Posts Tagged ‘Anthony Painter’

The Sunday Review: Liverpool FC’s 2010/2011 season

22/05/2011, 02:00:04 PM

by Anthony Painter

This was the year of lost owners, three managers and the end of history for Liverpool FC. And despite the tumult – nearly quite literally losing everything – it may have recaptured its soul. The story of Liverpool’s year offers deeper lessons that reach beyond the Shankly gates. Some of those lessons are even political. It’s definitely a story of our world and times.

Let’s start with Tom Hicks and George Gillett. And a basic point: there is no rational financial reason for anyone to own a football club. It’s pure vanity; the economics of mad men. So you have to be very rich for it to work in the long-term. Sure, it’s a growing market as the entertainment industries beyond film go global. But the costs are too high, the rewards too uncertain, and the loyal revenues only compensate to a limited extent for the high risk-low reward business model. You do it out of vanity in the main – you want to own people’s dreams and put yourself on a glamorous platform. Either that or you are a crazy gambler.

Little business sense means that if you are not super rich you have to borrow on unreasonable terms. And if you want to build a top side you have to borrow a lot. Hicks and Gillett weren’t super-rich. They borrowed on ridiculous terms. They couldn’t compete but, worst of all, they lied – to everyone including themselves. They were symbols of the age of capitalism we have just come through. Luckily, a quintessentially English establishment figure, Martin Broughton, chairman of British Airways, came to Liverpool’s rescue and justice was done. Hicks and Gillett left with less than nothing. The swindlers were swindled.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Everybody is ignoring us, because we are weird

11/05/2011, 02:30:54 PM

by Anthony Painter

As Kevin Meagher noted on Uncut this morning, the canvas on which Labour is currently painting by numbers is wearing rather thin. A bit of blue, a bit of purple, some red, something of a strange colour called ‘new’, finish it off with a bit of a flourish. Stand back and marvel at the complete, er, mess.

In the meantime, the Conservatives emerge largely unscathed from their first electoral test since the general election. OK, they emerged completely unscathed. And Labour has spent the year talking to itself and in the seminar room (in fact, the last four years). Now the results of the experiment are about to be unleashed. There will be a deafening silence across the land.

There is a narrative of failure that has come to dominate: Labour became too statist, technocratic, detached, captured by the market; it lost its soul. All of this is true. But it’s not why Labour lost. The cause of defeat is much simpler than that. People didn’t trust Labour anymore. They’d seen enough and decided enough was enough. They wanted a new government and new prime minister. They just weren’t over-enamoured with the alternative.

But we are very educated people on the left. We read social history. We have consumed the political classics from Aristotle to Rawls and beyond. We have framed and conceptualised every single action of every human on this planet. We inhale public policy as if it were shisha. And you know what? We’re weird.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: Triumph of the City, by Ed Glaeser.

08/05/2011, 03:00:30 PM

by Anthony Painter

The royal family is bad for growth. It was nice of them to have a wedding to showcase London and the UK. It undid some of the bad that they may have done. It is not the institution of the monarchy that is the problem. It’s the personage. In fact, it’s one individual – Prince Charles.

It is the heir to throne’s misguided interventions in protecting sight-lines and the like that have contributed to London’s failure to sufficiently grow upwards to facilitate growth, argues Ed Glaeser in Triumph of the City. The worst thing an economy can do is make successful cities unaffordable and constrained. That is the impact of the types of argument that the Prince of Wales deploys. Instead, we should celebrate, promote, invest in, enjoy, and believe in the city. Glaeser loves cities; he sees them as fundamental to the future of civilisation. Their story has barely even begun.

Triumph of the City achieves something exceedingly radical. It not only develops a powerful case for the city per se, it asks us to challenge our entire notion of what a city is. In Glaeser’s world, the city is not the physical structures of the built environment, but rather the human networks that create culture, value, love, ideas and opportunity. In this, he echoes the social urbanist, Jane Jacobs, though sees her as ultimately too small-scale and conservative.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: the interim report of the independent commission on banking

24/04/2011, 01:00:13 PM

by Anthony Painter

There is nothing more British than an establishment fudge. And as establishment fudges go, the interim report of the independent commission on banking (ICB) is an absolute belter. It lays out the case for a fundamental reassessment of the UK’s financial sector, but proposes nothing like that. It is like a flood risk report saying that only a twenty foot high concrete wall will protect a town from flooding but then actually only recommends the installation of sandbags. And given that George Osborne is in compromising mood, it will be watered down further. Get ready for the flood.

