Tag Archives: #Scrooge

Billionaires and the Scrooge Factor

Dickens’ Scrooge is treated as an agreeable story to be told to children at Christmas, yet this is to misunderstand Dickens intention. This was a book for adults one that was intended to show the destructiveness to the human personality of acquiring money for money’s sake. There was a real life Scrooge, a John Ewles who went so far as to sleep with the horses in the stable as he used the warmth generated by the horses so he would not have to light a fire in his house. There is no doubt that the CEO’s of the largest business corporations have read or at least are familiar with the Scrooge story, but what they fail to realise is that their behaviours mirror that of Scrooge.

A friend told me that the largest business corporations in the world have cash assets totalling three times the world’s GDP. Checking with the internet I find that the cash reserves of Apple and Microsoft combined exceed those of the British Treasury.  Apple has the world’s largest cash reserves of £95 billion. Although I cannot confirm my friends figures, I know him sufficiently well to know that he has not made them up. (The source I think was Oxfam but I could not find the figures I wanted on their website). The usual reason given for these huge holdings of cash being stored in overseas  tax havens to avoid losing their cash to the taxman. Not paying tax is one of the moral imperatives of the new Scroogian morality.

(The following text only makes sense with an economists understanding of money. Money has no intrinsic value, it is only a claim on wealth and its value is determined by how large a share of wealth can be claimed by each unit of money. If the total sum of money to spent is greater than the monetary value of the goods and services produced in an economy, then when that  money is spent those who have the greatest sums of money will outbid those who have least for the available goods and services and so push up prices. This is in essence is inflation, if the price inflation is modest people will retain their faith in money and will continue to treat it as a store of value. If as in Germany in 1926 if price increases are high and of ever greater frequency, people lose faith in the currency and a hyper inflation develops as money becomes increasingly worthless.)

However what I want to suggest is that such holding such vast sums of cash is an act of stupidity.  The first thing to realise is that these companies can’t use this money in any productive way. The sums held are so vast that if these companies decided to spend that money, it would significantly increase the rate of inflation and reduce the cash value of their holdings. The London property market until recently demonstrated this effect, it was a market where billionaires and multinationals seeing it as a safe haven for their money have successively bid up the price of London properties to astronomical levels. If they started to spend their cash piles other sectors of the world economy would experience similar levels of inflation.These businesses are trapped by their piles of cash, they cannot do anything that would reduce their value. If Apple for instance spent £10 billion from its vast cash pile on investing in a new business venture, the shareholders would be up in arms, as that reduction in the cash reserves would be matched by a reduction in the value of their shares. Apple, Microsoft and the other cash rich multi-nationals are held prisoner by their money, they can do nothing which might diminish their cash stock piles as in doing so they would risk the wrath of their shareholders. Rather than these CEO’s being the giants of the world of business, they are reduced to rather pathetic figures do all they can to protect their cash hoards. They are held captive by their money.

I do wonder if this practice of hoarding and nurturing their cash piles does not make the owners more risk adverse. I own an Apple Iphone but instead of planning to upgrade to a newer model at the end of the contract, I might just instead keep my current model. It does seem that the innovative flair that made Iphone a ‘must buy’ is now lacking in the company. Has the desire to hoard cash diminished the funds for innovation?

When this cash is spent it not only devalues the currency but also the politics of a country. One example is the Koch brothers, millionaire oil traders who have spent billions backing those candidates who do their bidding or who have an agenda similar to theirs. In consequence in the Koch influenced US Congress the majority of the Congressmen oppose any action that would effective ameliorate the effects of climate change and reduce oil sales. It is possible to say that the melting of the Arctic ice is a consequence of the action of the Koch brothers. What happens when this occurs is a narrowing of the political agenda to such an extent that Congress and other political institutions come to represent the views of their financial backers rather than the people.

One consequence of this is that these companies spend some of their cash pile on ‘economic toys’. Such toys have very little productive value but whose ownership brings status and prestige to their owner, they do little for the companies bottom line. However the sums spent on such toys are but a minuscule proportion of their cash piles. Nobody ever made money from owning a Formula 1 racing team, but the money squandered on such an enterprise is merely the small change from these huge cash piles.

The problem for the owners of these vast money mountains is that they dare not risk moving them out of their havens for fear of devaluing the value of these cash reserves. The Bill Gates foundation that does so much good in the developing world, is a ring fenced fund, quite separate from the Microsoft business, which has its own huge cash pile.  The Dicken’s solution to the Scrooge complex is for the rich man to give his money away. While such a move would be welcomed because their cash holdings are so vast, any such spending would risk destabilising the world economy. They just have too much money for their own and the world’s good.

Unfortunately just as with Scrooge their desire to protect their money forces them into many anti-social acts. The British press barons have campaigned relentlessly to leave the EU. One of their main motives for doing so was to prevent any future European wide body from organising a more effective system of tax collection. It was said by the IMF that Britain is the largest tax haven in the world and these group of anti social men will do anything to prevent any action that would lead to them paying more tax. The fact that leaving the EU would do tremendous damage to the British economy is of no consequence to them. Even the threat to their wealth from a fall in property prices  consequent of Brexit is a price worth paying to protect their tax exemptions. Just like Scrooge these men care only for their money and little for their fellow men. Aristotle said a nation governed by the rich was a plutocracy, however that term does not do justice to spirit of meanness that prevails in contemporary Britain, a better word to describe the country is a Scroogocracy.

