Finance
Financial Capitalism Is More Dangerous Than Ever Today
Some writers have taken the period since the crisis of financial capitalism in 2008 to mark the “end of neoliberalism” or the advent of “post-neoliberalism.” Others have described it as a “mutant,” “zombie” iteration of a neoliberalism that is in effect “half-dead, half-alive.”
In an era of rising protectionism, right-wing ideology, and deglobalization, neoliberal ideologies have certainly experienced a backlash. But they have also rearticulated themselves by forging new alliances and taking on novel forms. Three dimensions of the current conjuncture are worth highlighting.
Today, as in the 1960s, there is an immense interest in the form that money takes as a central factor in politics and social life. Monetary policy is more than ever a political question of direct concern to people otherwise uninterested in its arcana. There is reason to think that the global system of money and finance is approaching a disruptive threshold of historic significance, with the potential to change how societies invest, insure, and trade.
Of course, the form of money — essentially the socially and politically constructed “promise to pay” — has always fluctuated. What is distinctive about the transformation of money in the early-twenty-first century is, first of all, the proliferation of digital currencies and tokens. Operating in the shadows of hegemonic monetary systems, these cannot simply be seen as tools for bottom-up emancipation pitted against authoritarian central banks and austerity-inducing monetary politics, as is sometimes claimed by their boosters.
Rather, non-fungible tokens, Web3, blockchain technology, crypto, and decentralized autonomous organizations are at the forefront of a financial revolution driven increasingly by transnational platforms and central banks themselves. In the name of flexibility and efficiency, they prefigure the end of physical cash, thereby jeopardizing privacy and further undermining democracy. Such developments signal the exhaustion of the quantitative easing (QE) regime since 2019.
Although they are far too complex to be analyzed in any detail here, they represent one prospectus for the so-called post-neoliberal order, whose features cannot be understood as progressive, promising in some instances to surrender still more authority to the lords of finance themselves, potentially directly by administrative means. The terms in which this new monetary architecture is discussed recall earlier debates. In the field of digital currencies, for example, the highly restricted, limited, and market-disciplining logic of Bitcoin bears comparison to the built-in scarcity of gold — and if introduced more broadly, could reproduce the logic of the gold standard — while the seemingly endless proliferation of absurdly branded private money over the decade of QE resembles the wild speculation enabled by free-floating exchange rates.
To this familiar opposition, a third pole may be added: central bank digital currency, issued either formally by central banks themselves or — what is functionally equivalent — by the largest private banks. This novel form of money is distinct in that it introduces the prospect of directly imposing socio-political conditions on transactions or penalizing savers through very low interest rates.
It is perhaps for this reason that the more principled neoliberals themselves have joined in to sound the alarm when it comes to some of these innovations. As the historian Adam Tooze has suggested, paraphrasing Antonio Gramsci, “crypto is the morbid symptom of an interregnum, an interregnum in which the gold standard is dead but a fully political money that dares to speak its name has not yet been born.”
Another live issue in contemporary discussions is the status of the dollar as the world reserve currency, an “exorbitant privilege” ratified by the shift to floating exchange rates. The effects of this fateful decision, as a volume published on its fiftieth anniversary records, “went far beyond the international monetary system and have had momentous geopolitical and political as well as economic and financial implications.”
Today, if dollar hegemony remains intact, ever more voices question its permanence, and with it, the ability of the United States to maintain its unrivaled geopolitical position. In this regard, the present moment echoes that of the 1970s, when monetary policy reflected the jostling between world powers and management of the relations among allies. With the introduction of the BRICS basket of currencies and the prospect of de-dollarization it suggests, in the aftermath of Brexit and the eurozone crisis, forecasts of re-regionalization often turn on monetary policy. Still, amid chatter of deglobalization and evidence of a fall in capital flows, the share of transactions conducted in dollars has remained relatively stable over the last decades. Nonetheless, the US “dollar creditocracy” is threatened by the internal contradictions of QE, and the US current account and budget deficits continue to exert downward pressure on the dollar, exacerbating resentment of US unilateralism.
