Resources Research

Culture and systems of knowledge, cultivation and food, population and consumption

Posts Tagged ‘hedge funds

The stranglehold of finance capital over the state

with one comment

Women collect coal scraps from an overburden dump for a nearby open pit coal mine. Overburden is the fertile soil (formerly used for agriculture) that has to be removed to get at the coal underneath. In the process small pieces of coal are also picked up which are scavenged by local villagers to be sold for cash. Photo: Panos Pictures/Robert Wallis

Is ours the age of the struggle between the state and the market? Or is it the age in which the state bowed to financial control over it? From a perspective which integrates labour, environmental stewardship, cultural safeguarding and a just human development, the state is firmly in the grip of finance and its liberalisers.

What has come to be called neo-liberalism is in short the expression used to describe the relentless and growing control of resources of every sort, be they mineral, human or environmental. If there has been a problem of neoliberalism it is that it failed to increase the rate of profit consistently and never achieved levels comparable to those of the ‘Golden Age’ between 1948 and 1973. The series of ‘booms’ of various kinds, which caught the attention of investors, bankers and speculators, have had much to do with the seeking to replicate the conditions of those years (in Deutschland they called the period ‘die Fette Jahre’, the fat years).

Boys carry large lumps of coal that they have scavenged from an open pit mine near Dhanbhad. They will carry this coal several kilometres to sell in a local market. As mining has displaced agriculture, scavenging for coal on the edge of mines has become one of the means of survival for those who have been displaced from an agricultural life by mining. Photo: Panos Pictures/Robert Wallis

The essence of financial liberalisation, seen in its totality, is to ensure the stranglehold of finance capital over the State, Prabhat Patnaik has explained in a commentary in People’s Democracy (the weekly organ of the Communist Party of India Marxist). This may appear paradoxical at first sight: as the term ‘liberalisation’ appended to ‘financial’ suggests, the basic aim of the process is to liberate finance from the shackles of the State, ie, to ensure not the control of finance over the State but the negation of the control of the State over finance. But the remarkable aspect of financial liberalisation consists precisely in this: what appears at first sight as the liberation of finance from the shackles of the State is nothing else but the acquisition by finance of control over the State.

In his short essay, ‘Neoliberalism: From One Crisis to Another, 1973-2008’, Neil Davidson has explained that these booms were the result of the following factors which he enumerates as under:

The first and most fundamental was simply greater exploitation of the workforce, by increasing productivity on the one hand (making fewer workers work harder and longer) and decreasing the share of income going to labour on the other (paying workers less in real terms).

The second was the expansion of private capital into two new areas: first through the expropriation of the remaining ‘commons’ in the Global South, releasing value which had previously been embedded in nature and hence unavailable for the purposes of accumulation; then through privatising state-owned industries and public services, providing resources which-potentially at least-could be used directly for production rather than in the process of realisation or as part of the social wage.

The third was the emergence of new centres of capital accumulation outside the established core of the world system in East Asia and above all, in China, which contributed to a partial restoration of profitability as a manufacturer of cheap consumer goods for Western and, above all, US import markets, and as the source of loans to the US through Treasury Bonds, which are then loaned again to American companies and consumers.

The fourth, itself a result of profit rates failing to consistently reach what capitalists considered acceptable levels, was a fall in the proportion of surplus value being invested in production and the rise in the proportion being saved, to the point where the latter became greater than the former. The need to find profitable uses for surplus capital, where productive investment was insufficiently attractive, tended to draw industrial capitalists towards financial speculation. This did not mean that industrial capital became subordinated to financial capital – rather, their interests converged.

A series of murals painted by the Tribal Women's Artist Collective from Hazaribagh. The collective attempts to keep tribal artistic traditions alive in the face of population displacement from tribal areas due to the spread of mining and the conflict between the India army and Maoist guerillas. The designs and styles are unique to each individual artist and were traditionally passed down from mothers to daughters through the generations. Photo: Panos Pictures/Robert Wallis

The turn to finance had implications beyond a shifting focus of investment, which tends to be compressed into the term ‘financialisation’. But among all the complexities of arbitrage, derivatives, hedge funds and the rest, there are two essential points about financialisation which need to be understood. One is that, financial speculation, like several of the factors discussed here, can increase the profits of individual capitalists at the expense of others, but cannot create new value for the system as a whole. The other is that, in so far as profits were raised, one aspect of financialisation became more important than any other and consequently needs to be considered as a factor in its own right.

This, the fifth and final factor, was a massive increase in consumer debt. Credit became crucially important in preventing the return to crisis only after the post-1982 recovery had exhausted itself. In so far as better-off working class people have spent borrowed money on commodities which are above the minimum needed to reproduce their labour, it is a response to their situation under neoliberalism. But the main reason for increased debt has been the need to maintain personal or familial income levels.

