In the days of sail, when ships were built of wood and were vulnerable to hostile warships and pirates, each ship had many bulkheads to isolate parts of it that were hit.
In the later days of giant ocean liners made of iron, wealthy passengers demanded large ballrooms and restaurants so the bulkheads disappeared from the upper decks. One of the first of these new vessels was the Titanic. It hit an iceberg and the rest needs no retelling.
We’re having our own Titanic moment now in the world’s financial system, where the bulkheads that protected us have mostly been removed. In the 1930s, America had the Great Depression, but Britain was comparatively unscathed. In 2008 we share the pain.
As David Brooks puts it in the New York Times, “We’re living in an age when a vast excess of capital sloshes around the world fueling cycles of bubble and bust. When the capital floods into a sector or economy, it washes away sober business practices, and habits of discipline and self-denial. Then the money managers panic and it sloshes out, punishing the just and unjust alike.”
Francis Fukuyama points out that globalization masks the flaws in economic policy. “Foreigners seemed endlessly willing to hold U.S. dollars, allowing the U.S. Government to run deficits and enjoy high growth. That’s why early on Dick Cheney reportedly told President Bush that the lesson of the 1980s was that ‘deficits don’t matter’.”
Globalization is not new. The 250-year British Empire was a globalized trading system, depending on the might of the British Royal Navy — which had 50 percent of the world’s warships and most of its merchant fleet. It had the muscle and authority to protect its own national interests. That has been lost in modern times.
Transnational private-equity capital, almost all of it borrowed, has swept in and bought up most of our major corporations — on both sides of the Atlantic. These highly-leveraged buyouts seem benign in times of rampant expansion. However, it only takes a small twitch in the markets for the dust-thin financial structures to become sickly.
That also applies to banks that have followed suit and lent much more than their capital should allow. When the assets on their books are impossible to value because of the extent of toxic debt, the game is over.
The biggest question we will have to answer once the financial system has been stabilized, and the toxins isolated like nuclear waste, is: how much should we retract from globalization? In the age of the internet, is that even possible or desirable?
Even in regional terms, there’s no doubt that Britain’s membership of the European Union has degraded the country’s ability to be itself — a quality that has always paid off in the past.
On the other hand, staying out of the euro currency has shielded us from lower interest rates than we needed during the boom times. It also leaves us free to set optimum rates instead of relying on blunt fiscal instruments as the Irish, Spanish and Italians are having to do. This is one bulkhead that has more than proved its worth.
The EU’s decision to adopt the accounting standard of “fair value” or “mark to market” is having a devastating effect on our banks, whose diminishing capital is daily undervalued by the system, especially in hard times. The standard is as toxic as American mortgage securities.
While the U.S. is planning to ditch Basel 2, the EU’s directives will take years to repeal, and would need 27 countries to agree to it. Britain, should, as a matter of urgency scrap Brussels’s hold over our financial markets.
On some estimates, 84 percent of British laws are now made in Brussels. Most of them are counter-productive in a British context, obsessively bureaucratic, prescriptively inefficient and despised by the population. This heedlessly dispensed-with bulkhead is deeply desired and its absence bitterly resented. We should restore it as a matter of urgency.
I suspect that globalization has passed its peak. Without descending into full-blown protectionism, most nations will consider rebuilding some of the bulkheads that gave them their national characteristics, while minimizing restrictions on free trade. With tariffs low across much of the world, there is no need for global institutions to gum up the works with legalistic complexity.
Much of globalization is unnecessary and faddish, urged on us by old international Marxists and student Trotskyists like Gordon Brown and New Labour. They should be rejected.
America too should beware of whom it is electing to office in November.
It’s time to return to simplicity, fleetness of foot, and self-reliance. We would be much better nations if we did. And happier too.
John Evans
Related Stories
Depression looms like a yawning abyss
The Great Harvard Sausage Scandal 2008
Silicon Valley and the credit crunch
Insurers crumble as financial structures fail
There’s no drier subject than the Baltic Dry Index. 
