The control of financial resources has conferred power to people, ever since the original monetary economies. This paper discusses Susan Strange?s theory of financial power, which outlines the control of money as the primary (but not exclusive) power source, which determines outcomes and historical transition. Productive capitalists are seen as secondary to financial powers since the trajectory of production is determined by the vagaries of state and market, whereas fungible money is not constrained in the same manner. The paper suggests, therefore, that the notion of finance capital is a false one since the interests of financial and productive powers converge on wealth creation yet differ in other areas. In conflict financial powers will predominate as they seek to retain their relative proportions of power in global order. Financial powers constitute, therefore, the bourgeoisie of the modern era. The paper then evaluates the ?binary economics? of Louis Kelso, the state-issue of ?interest-free? money and social capital ownership, to engender the democratisation of financial power for the purposes of crisis prevention and even development. This redistribution may become imperative for the sustainability of the neo-liberal order, as debt-levels rise. Much depends upon the agendas of the presiding financial powers.
|Publication status||Published - 1 Jan 2007|
|Name||Southampton Solent University Faculty of Business, Sport and Enterprise Research and Enterprise Working Paper Series|