Imagine a game somewhat like "Risk" or some other game of strategy and luck played on a very large scale with lots of players. Most players, the vast majority, control only a piece or two. A very few players control large portions of the playing area and an overwhelming number of the pieces, often by proxy with allied members of the group of small players. So long as the large players act cooperatively, they can keep the game going. It is possible to communicate and collude away from the playing area. By joining forces the larger players can overcome a rogue. The more pieces a player has, the more that player is seen as "winning", but this is an odd game, for none of the players — especially the larger ones — want the game to stop. Some will "win" — that is, gain pieces, one day. Another day, a different player or group will "win".
The Game
Right now, the world financial system seems to be "in play". By buying gold, central banks or governments or investment banks can drive up the price. By selling it, they can lower the price. The same is true of bonds, of equities, of commodities, and of the currencies themselves. As long as all the players kind of wink at one another, the game goes on with back-and-forth maneuvers and moves in various markets. None of the markets these days can truly be said to be "free", but there is a degree of freedom, especially in the West. Individual Americans as a whole still control quite a bit of the board. The Islamic states like Iran are pure rogues and liable to cause significant and unpredictable disruptions. China and probably Russia are also suspect. The bigger players, especially the governments and the central banks, think they are more or less in control, but they have been shaken and are continuing to be unsteady, as they have been since the curtain was drawn back in 2008. Greece is not such a critical issue in itself but rather in terms of the manipulation and redefinition that it revealed. Everyone is starting to understand that something is not right within the system.
No organization can control a market of any size any more than someone can control the weather. This is especially true given the proliferation of information available to the average "player". Understand that I am not talking about a vast conspiracy. The trouble with conspiracy theorists is that they do not realize just how complex the systems are. But groups, individuals, and organizations can accommodate one another to some extent and establish an implicit system where everyone may not do as well as they could but they are doing well enough and better than if some of the other parties adopted other strategies. The key to establishing this kind of cooperative strategy is communication. Those seeking to maintain the stability of the far-reaching global market have long relied upon authority figures to in various fields to encourage the populace to follow a particular path. This part of the system appears to be breaking down.
In the global markets, the bigger players are attempting to continue something like a Nash equilibrium. However, there are factors that threaten this. In an equilibrium situation, it is sometimes the case that the first player who breaks from the implicitly agreed upon strategy and makes a different choice "wins" in a big way. Most often others respond to a rogue element by adopting a strategy to counter it. It some cases, this results in a new equilibrium or a return to the old state. Given the systemic inertia and uncontrollable factors in the real world, it can also result in a catastrophic collapse.
The reason that most of us have been "wrong" so far about the global economic collapse is that the major players have a lot of resources they can shift. Like a plate-spinner, they can give attention to the wobbliest plate, going from propping up the euro to the Dow to bonds to precious metals to crude to the dollar. The whole thing is crashing down, but it is doing so in a spiral. It is true that each move makes less and less difference off the bottom, but it still keeps things from falling immediately to the ground. That's the plan, anyway. It might have worked — and probably did at other times. Now, however, there is the internet. If you wonder why governments would like to put controls on internet content, realize that it is less about political discourse than it is about the nakedness of the various economic emperors. Government debt is now the bubble, and it is completely unsustainable.
Sure, there are still plenty of sheep locked into "Dancing with the Stars" or "Downton Abbey" who have no idea of and no interest in what is going on as long as they have their bread and beer and circuses. But there are also more and more people waking up to what is really going on, seeing the massive debts for the threat they are, and refusing to listen to the "authorities". In the long run, this is good.
No comments:
Post a Comment