One has to admire Daniel Hannan for his persistence: time
and again he puts his warped view of reality out there, and every time someone
is there to call it out for falsehood and misinformation. Yesterday he was at
it again, praising the Netherlands, telling “I've
realised why I like the Dutch so much: they invented capitalism”.
Well, up to a point there, Dan.
Knocking down another dodgy motah?
“Modern capitalism, as
defined by the twin concepts of limited liability and joint stock ventures, was
invented in the Netherlands” he enthuses, then sadly reflects that “In the years after the Glorious Revolution,
as the English-speaking peoples began their ascent to global supremacy, the
Dutch exhausted themselves in a series of wars against autocratic France. The
banks ... relocated from Amsterdam to London”.
That’s not quite the whole tale, is it, Dan? What the
Netherlands, or more specifically the City of Amsterdam, brought us was
probably the most significant early example of the modern banking system. The Bank of Amsterdam
took in deposits but also made loans using those same deposits, much as banks
today do. Thus they effectively created yet more money.
This system, of course, depends on the C-word, as in
Confidence: both depositor and borrower must be confident that they will be
able to access deposits and loans. They must not all come at once for their
money. And, if there is any loss of confidence in the bank, then they surely
will all come at once (pace Northern
Rock) and then the bank will be well and truly bust.
Now, with sensible management of lending, there should be no
problem. But reckless and corrupt lending, to which the Bank of Amsterdam succumbed
in association with the East India Company, can spell disaster. The loans it
had made went into default. The depositors came for their money as news of the
loans, and suspicion of insolvency, spread. The Bank was wound up.
So the Netherlands taught us rather more than Daniel Hannan
would like to admit, and it’s a lesson we have seen repeated all too
spectacularly in recent years. That lesson is that unregulated capitalism taken
to excess – as inevitably happens when greed takes hold – can end in financial
collapse. The wars – with the ships failing to come back from the East Indies –
contributed to that collapse.
When Hannan talks of “Those
hard-headed Calvinist merchants”, who “did
more for human happiness than any number of aristocrats or generals or
visionary politicians”, he manages to miss the financial crisis that those
same merchants dropped on their own country. And the reason why calls for less
regulation are so prone to set off bullshit detectors among the electorate.
Still, it’s an entertaining read. It just shouldn’t be let out of the fiction category.
I know it's been a while since I did history at school, but didn't the Dutch spend all those years having wars with the SPANISH, plus the odd skirmish with Britain.
ReplyDeleteQuite. It was war with Britain that did for the East India Company and therefore the Bank of Amsterdam.
ReplyDeleteWhy Hannan has picked up on the French is anyone's business. Probably stuck in a rut after the run-up to the Iraq War.
The VOC was disbanded by the Batavian revolutionaries (along with the WIC), they were perceived as having a corrupting influence on the United Provinces (namely, that the government, and foreign policy was being used to enrich the oligarchy).
ReplyDeleteFrance did try to invade the republic during the 1660s, but that didn't work out to well.
Must get round to reading Patriots and Liberators, been sitting on my self gathering dust for too long.