Skip to main content

Occupy the SEC and Public Virtue

I was very interested to read Suzy Khimm's long take on the Occupy the SEC group, who are apparently in large part composed of former Wall Street traders and the like: 
In its heyday, the tea party turned to elections to enact change, rallying supporters to primary incumbents and helping the GOP retake the House. Occupy Wall Street, by contrast, has largely eschewed the traditional political process. Instead, as protesters have moved off the streets, a small minority of Occupiers has waded deep into the weeds of the federal regulations, legal decisions and banking practices that make up the actual architecture of Wall Street. And they’re drawing on the technical expertise of the financial industry’s own refugees, exiles and dissidents to do so. 
Many of the Occupy wonks once worked on Wall Street, and some of them still do. They’re former derivatives traders, risk analysts, compliance officers and hedge fund quants. They hail from Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bear Stearns, D.E. Shaw, Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase — and at least one is a former Securities and Exchange Commission regulator. They’re more likely to use a flowchart than protest signs to fight big banks. But they identify with the movement’s animating belief that America’s financial heavyweights wield too much power, and that its political leaders are too eager to do their bidding.
This is a prime example of my working thesis that public virtue is extremely important for developing and maintaining the inclusive institutions described in Why Nations Fail. It's important to think of the incentive structure of institutions, maintaining watchful and vigorous oversight to prevent corruption, and so forth, but these people aren't even part of a traditional institution. They're working on their own time to try and restrain the power of the financial sector, by attacking one of its most powerful weapons--the nearly-incomprehensible complexity and tediousness of financial operations.

Again, it's obvious that these people won't succeed in breaking Wall Street's power by themselves. But it's a good example of how unselfish motives can genuinely help to make a more successful society.

Comments

  1. Many people complain that OWS doesn't have a coherent message that politicians can attempt to meet, sincerely or not. I've always found it to be a charming quality of OWS to be so ambiguous, and that it speaks volumes to the general discontent we have with the basic structure of or society. It's good to see some knowledgeable people take a good swing at such an undeniably corrupt institution.

    It seems that there is a growing population of people that simply want our value system to allow for both profit and social good that work cooperatively. Career options tend to hold these goals as mutually exclusive; private or public interest.

    Someone introduced me to concept of Benefit Corporations the other day. Not a bad idea. After reading about them I can't imagine why this isn't a model that every company aspires to. It seems a bit empty to suck up as much profits as possible at the expense of your employees or community.

    ReplyDelete
  2. True, true. I'm just glad in general to see some kind of movement that isn't either a bunch of deluded right-wingers or Astroturf corporate hacks. I'd like to see more Benefit Corporations as well. I sort of wish Google would have been set up like that.

    My only complaint with Occupy is that they don't seem to have a very realistic view of how to defeat the monied elite. There's a strand there of disengagement with politics, which is a sure way to fade into irrelevance. Wall Street has colonized our political institutions like some enormous fungus, and they'll use those institutions to beat back reform. Only by reclaiming the political process, perhaps by running against Wall Street, can they be stopped.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

On Refusing to Vote for Bloomberg

Billionaire Mike Bloomberg is attempting to buy the Democratic nomination. With something like $400 million in personal spending so far, that much is clear — and it appears to be working at least somewhat well, as he is nearing second place in national polls. I would guess that he will quickly into diminishing returns, but on the other hand spending on this level is totally unprecedented. At this burn rate he could easily spend more than the entire 2016 presidential election cost both parties before the primary is over.

I published a piece today outlining why I would not vote for Bloomberg against Trump (I would vote for Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, or Biden), even though I live in a swing state. This got a lot of "vote blue no matter who" people riled up. They scolded me and demanded that I pre-commit to voting for Bloomberg should he win the nomination. The argument as I understand it is to try to make it as likely as possible that whatever Democrat wins the nomi…

Varanus albigularis albigularis

That is the Latin name for the white-throated monitor lizard, a large reptile native to southern Africa that can grow up to two meters long (see pictures of one at the Oakland Zoo here). In Setswana, it's called a "gopane." I saw one of these in my village yesterday on the way back from my run. Some kids from school found it in the riverbed and tortured it to death, stabbing out its eyes, cutting off its tail, and gutting it which finally killed it. It seemed to be a female as there were a bunch of round white things I can only imagine were eggs amongst the guts. I only arrived after it was already dead, but they described what had happened with much hilarity and re-enactment.

When I asked why they killed it, they said it was because it would eat their chickens and eggs, which is probably true, and because it sucks blood from people, which is completely ridiculous. It might bite a person, but not unless threatened. It seems roughly the same as killing wolves that e…

The Basic Instinct of Socialism

This year I finally decided to stop beating around the bush and start calling myself a democratic socialist. I think the reason for the long hesitation is the very long record of horrifying atrocities carried out by self-described socialist countries. Of course, there is no social system that doesn't have a long, bloody rap sheet, capitalism very much included. But I've never described myself as a capitalist either, and the whole point of socialism is that it's supposed to be better than that.

So of course I cannot be a tankie — Stalin and Mao were evil, terrible butchers, some of the worst people who ever lived. There are two basic lessons to be learned from the failures of Soviet and Chinese Communism, I think. One is that Marxism-Leninism is not a just or workable system. One cannot simply skip over capitalist development, and any socialist project must be democratic and preserve basic liberal freedoms.

The second, perhaps more profound lesson, is that there is no socia…