(Anti-)Social Activity

How thin is the veneer of civilisation.  Although ‘Public disorder’ may be the technical term in the UK, this is not the public being disorderly … it’s disaffected and opportunistic young people who have poor education, no jobs, poor prospects, and decreasing support services.  This is not sympathy – I hope the police have the army behind them tonight with water cannon and tear gas – I’m just observing the facts.  What we want to see now tactically is the Duggan family disavowing the looting and criminal damage, news that CCTV has identified 100s of people causing damage, and a firm and highly visible hand from government to co-ordinate the police, army and emergency services.  We also want the media on the ground (not just in helicopters) finding out what the ‘rioters’ are trying to achieve – my guess is that they have no idea beyond living out some of their computer games and stealing things. 

The strategy should include Twitter & Facebook implementing a filter or trace for messages inciting disorder, and blocking and reporting them – just because it’s difficult doesn’t mean they shouldn’t try (and even over-report their success).  The strategy also crucially needs to defuse and isolate the drivers for this disorder; public opinion doesn’t need managing, that’s already firmly against what is happening.  There has to be a way of channelling the energy of these people into a force for good; for themselves, their communities and the country.  This is a huge social change task, and the government should start it today with a top priority, and fund it by extracting money from the financial institutions, and their high-bonus employees, who played a large part in causing the problems we have today where economic disruption causes austerity measures that exacerbate social problems.

Investors’ (small) change strategy

All news reports and commentary are using the generic term ‘investors’ when referring to those who buy and sell, and by their actions raise or lower the price of financial instruments.  Whilst I appreciate the need for brevity and readability, it would be helpful to break out what is meant by ‘investors’ in terms of their ability to influence the markets.  If you take the view that society (democratic or otherwise) needs to resolve the economic crisis in the short term, and surely that is hard to argue against, then it would be helpful for society to have a clearer understanding of the political and economic pressures and power-plays at work.

So, WHAT I’D LIKE TO KNOW from the knowledgeable likes of Robert Peston are two things:  1.  what are the comparative market-moving powers of the following sub-divisions under the general heading of ‘investors’:  pension funds;  hedge funds;  other financial institutional funds;  institutions’ own money (proprietary trading);  the modest private investor (like me) who might adjust their portfolio (I’m not, I’m diversified, I sit tight) … and  2.  what are the comparative market-moving powers of the different types of financial instruments:  fixed interest (gilts & bonds);  forex;  commodities;  shares;  derivatives;  synthetics.

When those in (some semblance of) control of the politics and the economics, and those who commentate, show us they truly understand the forces in play, then perhaps we can all contribute to a consistent and transparent set of tactics and strategies to change the current self-destructive cycle of artificial growth and profit.  (You might want to look at the ‘Prosperity Without Growth’ book by Tim Jackson.  The way we, the private investor and general public, can contribute is both through the democratic process of election (a somewhat flawed and long-term change strategy, but in the absence of benevolent dictatorship it’s our least-worst model for now), and through a barrage of informed and constructive commentary of our own (more on this change strategy later).

For instance, I have a scenario in my mind, that the investment banks are driving the pressure on government debt in the Euro-zone to force the ECB to in effect print money so that they can cream off some of that money into their institutional pockets.  Paranoid? Perhaps.  Possible?  Definitely.