There is a solution to this problem. When I first studied economics in the 1960s the top rate of income tax was 79%. Now it a wealth tax of a similar rate was applied to these cash piles they would be reduced to an amount that was insufficient to destabilise the world economy. It would also reduce the attractiveness of acquiring these cash piles. One curious fact that would result is that the governments of the world would face restrictions on how they used this cash. They could spend some to alleviate their budget problems, but if they spent all this windfall at once, hyper inflation would result and there would be a major destabilisation of the world economy.  Most of that money would have to sit untouched in the treasuries of the world’s central banks.

One objection to my proposal is that all this money is hidden in tax havens beyond the reach of the world’s governments. However these tax havens are little more than the foreign branches of the major banks. The money might appear on the balance sheet of a Bahama’s bank, but in reality it is banked in London. If the banks and the owners of these cash piles wanted to keep up the pretence that this money was really in the Bahamas, capital controls could be imposed preventing this money being transferred to London or New York. There is little that the vast sums that are banked in these tax havens could be spent on locally. They would just harmlessly rot way.  What I am recommending is the destruction of these cash piles, as they do little for the world economy and they create a risk adverse culture among the super rich, which means economic growth rates are much lower than would be otherwise. I would recommend a policy in which either the holders of these vast cash piles adopted a voluntary ‘potlatch’ in which they destroyed their useless cash piles or they surrendered them to government where they could stored as part of the national reserves, where they could do little harm.

Scroogism the principle at the heart of the New Economics

  

Washington University Political Review

Scroogism is key principle at the heart of the new economics, that is economics as practised since the 1980’s. This can be explained by reference to the opening pages of Charles Dicken’s novel Scrooge. When he arrives home from the office, Scrooge gets an unwelcome visit from two of men collecting money for distribution to the poor at Christmas. His famous answer is, are there no longer any workhouse or prisons in which the poor  can be housed and fed. The assumption at the heart this tirade is that money should go to to those who deserve it most and who will make the best use of it. Men such as Scrooge a banker and trader who will invest it wisely to create more wealth. Any money going to the feckless poor is wasted, as in their folly they will only squander it. A philosophy best expounded by the politician who said installing bathrooms in the houses of the poor was the height of folly, as they would only use their baths to store coal. 

The belief that money is best kept in the hands of the deserving rich and out of the hands of the undeserving poor, is one of the core beliefs of the new Neo-Liberal economists. If money is in the hands of the entrepreneurs of society, ‘the great movers and shakers’ society will benefit from the activities of these people which creates more wealth for society to enjoy. Fairness is redefined, the majority of wealth created in society should goes to those that deserve it most, that is the wealth creators. The poor are poor because they create little in the form of wealth, their poverty level wages are fair recompense for their lack of effort and skill. The beggar who so inconveniences the theatre goer by asking for money at the entrance to the theatre is there because he deserves to be there, it’s his own fault.

Whenever their is any debate about welfare or the plight of the poor in Parliament Scroogism is seen at its most active. When parliament ever approves giving money to the less well off its only ever given on the most niggardly of terms, the unspoken assumption is that he poor are poor because of their own failings. Benefit caps are imposed or penalties are imposed on the most of undeserving of the poor. Parliamentarians are loath to throw good money after the bad, that is giving it to the poor, whereas they are over generous in giving tax breaks, subsidies and grants to the deserving  rich. Some of the richest landowners in the country receive hundreds of thousands of pounds from the tax payer in agricultural subsidies. 

Scroogism is the hypocrisy of the well-off, it’s provides a moral justification for ignoring the needs of the less well off.   This hypocrisy is best demonstrated in the debate on social mobility. Rather than give money to the poor, they will be given ever opportunity to better themselves, that is become one of the better off. In what can only be described as cover for the inherent meanness and nastiness of the prevailing philosophy of Neo-Liberalism, the poor are to be helped to become one of the well off. A good education is seen as the best means of achieving this, consequently there is in education a ‘constant revolution’ in teaching methods and practise. While  this ‘constant revolution’ has achieved little in practice, it gives politicians the sense of moral superiority in that they are doing their best to help their inferiors. If the recidivists among the lower orders reject there help its nobody’s fault but there own. 

There is one fact ignored by the politicians who preach the virtues of social mobility, if people are to move up the social scale this can only be made possible is some move down. Whether well off parliamentarians and the class of well to do, recognise this fact either unconsciously or consciously, they do their best to prevent anydownward movement as this would harm them and their families. In Britain the barriers of  social exclusiveness give it one of the lowest rates of social mobility in the developed world. Education provision is strictly rationed according to income. The quality of education varies according to the income of the pupils, an apartheid of wealth applies. In the wealthy suburbs pupils receive an education that is beyond the dreams of those living within the impoverished areas of our cities. Given that the children of politicians are educated in the wealthy suburbs, it is going against human nature to expect them to sacrifice the advantages that their children enjoy to benefit the poor. 

The only effective way of increasing social mobility for the poor is to increase their income. If a family has sufficient income they will keep their children in school to enable them to gain a higher education. Wealth is a qualification for citizenship, the individual on a low income, who perhaps has two jobs, who suffers from insecurity of employment and tenure, will lack the time and confidence to participate fully as a citizen. They know that their social situation excludes them from full citizenship.   A confident well resourced class of the less well off would exert pressure on the socially exclusive social system to provide ‘real’ opportunities for their children to join the social elite.  What is needed is a political and social revolution similar to that which developed forbtge organised working classes of the nineteenth century.