Short Churches?

Ever since protesters were forced by police to retreat from the London Stock Exchange to occupy St Paul's Churchyard, I've been fascinated by the effect of the global financial crisis on our Christian institutions.

While the Vatican has seized the opportunity to issue its statement on 'reform to the international financial and monetary systems', the Church of England, of course, was terribly embarrassed to be caught up in it all. Incapable of grasping a real opportunity to shape people's thinking, instead St Paul's initially offered to convene a nice cosy debate. Then the Cathedral's 'canon chancellor' resigned ahead of the Bishop of London's threat of eviction, which was followed shortly after by the resignation of the dean of St Paul's. Finally stirred into action, the Archbishop of Canterbury called for "robust public discussion" about the possibility of a so-called 'Robin Hood tax' on financial transactions.

The Vatican's statement is typically grand, and I've not had the time to consider it all, but here's an extract of some concrete proposals:

"a) taxation measures on financial transactions through fair but modulated rates with charges proportionate to the complexity of the operations, especially those made on the “secondary” market. Such taxation would be very useful in promoting global development and sustainability according to the principles of social justice and solidarity. It could also contribute to the creation of a world reserve fund to support the economies of the countries hit by crisis as well as the recovery of their monetary and financial system;

b) forms of recapitalization of banks with public funds making the support conditional on “virtuous” behaviours aimed at developing the “real economy”;

c) the definition of the domains of ordinary credit and of Investment Banking. This distinction would allow a more effective management of the “shadow markets” which have no controls and limits."

However, I wonder whether our religious institutions could be a bit more active in the reform of the financial system, rather than pontificating from the sidelines? Their wealth and tax-free status has not gone unnoticed, and there's plenty they can do on the investment front. The Church of England's ethical investment policy is here, for example. And it has lent stocks to short sellers. But that's not what I'd call active. 

Having previously suggested that short selling would be a useful regulatory tool, and that we could do with a secular version of the old Devil's Advocate, perhaps these are areas where the churches can help, along with voting at AGMs on executive compensation, for example. In fact, sometimes billed as the "shock troops of the Vatican" or "God's Marines", maybe there's a calling for highly-trained Jesuit priests on the trading desk of an ethical hedge fund, short selling the stocks of companies that the faithful believe are operating unethically. 

I wonder how they would rate Mr Blankfein's efforts?

Image from NJ.com.

Does Occupation Work?

Much is being written about Occupy Wall Street and similar expressions of mass dissatisfaction about our financial system. In particular, many are giving advice on more practical alternatives to occupation, which misses the point:

"Occupy Wall Street is [a] leaderless resistance movement with people of many colors, genders and political persuasions. The one thing we all have in common is that We Are The 99% that will no longer tolerate the greed and corruption of the 1%. We are using the revolutionary Arab Spring tactic to achieve our ends and encourage the use of nonviolence to maximize the safety of all participants."

In other words, this is what people do when their faith in all the immediately practical alternatives is exhausted. 

But why? Does mass occupation 'work'? I mean, is Egypt now a better place? Wouldn't it be better to withdraw completely and assume the foetal position under your duvet? 

 

While I don't believe these protests have any causal connection with the changes that are democratising the financial markets, they are critical insofar as they represent a peak in our society's dissatisfaction with its financial institutions. I mean, this is not intended to shock or wake people up, like a strike or a noisy protest march, or an attempt to get the attention of law-makers outside Parliament. Quite the reverse: pitching your tent in the beating heart of a giant city is a sign of utter confidence that every rushing passerby, every person who reads the paper or watches the evening news will understand exactly why you're there.

For this reason, such occupations are a sign that the majority of us have rounded the change curve. It means we've moved beyond 'shock' at how broken things are, through 'denial' and beyond 'anger and blame' - even though that appears to be what all the signs are about. Those people wouldn't be there if they instinctively sense that we all understand the world has changed for the worse. That something has to be done. In fact, the reason they're gathering is to figure out what is to be done.

Ironically enough, these occupations mean we're moving on.