Finally, the liberalization of capital movements in the 1970s must be seen as one side of the exhaustion of economic growth across the advanced industrialized countries; both are effects of overaccumulation and declining productivity growth and have taken the form of secular stagnation. The subsequent period has seen a tremendous explosion of fictitious capital, or financial assets that are in essence claims on future production and profit.
The financialization of the post-Fordist era has produced a lopsided economy, where such claims exceed by significant measure the size of the underlying real economy. Its logic is that of a growthless casino, based on transfer and appropriation largely decoupled from real-world use values. Such a top-heavy dynamic was exactly what produced the over-leveraging responsible for the 2008 meltdown.
Pledges to reregulate and curb the power of finance aside, the metastasis of fictitious capital has continued apace. While the use of some assets — those complex instruments at the heart of the housing and financial crisis, such as CDOs — did indeed decline, the overall quantity of fictitious capital has in fact continued to increase. This dynamic is evinced by the outsize importance of the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector and the run-up in prices of housing and art objects as financialized assets.
Trading in global foreign exchange markets — the marketplace that determines the exchange rate for global currencies and that originates in its modern form from abolishing the Bretton Woods system — soared from negligible levels in the 1970s to a nominal value of $620 billion in 1989 and $4.5 trillion in 2008; by 2022 it stood at $7.5 trillion. Such massive flows of money, buoying what some have called a “technofeudal” rentier class, pose a potentially systemic problem given the attendant pressure to seek their realization in the real economy. In the age of climate overshoot, secular stagnation, and polycrisis, these claims on future production — now far greater than global GDP — create a fundamental dilemma. Given mounting evidence that calls into question the ambition of greening economic growth, efforts to realize future profits of fictitious capital will lead to either unsustainable growth that dangerously destabilizes planetary life or an alternative post-growth scenario, in which societies regain democratic control and turn fictitious capital into stranded assets.
Banks have had a stellar first quarter. The major U.S. banks raked in nearly $50 billion in profits in the first three months of the year, The Guardian reported.
That was largely due to Wall Street bank traders, who profited from a volatile stock exchange, Reuters showed.
But even without the extra bump from stock trading, banks are doing well when it comes to interest, the same Reuters article found. And some banks could stand to benefit even more from this one potential rule change.
Morgan Stanley thinks it could have a major impact on Citi in particular.
Upcoming changes for banks
To understand why Morgan Stanley thinks things are going to change at Citi, you need to understand some recent bank rule changes.
Banks make money by lending out money, which usually comes from depositors. But people need access to their money and the right to withdraw whenever they want.
So, banks keep a percentage of all money deposited to make sure they can cover what the average person needs.
But what happens if there is a major demand for withdrawals, as we saw during the financial crisis of 2008?
That’s where capital requirements come in. After the financial crisis, major banks like Citi were required by law to hold a higher percentage of money in order to avoid major bank failures.
For years, banks had to put aside billions of dollars. Money that couldn’t be lent out or even returned to shareholders.
Now, that’s all about to change.
Capital change requirements for major banks
Banks that are considered globally systemically important banking organizations (G-SIBs) have a higher capital buffer than community banks as they usually engage in banking activity that is far more complicated than your average market loan.
The list depends on the size of the bank and its underlying activity, according to the Federal Reserve.
Current global systemically important banks
A proposal from U.S. federal banking regulators could drastically reduce the amount that these large banks have to hold in reserve.
Changes would result in the largest U.S. banks holding an average 4.8% less. While that might seem like a small percentage number, for banks of this size, it equates to billions of dollars, according to a Federal Reserve memo.
The proposed changes were a long time coming, Robert Sarama, a financial services leader at PwC, told TheStreet.
“It’s a bit of a recognition that perhaps the pendulum swung a little too far in the higher capital requirement following the financial crisis, making it harder for banks to participate in some markets,” he said.
Natasha Luscri and Luke Miller consider themselves among the lucky ones. The couple recently bought their first home in the northwest suburbs of Melbourne.
