> Dennis Redmond wrote:
[...]
> >> [He] could
> >> despatch his servant to the neighboring office of a bank for such
> >> supply of the precious metals as might seem convenient
> >
> >Servants, indeed. Keynes is talking about a tiny sinecured elite, not the
> >average Londoner.
The average middle class Londoner (e.g. Charles Pooter) would have had a servant back then.
> >
> >My point is that multinational capitalism is inconceivably more ubiquitous
> >and totalizing than its monopoly-era predecessor.
>
> Keynes's point doesn't depend on how pervasive the practices were;
> it's about complacency in the face of imminent disaster. He was
> summarizing attitudes of the European elite on the eve of WW I. If
> the attitude is even more widespread now, you could read it as
> strengthening his point rather than undermining it.
Here's another quote, culled from David Kynaston's history of the City of London:
We have, up to now, been accustomed to think that the destinies of
the world were, in the main, entrusted to the hands of
politicians... But within the last few years it has dawned on the
most competent observers that this progress and contentment depend
very much more on financial than political factors... The
financial and economic forces have become the predominant factors
in our twentieth-century life, while the political elements have
receded into second place... This is a distinct gain for humanity
as a whole, because political forces are capable of being
distorted, minimised, and outwitted, while economic power is the
absolute and inexorable auxiliary od every effort to advance the
prosperity of the world.
Ellis Powell, Financial News, 1912
John Kozak