… On similar arguments to defend capitalism & slavery.
Until the late Middle Ages, the Muslim Middle East was at least as economically developed as Europe. Then, beginning with the rise of the great Italian traders in the 14th century, Europeans pulled ahead, while the Islamic world gradually declined. By the 19th century, European economic influence had translated into political domination of the Middle East.
…
What happened?
…
Since 1997, Timur Kuran, an economist at the University of Southern California, has been investigating the connection between institutions and the economic decline of the Muslim Middle East. In a paper, ”The Islamic Commercial Crisis: Institutional Roots of the Delay in the Middle East’s Economic Modernization,” he proposes an answer: Islamic partnership law and inheritance law interacted to keep Middle Eastern enterprises small, never allowing the development of corporate forms. (A version of the paper can be downloaded at papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=276377.)
In the Middle Ages, both Islamic and European law required that a partnership dissolve if one partner died or was incapacitated. That tended to limit the size of such arrangements. The typical partnership would be, say, two financial backers and one trader who brought merchandise to or from a distant locale. The more people involved, the more likely the partnership would have to dissolve in the middle of a venture.
In Europe, the consequences of a partner’s death could be limited. Inheritance law often allowed a person to designate heirs. So a particular son might inherit the partnership share. The partnership would still have to dissolve technically, but it could be immediately reconstituted.
As a result, European partnerships were able to expand over time, allowing more ambitious, better-financed ventures.
Under Islamic law, by contrast, inheritance was prescribed in rigid detail, with all sorts of family members — uncles, cousins, siblings, parents, and so on — getting pieces of the estate. There was no way to limit a stake to a single heir. These prescriptions were rooted in the Koran, which meant they were virtually impossible to alter. The fragmentation produced by inheritance law, combined with the strictures of partnership law, kept Middle Eastern enterprises small. That, in turn, limited the pressure to evolve new economic forms.
”Why did you get the joint stock corporation and the modern corporation in Europe?” Professor Kuran asked. ”Because as these partnerships expanded, they created problems that had to be resolved by putting pressure on the legal system to recognize new institutions.” For instance, partners who wanted to pull out and sell their shares needed a financially graceful way to do so, leading to transferable shares and stock exchanges.
”As these problems arise, the legal system responds,” Professor Kuran said. ”The same thing doesn’t happen in the Islamic world because the partnerships don’t grow.”
That difference did not matter for a long time, because the small partnerships were still extremely successful, and most of their trade was with Africa or Asia. Only in the 18th century, when trade with Europe became a big part of Middle Eastern commerce, did the difference between the systems become important.
At that point, Christians and Jews in Islamic countries also suddenly had a business advantage. As religious minorities, they had been able to choose whether to do business under Islamic law or, with mutual consent, under some other law. Although their own religions also provided laws and courts, they generally relied on Islamic law.
When Europeans started dominating Middle Eastern trade, however, they brought European courts with them. That gave Middle Eastern religious minorities a new option: to use European law.
…
Since European institutions had evolved to better suit the scale of modern businesses, in which thousands of people may be involved as investors and employees, Christians and Jews using those laws began to prosper in comparison to their Muslim neighbors. Only in the 19th century did Middle Eastern governments begin adopting secular commercial laws that allowed Muslim-owned enterprises to grow.
Today, Professor Kuran says, Islamic inheritance law poses no problems to large-scale endeavors. The estate simply divides up the securities among the heirs, and the business goes on undisturbed. Secular corporate law lets religious inheritance law work in a modern economy.
”I’m not talking about blanket condemnation of Islamic law,” he said emphatically. ”That is patently false. I don’t believe it and I don’t argue it.”
…
”When the inheritance law was put into place, the early Muslims in the seventh century were not thinking about the consequences for commerce with Europe 1,000 years later,” he said. They were addressing inequities in their own day, including the problems of daughters left with no inheritance. ”But in the process,” he said, ”they created another problem 1,000 years down the road.”
Source | NYT
Apparently, the banks are getting bigger… Well, the top three, anyways. With all the mergers and acquisitions through the financial crisis, it looks like somebody has benefited. (via)
The last things I want to do is to defend giant corporations, but I’m not sure if the FEDs had any other options other than forcing these shotgun marriages.
I mean, look at the one case they didn’t intervene; the one giant financial institution they didn’t bail out, nor did they force anybody to buy it; Lehman brothers.
Prior to Lehman, the feds had prevented bankruptcy of bear sterns, freddie & fannie, but this time they decided to let Lehman fall because of moral hazard.
& look what happened: the crisis just escalated.
I’m not defending protecting rich guys. But that’s something you should have prevented years ago.
Once the crisis starts, there’s not much you can do. Some go broke, some get rich. Therefor, these kind of mergers, unfortunately, can’t be prevented & can be justified.
What can be prevented & what can’t be justified is the way the feds & right wing economists & politicians ran the economy before the crisis, blindly following their own ideological agenda (ie. free market crusade) & their political motivations (ie, protecting their sponsors).
The Billion Dollar Gram is a comparison of various things and how much they cost, organized by category (green = spending, blue = earning, red = giving, purple = fighting, yellow = losing, grey = “ilin’”). The big purple block in the right hand corner represents the Iraq war, while the yellow represents the financial crisis.
“In a 2007 Foreign Policy magazine article, Pankaj Ghemawat (professor at Harvard Business School), argued that ninety percent of the world’s phone calls, Web traffic, and investments are local, suggesting that Friedman has grossly exaggerated the significance of the trends he describes: “Despite talk of a new, wired world where information, ideas, money, and people can move around the planet faster than ever before, just a fraction of what we consider globalization actually exists”.[2][3]
However, criticizing the relatively small number of participants engaged in international trade fails to note their significance as witnessed by UNCTAD’s Handbook of Statistics 2008. A mechanism that exemplifies this enters into action when a global trader makes a phone call to India to order a product - this first call generates potentially hundreds more local phone calls to make and sell the product.
The book is perceived to be written from an American perspective.Friedman’s work history has been mostly with The New York Times and this may have influenced the way in which the book was written - some would have preferred a book written in a more “inclusive voice”.[4]
Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has also been critical of Friedman’s book. In “Making Globalization Work”, Stiglitz writes:
Friedman is right that there have been dramatic changes in the global economy, in the global landscape; in some directions, the world is much flatter than it has ever been, with those in various parts of the world being more connected than they have ever been, but the world is not flat […] Not only is the world not flat: in many ways it has been getting less flat.”
Hans Rosling presentation at US department of state.
Watch this one… you won’t regret it!
If the the world were a village of 100 people…