It wasn’t something they necessarily expected to be able to do, but some good fortune with an investment in silver bullion and making use of government schemes meant “the stars aligned” to get into the market. Luke used the federal government’s super saver scheme to help build a deposit, and the couple then jumped on the 5 per cent deposit scheme, which they say made all the difference.
“We only started looking because of the government deposit scheme. Basically, we didn’t really think it was possible that we could buy something,” Natasha told Yahoo Finance.
RELATED
Last month they settled on their two bedroom unit, which the pair were able to purchase in an off-market sale – something that is becoming increasingly common in the market at the moment.
Rather perfectly, they got it for about $20-30,000 below market rate, Natasha estimated, which meant they were under the $600,000 limit to avoid paying stamp duty under Victoria’s suite of support measures for first home buyers.
“They wanted to sell it quickly. They had no other offers. So we got it for less than what it would have gone for if it had been on market,” Natasha said.
“We didn’t have a lot of cash sitting in an account … I think we just got lucky and made some smart investment decisions which helped.”
It’s a far cry from when the couple couldn’t find a home due to the rental crisis when they were previously living in Adelaide and had to turn to sub-standard options.
“We’ve managed to go from living in a caravan because we were living in Adelaide and we couldn’t find a rental with our dogs … So we’ve gone from living in a caravan, being kind of tertiary homeless essentially because we couldn’t get a rental, to now having been able to purchase our first home,” Natasha explained.
Rate rises beginning to bite for new homeowners
Natasha, 34, and Luke, 45, are among more than 300,000 Australians who have used the 5 per cent deposit scheme to get into the housing market with a much smaller than usual deposit, according to data from Housing Australia at the end of March. However that’s dating back to 2020 when the program first launched, before it was rebranded and significantly expanded in October last year to scrap income or placement caps, along with allowing for higher property price caps.
A year after the US exit from the global health body, WHO officials say finances are secure, for now. But amid donor cuts, rising inflation, and future economic uncertainties, will funding be sufficient to meet its needs?
Earlier this month, senior officials at the World Health Organization (WHO) told journalists in a newly refurbished pressroom at the agency’s headquarters that its finances were “stable”. Following a year that saw its biggest donor withdraw as a member, forcing it to cut 25 per cent of its staff, its financial chief said that 85 per cent of its 2026 and 2027 budget had been financed.
“While we are looking at resource mobilisation, we’re also looking at tightening our belts,” Raul Thomas, assistant director general for business operations and compliance, explained, admitting that the WHO “will have great difficulty mobilising the last 15 per cent”.
Sitting at the centre of the press podium, surrounded by his deputies, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO director general, backed up Thomas’s outlook. “We are stable now and moving forward”, since the retreat of the United States from the health body, he said. The Ethiopian noted that the WHO’s financial reform, allowing for incremental increases in state member fees, has been a big plus.
Mandatory contributions have historically accounted for only a quarter of the organisation’s total funding. States have agreed to raise their contributions by 20 per cent twice, in 2023 and in 2025. Further increments are scheduled to be negotiated in 2027, 2029 and 2031 to bring mandatory funding up to par with voluntary donations that the agency relies on. The WHO also reduced its biennial budget for 2026 and 2027 from $5.3 billion to $4.2bn.
“Our financing actually is better,” Tedros emphasised. “Without the reform, it would have been a problem.”
Read more: Nations agree to raise their WHO fees in wake of US retreat
Nonetheless, the director general, now in his final year at the UN agency, warned that member states should not assume that the financial road ahead will be clear. “The future of WHO will also be defined by how successful we are in terms of the assessed contribution increases or the financial reform in general.”
As west retreats, others step in
Suerie Moon, co-director of the Global Health Centre at the Geneva Graduate Institute, explains that every year at the WHO, there’s “a non-stop effort” to ensure funding. She says a continued reliance on non-flexible, voluntary funding earmarked for specific projects, as well as donors withholding contributions – sometimes for political leverage – complicates the organisation’s financial plans. Meanwhile, ongoing cuts and predictions of a global economic downturn stemming from the war in the Middle East may further aggravate the situation, as costs rise and member states focus on national spending needs.
