Recovery towards what?
In a week that saw a series of events taking place across London in reaction to the G20 finance ministers summit which took place on the 6-7 November. Up for discussion was how the financial and political worlds had reacted to the crash and whether enough was being done? What kind of financial system do we want? Regulation? future models and alternatives?
Brenden Barker of the TUC opened by a year after the start of the financial crisi, after so much had been said about change and opportunities for it, little had been done to tackle the undrelying root cause of the meltdown. In the long-term little had been done so far in preventing another speculative bubble.
What system do we want?
Larry Elliot who chaired this panel remarked that the response to this crisis had been weaker than the response to the Wall Street crash of 1929. That action needed to be taken to prevent a similar or larger crash in the future. Various arguments where heard, a call for the political Left to convince the public that the banks cannot go unregulated as it has real negative impacts on the productive economy. Furthermore that the banks do not serve the interests of the people first but of themselves and powerful business. Ultimately, that currently a “business as usual” approach was in effect which means little actual change is on the horizon. Adam Lent argued for three key questions, how to tackle the financial sector in the sort-term? How to prevent crisis in the long-term? And how to change the nature and purpose of finance to become more sustainable and productive.
Imbalances and inequality was also looked at as a key driving force in some of the problems in the economics system. Robert Wade suggested that regulation alone might not be enough as it would still be embedded in a banking system fundamentally unchanged. James Vaccro argued for “socially useful banking” where there is a transparency on what customers money is invested in, and where these investment are screened for their long-term viability.