Don’t worry, the UK might get lucky. Maybe there won’t be a flood at all. We didn’t think floods happened – or we forgot. Then one did. But still, they are rare right? Well, The ICB doesn’t seem to think so:

“There is an inherent uncertainty about the nature of the next financial crisis”.

So we are not dealing with “ifs” here; we are dealing with “when”. This staggering statement, buried in section 4.173 comes after a long section on the need to protect the competitiveness of the UK financial sector. It provides jobs and £50 billion of tax revenues, after all (though £10 billion or so are from the retail operation, which presumably isn’t going to be off-shored any time soon). That is not insignificant. As we have discovered, that is not a cost and risk free income. In fact, it is highly risky and costly.

This graph helpfully provided on p.22 of the report tells us why:

In financial terms, the UK is more flood-exposed than any other nation. It may not feel this way given the massive output loss, fiscal disaster, and unemployment, but the UK was “lucky” this time. For Ireland, it was far worse:

“Had the asset quality of UK banks turned out to be as bad as that in Ireland, the hit to the UK’s fiscal position would have been significantly worse than it was”.

Oh, those Irish with their junk investments. How silly of them. Only it’s not quite like that. Financial crises don’t generally occur because people are buying junk. They occur because people are buying high quality assets that turn out to be junk. If people are buying junk then investors notice. If it’s AAA grade prime then they are relaxed. The global financial crisis occurred in no small part because AAA assets turned out to be useful only for composting.

At enormous cost, it’s all been quarantined, sanitised and disposed of now right? Perhaps. But there’s still lots of other risks that may be underpriced. An obvious example is the sovereign debt that banks hold. What happens if governments start to default on their debt just as owners of subprime mortgages started to default on their repayments?

Calamity is what happens. If Greece, Portugal, Spain, or Ireland were to default then suddenly the bonds held by German, Dutch, British banks et al are turned from prime to subprime in an instant. Mark Blyth on Crooked Timber has war gamed the shock that would be sent through the European economy. Fantasy? No actually, it’s a completely plausible scenario. The eurozone crumbles but, worse than that, the fiscal hit will be tremendous. What on earth will the Royal Bank of Scotland’s balance sheet look like if that happens and how will we keep a flow of credit to the real economy?

According to the ICB report, there are four functions of a banking system:

• providing payments systems;

• providing deposit-taking facilities and a store-of-value system;

• lending to households, businesses and governments; and

• helping households and businesses to manage their risks and financial needs

over time.

Its measures only aim to safeguard two of them: keeping the payments system going and providing deposit-taking facilities. In the event of another flood, it means that lives will be saved which is clearly a good thing. However, the damage and economic cost to the unprotected town will be enormous. If the flood is a eurozone flood, then governments will need to fiscally intervene once again if credit and lending are to be maintained (and we do have a £141billion deficit to finance as well a businesses and mortgages to finance). The question is – again one posed by the ICB – at what point does “too big to fail” become “too big to save”?

The harsh reality is that we have a financial system that would be too big to save if the flood were big enough. It is a bigger weight on our shoulders than that any on other country’s. We have broad shoulders, but they can’t take unlimited pressure.

And this is the real issue with the ICB interim report. It lays out the evidence that UK may face a financial catastrophe even greater than was experienced in 2008. And then it defaults to the traditional defence of the UK financial sector’s competitive position as an unarguable good. It has been criticised for not doing enough to promote further competition (and our banking sector is monocultured and uncompetitive), or to separate casino from utility banking. In a sense, these criticisms – though fair – miss the point also.