Soaring prices driven by the conflict and supply chain disruptions have already affected the WHO’s procurement of emergency health kits for crises, officials at the global health body said. “We are continuing to negotiate at least from a procurement standpoint on how we can bring down a little bit the prices or reduce the increases, but we are seeing it across the board,” said Thomas.
Altaf Musani, WHO director of health emergencies, meanwhile, said aid cuts have already deprived roughly 53 million people in crisis situations of access to healthcare.
Last month, Thomas told the Association of Accredited Correspondents at the UN at the end of April that the agency is looking at non-traditional, or non-western, donors for funding to close the biennial 15 per cent funding gap. “It’s not that we won’t go to the traditional donors, but we’re expanding that donor base.”
Since the dramatic drop in funding from the US, formerly the WHO’s biggest contributor, Moon highlights that there hadn’t been a “sudden jump by non-traditional states to compensate for the US”. Last May, at the World Health Assembly, China pledged $500 million in voluntary funding until 2030, a sharp rise from the $2.5m it contributed over 2024 and 2025.
The WHO did not respond to questions from Geneva Solutions about how much of the pledged amount had been disbursed. China’s mission in Geneva did not respond to questions raised about the funding.
Other countries, particularly Gulf states, have meanwhile been increasing their voluntary contributions to the organisation in recent years. Similarly to “western liberal democracies have in the past”, Moon explains that they may be seeking “to raise their profile and prioritise health as one of the issues that they would like to be known for”. She noted that the shift in the UN agency’s list of top donors may affect how it manages the money.
‘Sustainable’ spending
Amid these financial uncertainties, WHO executives say the organisation is also reviewing its expenditure through “sustainability plans”. This includes working more closely with collaborating centres, including universities and research institutes that support WHO programmes and are independently funded. On influenza, for example, the WHO works with dozens of national centres around the world, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the US,
When asked about any plans for further job cuts, Thomas denied that these were part of the WHO’s current strategies, but could not rule them out entirely as a future possibility. Instead, he said, the organisation was “looking at ways to use funding that may have been for activities to cover salaries in the most important areas”.
Meanwhile, WHO data shows that the number of consultants employed by the agency by the end of 2025 decreased by 23 per cent, slightly less than the staff reductions. Global heath reporter Elaine Fletcher explained to Geneva Solutions that consultants continue to represent a significant proportion of the agency’s workforce, at 5,844 – including an overwhelming number hired in Africa and Southeast Asia – compared with regular staff numbering 8,569 in December.
Upcoming donor politics
The upcoming change in leadership will also be a strategic moment for the organisation to boost its coffers. Moon says the race for the top job at the organisation may attract funding from candidates’ home countries, which could be seen as a strategic opportunity.
Given the relatively small size of the WHO budget, compared to some government or agency accounts, “you don’t have to be the richest country in the world to dangle a few 100 million dollars, which could go a long way in their budget,” the expert notes.
The biggest ongoing challenge, however, will be whether major donors will announce further aid cuts. In the medium and longer term, “countries will have to agree on the step up every two years, and there’s always drama around that.”
-
World2 minutes agoBolivia issues warrant for Evo Morales’s arrest after court no-show
-
News32 minutes agoWhy cruise ship passengers with possible hantavirus exposure went to Nebraska
-
New York2 hours agoAirbnb Turns to Black Leaders in Its Bid to Make a Comeback in New York
-
Detroit, MI3 hours agoMetro Detroit braces for Frost Advisory, Freeze Warning overnight before rain arrives
-
San Francisco, CA3 hours ago50 Beagles Rescued From Wisconsin Lab Arrive in Bay Area, SF Activist Faces Felony Charges
-
Dallas, TX3 hours ago
Former Cowboys QB Craig Morton passes away at age 83
-
Miami, FL3 hours agoBrickell Avenue Bridge openings spark rush hour gridlock concerns in downtown Miami
-
Boston, MA3 hours agoWhat we know about accused Memorial Drive gunman Tyler Brown