Men transporting baskets of coal onto railway carriages at Sauanda railway yard. Most of the workers have migrated to work in the area having been displaced from their traditional livelihoods in the countryside. Lacking title deeds for land on which they have farmed and hunted for millennia, the rural adivasi communities are being displaced to make way for new industrial developments planned to capitalise on the land's mineral wealth. Photo: Panos Pictures/Robert Wallis

The points that Patnaik, Davidson and several others have been making, with increasing urgency in recent years, is that the freeing of finance capital from all social obligations like priority sector lending targets and differential interest rates, not only increases its profitability, even while pushing petty producers and small capitalists deeper into crisis, but also allows it to pursue its own profit-seeking ways over a global terrain, which has the effect of subjugating the State to the thralldom of internationalised finance capital.

In short, financial liberalisation is the process through which a fundamental change is enforced on the bourgeois State: from being an entity apparently standing above society and intervening for the ‘social good’, which means keeping in check to some extent the rapacity of big capital, even while promoting it and defending its monopoly privileges, the State becomes exclusively dominated by financial interests (with which big corporate interests are closely enmeshed) and loses its relative autonomy vis-a-vis such interests. We have not the ‘rolling back’ of the State as neo-liberal ideologues suggest, but State intervention in the exclusive interests of finance capital.

[‘Neoliberalism: From One Crisis to Another, 1973-2008’, Neil Davidson, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Strathclyde and a member of the Editorial Board of the journal International Socialism.]

Advertisements

Hedge funds, Russian grain, Libyan crisis, South Asian food stocks

leave a comment »

Durable commentary and analysis in the FAO Monthly News Report on Grains, 2011 February, which is carried in full on this page. The highlights:

Sell-off in grains and oilseeds ‘an over-reaction, reported Agrimoney on 25 February 2011: The sell-off of in grain and oilseed markets in response to the Libyan crisis is an over-reaction, with tight supplies, particularly of corn, warranting continued high prices. The Canadian Wheat Board said that the Libyan unrest “in reality, does not materially change the grain fundamentals facing the market”, even through the global economic fears it has provoked through lifting oil prices.

Hedge Funds Cut Food-Price Bets as Grains Take a Fall, reported Bloomberg on 25 February 2011: Bullish bets on soybeans fell 18 percent and those for corn slid 3.4 percent. Holdings in eight agriculture commodities by money managers are higher than during the global food crisis three years ago. Investors put a record $2.6 billion into agriculture-index swaps, exchange-traded products and medium-term notes last month, after pouring $5.7 billion during the fourth quarter of 2010, according to Barclays Capital. In the week ended Feb. 8, hedge funds and other speculators increased bullish bets on wheat to a combined 51,787 futures and options contracts, the highest since August 2007.

Russia could prolong grain export ban: deputy PM, reported Business Recorder on 22 February 2011: Russia on Tuesday said it may extend a ban on grain exports that has been blamed for triggering global food price rises beyond its provisional expiry date of July 1. “We discussed the option of extending the grain export ban after July 1,” news agencies quoted First Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Zubkov as saying. Analysts link the spike in wheat prices to subsequent jumps in the cost of both Russian dairy products and beef.

Pakistan: Govt expects bumper wheat crop, lacks proper storage, reported Asian Pulse on 17 February 2011: Government has set wheat procurement target of 6.5 million metric tons expecting a bumper crop estimated to be 23.5 million metric tons for 2011 wheat season. The Government of Pakistan, while ensuring minimum wheat support price of Rs.950/- per 40 kgs to the farmers, procures around 28 to 30pc of the total crop to safeguard the interests of the farmers whose efforts have made the country not only self-reliant but also enabled to export the surplus wheat this year.

India Foodgrains Production in 2010-11 Estimated at 232.07 MT ; 2nd Advance Estimates of Crop Production Released, reported the Press Information Bureau on 9 February 2011: The second advance estimates of crop production for 2010-11 have been released. India is likely to produce 232.07 million tonnes of foodgrains during 2010-11 compared to 218.11 million tonnes last year. This is only marginally below the record production of 234.47 million tonnes of foodgrains in 2008-09. India is likely to achieve record production of wheat (81.47 million tonnes), pulses (16.51 million tonnes) and cotton (339.27 lakh bales of 170 kg. each) this year. Central Statistics Office (CSO) has estimated that the agriculture, forestry and fishery sector is likely to show a growth of 5.4% in its GDP during 2010-11, as against the previous year’s growth of 0.4%.