During the course of his lectures on the demise of Keynesianism, Alfredo had observed that the global financial crisis was not the handiwork of only the bankers, who are blamed the most for their greed and financial imprudence, but also of the government policymakers. In fact, the sub-prime mortgage, considered to be the germ behind the financial epidemic, was the result of a concerted government policy in the US.
Alfredo introduced me to the writings of Allen Greenspan, who is one of the 25 people listed by the Time as blameworthy for the financial crisis.
In his book "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World" , Greenspan writes: "The gains [from home ownership] were especially dramatic among Hispanics and Blacks, as increasing affluence as well as government encouragement of sub prime mortgage programmes enabled many members of minority groups to become first-time home buyers. This expansion ... gave more people a stake in the future of our country and boded well for the cohesion of the nation."
The motive behind the policymakers encouraging the banks to provide sub prime mortgage to the relatively less well off, knowing fully well that they were more likely than not to falter to repay the debt, was to ensure a sense of ownership in the system and a stake in the dominant discourse,i.e, Neoliberalism.
I doubt if the US policymakers had any noble intention about the well being of the Hispanics and the Black population when the banks were dishing out sub prime mortgages. On the contrary, giving home ownership, however flimsy it might be, to those who didn't even dream of having their own properties was a way of discrediting the nation state, which was the dominant development paradigm in the post-war period and it continued till the early 1970s.
Similarly, in the United Kingdom, Margaret Thatcher's decision to allow the council tenants to buy the properties they lived in was a way of , giving the less well off a sense of ownership in the system, encouraging them to live outside the purview of the welfare state and portraying that it was not only the state which was capable of providing home ownership.
One might argue that Thatcher's intention was to empower the people but as the events of the post-Thatcher years would prove it has resulted more in the decimation of the nation state. I haven't come across any empirical evidence to prove that those who bought their council properties moved up the property, social and economic ladders in substantial numbers. I wonder if buying the council properties have in any way changed the life world of those who have done so or made them more enterprising.
I would also argue that Thatcher's crackdown on the trade unions and widespread privatisation were also guided more by the motive of liquidating the state and not so much to empower the people.
The Thatcher years might have changed Britain significantly. The days of rampant trade unionism are a thing of the past, the industrial heartland of middle England has undergone significant
de-industrialisation and is struggling with a high level of unemployment and the society has become more unequal, but it is hard to believe that the ordinary man feels more empowered now. The positive effects of societal changes and technological development have been overshadowed by insecurity and instability.
So as Margaret Thatcher goes to her grave, I will remember her more for the arrogant one-line snipers and much less as someone who has made significant positive changes to people's lives.
Tirthankar Bandyopadhyay is a journalist and media consultant.
He can be contacted at tirthankarb@hotmail.com
All comments are personal.
No comments:
Post a Comment