted by China and well we know the story there too. This idea at the core of right wing politics makes sense. Governments don't create wealth, people create wealth if you allow them too. At the peak of the Labour's big government economy there was elements of the UK that had an economic base of near 80% public sector, how can that be sustainable. My allegiances may appear to have swayed towards the right significantly. If my 15 year old anarchic, hippy self could hear me now... Well not so simple. The simple cut and fast rule of Western politics still holds true. The right taxes less and spends less. The left taxes more and spends more. Hong Kong showed both could be done. We would all like to pay less tax of course but we all, well at least some of us like to see lots of government spending too. This does not mean bureaucracies on top of bureaucracies. This means funding for education, the health service, crime prevention, social order, cultural activities of course the list goes on.

This falls to the crux of the argument. The rich get rich and the poor stay poor. There was a man employed by Barclays bank, he probably hide some high faluting convoluted title. Essentially his job role was to find methods to avoid tax for Barclays to pay. For his efforts in a single year with salary and bonuses he was paid £40m, now Barclays like any business will pay where value is created. So how much money did Barclays PLC save due to his efforts. Why are their positions and loopholes that permit this activity. Why are tax domicile statuses allowed to continue. In some of the biggest austerity measures to face Britain in recent years, how hard were the banks hit in the recent government report and measures to tackle this. Was the retail element and investment elements of banks separated as so many advised was needed. Of course retail banking is a necessity like any service such as the utilities companies. Banking is needed for the individual and of course the private sector. The government was right to not allow these institutions to fold, then again it was not retail banking that contributed to the global financial meltdown. It was investment bankers, I'm not concerned with bankers receiving inordinate sums of money as bonuses in the same way I have no issue with Premiership footballers being paid monumentally high salaries. Again with a sway towards the right, if you earn it you should receive it. Perhaps in a way wouldn't it be better if every Saturday such people as heart surgeons had notoriety and featured on Transplant of the Day with Gary Linieker thus establishing a market for vast wealth of a more esteemed occupation. Simply though it's supply and demand. People pay to watch football, this creates wealth in an industry and arguably its the gifted few who play the game who should receive that money. As much as I don't agree with the opportunity that created the position for the man at Barclays to achieve such a high wage for tax avoidance, but safe to say they thought he earned it. The issue people had was of course banks failing, global financial meltdown and people still receiving six figure plus bonuses. I know in my job if I monumentally (insert expletive of choice here) up, I don't get a piece of paper with a number followed by lots of noughts. Maybe one with a letter P and the numbers 45. As banks are seen as not being able to fail there is no worries and this cycle can perpetuate. Of course there are other concerns such as the capital reserves banks maintain or indeed don't. A rule never strongly enforced be the complete non entity that is the FSA.

I see that those with a true conscious for the lesser privileged tend to be those closer to it. Is this a sense of survival. Do people with socialist ideals think this way because predominantly they themselves do not posses vast wealth or perhaps more recently knew what poverty of less than opulent living was. Huge high streets chains such as Primark have been known to exploit poorer nations, with their sourcing of clothing lines, but yet the clothes in these stores are cheap. So who buys them or in fact is forced to buy them through financial constraints. Why don't the leaders of such companies forgo this seemingly competitive advantage and display some moral conviction. Are they exploiting ideals to create yet more wealth for themselves. Whilst ironically infuriating their customer base, who perhaps through an associated kinship feel guilt when buying a shirt that perhaps they cannot afford elsewhere.

Is there any room for ethics in economics or is this just my socialist hippy views of yesteryear coming back for an encore, I'd like to believe there is. Though may be that is wishful thinking and in cynical times perhaps all there is is cynicism. At least no-one charges for that... yet.

“The only way we find our identity/Our aching hearts long for sympathy/Look for lives torn apart/Awake the love in our heart/It's the imbalance that sets us free/We long for the pornography of poverty.”