The UK economy and UK taxpayers may not be able to sustain the risk of a financial sector this large at all – even with better regulation. Actually, “competitiveness” may be economically calamitous. So the ICB should have been more honest with us. It should have said:

“We are recommending a 20-foot high concrete wall. This is expensive and it will cause much pain but that is our honest assessment of what it will take to protect us from the flood. It is not unreasonable if we do want to protect ourselves from what could be an adverse event that we see in the not too distant future. This needs a bigger debate than the one we are having. It is about the whole way we run our economy and requires real long-term vision, explanation, and courage. This is a choice but we don’t feel it is a choice that should be brushed under the carpet because of vocal interests or political compromise. We have experienced a calamity but it may only have been a warning. Next time we may not be able to cope at all”.

It didn’t say that. It said, it’s bad but let’s not overact. For that reason, the report is a failure. Meanwhile, Bank of England figures show lending to small and medium sized businesses falling again and the cost of finance increasing. And consumers are starting to borrow to consume more once more.

Here we go again. And did I mention the flood risk?

Anthony Painter is an author and economist.

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: Left in the past: radicalism and the politics of nostalgia, by Alastair Bonnett

10/04/2011, 01:40:51 PM

by Anthony Painter

There is a tragic oscillation that occurs cyclically on the left between over-confidence and capitulation. It is summarised by a Christopher Lasch quote in Alastair Bonnett’s study of the complex relationship between nostalgia and radicalism:

“Their confidence in being on the winning side of history made progressive people unbearably smug and superior but they felt isolated and beleaguered in their own country since it was so much less progressive than they were”.

As Labour enters office, it is certain in its knowledge of how progressive the country is. It leaves office in despair at how reactionary it is. Having tried to buy it off with reactionary and authoritarian language and policies, it is generally also perplexed. Labour, meet reality; reality, kick Labour. Only neither perspective is true. Britain is neither predominantly progressive or reactionary. It is, however, deeply conservative, which is an entirely different proposition altogether.

Progressives look to the future with gleeful zeal. Conservatives warily eye the past, in part longing and part warning, and step into the future only tentatively. In that sense, they are more attuned to the default human condition. We are a species that is disconcerted by convulsive change. How strange then that we have built an economy and society around such change – a key part of the radical critique of where we are. And how predictable it would be if there were a social and psychological reaction to such change. As Ian Dyck writes of farm labourers in the early nineteenth century:

“They remembered a better life and they wanted it back”.

(more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: “In Retrospect”, by Bob McNamara

27/03/2011, 03:11:13 PM

by Anthony Painter

“We must recognise that the consequences of large-scale military operations…are inherently difficult to predict and control. Therefore, they must be avoided, excepting only when our nation’s security is clearly and directly threatened”.

Strange as it may seem, I have never been a fan of the political memoir. They are invariably poorly written, historical distortions that lack any sort of reflection and are instead an exercise in settling scores and re-justification. They are aimed at cementing the author’s “place in history” rather than helping a nation to reflect on its history and improve itself in the process. They always fail in this objective. There is one noble exception: Bob McNamara’s In Retrospect: the tragedy and lessons of Vietnam.

The former secretary of defense – with personal responsibility for escalating the Vietnam war under both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson – could have fallen back on the domino theory or some such to defend his actions. Instead, right up front, he is brutally honest:

“We were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why”.

Two things made me re-read In Retrospect. First, the launch of military action in Libya. Remember that Vietnam started as a smallish operation with 16,000 military “advisers” to train the South Vietnamese to defend themselves and ended with 543,400 troops in Vietnam by 1973. These things can acquire a deadly logic all of their own. Second, Tony Blair’s piece in the Wall Street Journal expanding an aggressive view of the role of the west in North Africa and the Middle East- failing to heed McNamara’s warnings. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: Waiting for “Superman”: an inspiring companion to the acclaimed film edited by Karl Weber

13/03/2011, 02:05:44 PM

by Anthony Painter

Tobacco manufacturer, banker, arms dealer, big pharma, big oil, sweat shop multinational, teacher. Waiting for “Superman” finally confronts the latter evil (yes, I’m being ironic.) It’s the latest documentary from Davis Guggenheim, the filmmaker behind An Inconvenient Truth. As he modestly explains in the introduction to this series of essays that accompanies the film:

“The only way we’re going to address this [education] crisis is if these uncomfortable truths are spoken out loud. And the only person who can say is someone independent of the system, like maybe a documentary film-maker”.

So perhaps Davis Guggenheim is Superman? He probably sees himself in that stratum if the above quote is anything to go by. Nonetheless, the Superman in the film’s title doesn’t seem to be Guggenheim. Perhaps it’s Geoffrey Canada, the founder of the Harlem children’s zone? This inspirational educational initiative centred around charter schools has transformed the life chances of some of the most deprived kids in New York. The film’s title is taken from Canada:

“One of the saddest days of my life was when my mother told me that Superman didn’t exist….I was crying because no-one was coming with enough power to save us”.

Unusually for an educationalist, he can be seen on Oprah, in Congress, in the press, on bookshelves, and now in the cinema also. The Harlem children’s zone is incredible: it is a full spectrum intervention to raise educational standards in the ghetto. It includes support for families as well as students, a demanding and rigorous programme, and entry is ruthlessly egalitarian – via a lottery. Canada does merit superhero status. And every superhero needs a villainous adversary. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Multiculturalism: a nice piece about Nick Clegg

04/03/2011, 03:30:32 PM

by Anthony Painter

Nick Clegg showed Cameron how it’s done when it comes to entering the fray on the fraught politics of identity. In Luton, as opposed to Munich, at a calmer time, as opposed to the day of an EDL homecoming rally, with balance, as opposed to lecturing and hectoring, with the intention of contributing to the debate, rather than simply catching headlines, Nick Clegg gave his textured analysis of how the politics of identity is bending our culture and lives.

His reading of the Searchlight Fear and Hope report published earlier this week was spot on. He understands that the middle ground of identity politics is occupied not by liberals, as our traditional notions of the centre would support, but by the culturally concerned and economically insecure. David Cameron erected the straw man of “state multiculturalism”, which doesn’t exist in anything other than the popular mythology of 1980s municipalism. Nick Clegg knocked it down and instead made a cogent case for a diverse but not divided version of multiculturalism built around strong and shared values. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

The Sunday Review: The New Capitalist Manifesto, by Umair Haque

27/02/2011, 12:03:14 PM

by Anthony Painter

Something is going seriously wrong with capitalism.

Yeah, we’ve heard all this before from you green nuts, socialists, idealists. Why don’t you tell us how mean, corrupt, selfish and deluded we all are again? Whatever.

No, really, something is going wrong with capitalism.

I’ve just said, walk on by – do your recycling, save some workers, sell some Marxist newspapers.

No really…

And this time it really is different. It’s no longer just the fringe that says so. It is the mainstream. And not just the political mainstream. The business and academic mainstream. What’s more, politics, even social democratic politics is light years behind. The new radicals are to be found within the temple of capitalism itself.

Take this:

“There is growing concern that if the fundamental issues revealed in the crisis remain unaddressed and the system fails again, the social contract between the capitalist system and the citizenry may truly rupture, with unpredictable but severely damaging results”.

Who is this dangerous revolutionary? Well, it’s none other than Dominic Barton, global managing director of Mckinsey & Co. Yes, McKinsey & Co. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

Sunday Review: The Road from Ruin, by Matthew Bishop & Michael Green

13/02/2011, 01:16:32 PM

by Anthony Painter

There are two fallacies about economics. First, that it can explain anything other than the bleeding obvious. It is not difficult to look back at last year’s growth, add or subtract a quarter of a percent or so, then say that will be this year’s growth rate. It would be useful to know if the economy is going to collapse by 5%. Economists don’t see those icebergs.

The second fallacy is that it is difficult. It’s not; it’s dead easy. Some people describe economics as the “dismal science”. They are being generous. It is not a science. See fallacy one for an explanation of why.

In increasing acts of desperation, economists are casting around other academic disciplines to: (i) explain why economics has been getting it so wrong; (ii) try to regain our trust so that they can get it wrong again; and (iii) say something new and clever-sounding given that everything else they’ve been saying is so bleeding obvious yet often wrong.

Psychology is the first victim of this “great plundering”. Hence “nudge”, irrational exuberance and all the rest.

So when Matthew Bishop and Michael Green write, “this crisis brings with it a tremendous opportunity [for economics] to help policymakers, financiers, business leaders, and other practical people do better”, forgive me for ploughing all my savings into the safest, most secure asset I can find. Futures on sales of Keynes’ General Theory would seem to be a good bet. (more…)

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon