|
Things seem to be progressing quite well
with the changeover to the Euro in Eivissa/Ibiza, at least
so far. Not so in Italy, which seems to be a disaster, but
then this may possibly be a 'disaster on purpose'. Italy's
present Prime Minister, Berlusconi (bear in mind that Italy
has had over 50 different governments since the end of World
War II), has never really been, it seems, that keen on the
more legislative aspects of the EU. It is reported that he
refused Italy's support recently for a proposed EU-wide law
that would facilitate EU law enforcement officers in following
up fraud cases across EU member's borders. Italy seems to
have made rather minimal preparations for the changeover to
the Euro at the beginning of January, or at least seems to
have made preparations that may have made this rather difficult.
Italy's Minister for External Affairs, the one Minister in
Berlusconi's government who was overtly sympathetic to new
developments in the EU, threatened to resign, trying - some
say - to get the government to admit that it has no real interest
in certain external developments that may affect the 'status
quo' in Italy. It had been rumoured that he was only appointed
temporarily anyway as a figurehead to make Brussels think
that Italy was really supportive of new developments. Berlusconi
called his bluff, saying the country did not really need a
separate Minister for External Affairs, and took the portfolio
for himself into the Prime Minister's already massive pile
of portfolios. In any other country than Italy, this would
be rather scandalous news, but then Italian governments have
always seemed to function as participants in a soap opera
and life goes on as normal. One well-briefed individual has
hinted that one of the possible reasons for Italy's slow start
with the Euro is that the amounts of 'black money' in the
country to be 'cleaned' by being changed into Euros may be
so vast that extra time is needed. Well, every country or
area has its own style - there was even a massive burst of
extra building last year here on Eivissa done, some say, for
the same reasons (but with distinctly less style than in Italy).
Traditionally, Ibicenco peasants had few
money problems, except for their major one, which was that
there was a distinct lack of it within their rural orbits.
And when I say 'distinct lack of money', that is putting it
mildly. But many could live on an absolute minimum of money,
as they were almost completely self-sufficient, even to the
extent of making their own clothes. So although poor in financial
terms, they were not necessarily poor in heart, life, or culture.
Ibicenco peasant society could function very well - and happily
- on an absolute minimum of what seems to obsess most people
today - money. As my friend José P Ribas, your environmental
correspondent, has told me several times, 'modern' people
on the island spend more in just going to the toilet (toilet
paper, water, soap) in the morning than his grandfather would
spend in a week or a month or more. Think about that and its
implications. I remember when the first (and still only) rudimentary
public toilets were opened in the south Pacific capital of
Vanuatu, Port Vila, nearly 30 years ago (the country was called
the New Hebrides then). It created a certain amount of fear
in the outer islands of the country. Isolated islanders who
were wont to come to the capital by trading vessel now had
another problem awaiting them there; "Pisspiss sixpens
mo shitshit wan shilling"(in Bislama language, the local
form of Pidgin English) was the feared phrase on many peoples
lips. Some took it, as an ominous warning that there would
be nothing in the modern world that was free. To all extents
and purposes, they were basically right.
Modern economists viewing a hypothetical
self-sufficient society with no money would probably naturally
assume that the members of that society were 'poor'. They
would see that as a 'problem' and then possibly try and devise
ways of introducing some sort of work that would bring a financial
reward. Even if the work involved was almost like slave labour
and the wages involved were minimal they would still see that
as an improvement over the previous situation. The people
involved might not, though. 'Work' for 'wages' is a cultural
concept that, although it has a long history in our modern
society and many others, is not universal. We tend to think
it is normal, but then most people in our 'modern' society
have a very narrow and shallow view of what the world is really
like. In 1998 I gave an illustrated private lecture about
traditional cultures of Vanuatu and other areas of the world
to a group of Wall Street bankers in New York whilst I was
a Visiting Fellow at the Metropolitan Museum there. I was
emphasizing the self-sufficiency and the richness of these
cultures. At one point one of the bankers shouted out, "Gosh,
I didn't realize that people like this still existed"!
I gulped, paused and then replied, "Well, I think I can
safely say that they don't realize that people like you exist.
If Wall Street suddenly disappeared tomorrow in some form
of disaster, it would not affect these people at all. Bear
in mind that what you are doing as your work is possibly running
the world's biggest gambling casino and much of the modern
world unfortunately relies on that. Those societies that are
actually outside the modern economic situation are actually
probably the lucky ones". I wonder whether any of those
bankers have thought back to that lecture after the events
of September 11th.
Money, as a concept and in numerous forms,
has been around for thousands of years. But our 'modern Euro-American'
form of economy, with paper money, business ventures, financial
and stock exchanges and so on is really only a couple of centuries
old. It is rather interesting that this modern system owes
much of its beginnings to a rather charismatic young gambler
and 'man-about town' with a brilliant flair for mathematics,
the Scotsman, John Law. Escaping from London in 1695 after
killing a man in a duel there the previous year, Law made
his home and further fortunes gambling on the Continent. Fascinated
by the nature and theory of finance, he tried to develop a
scheme to restore the fortunes of impoverished France under
the rule of Louis XIV. France's major problem was the lack
of available money. It took Law years to convince those in
power in Paris that money could be lent in the form of paper
notes, backed by assets, and could repeatedly be lent and
re-lent. If all had confidence in the system, then the system
would work. He was finally given the OK and in 1716 opened
the first French bank to issue paper currency (this became
the Banque Royale in 1718). He founded a trading company,
the Mississippi Company (dealing with nebulous French territories
in what is now the southern part of the United States), with
fabulous stories of untapped wealth to enrich the shareholders.
He began the world's first stock-market boom and the word
'millionaire' was invented to describe those that made such
great fortunes in the speculation. Law believed, like certain
economists today - and those dealing with 'globalization'
- that markets should be left to develop freely: 'Constraint
is contrary to the principles upon which credit must be built',
he had written when all was going well. When problems began
to arise, his attitude changed: 'Despotic power, to which
we are beholden for it (the system), will also sustain it'.
Both Law's empire (and the British South Seas Company) collapsed
in 1720, and the new French financial system with it. But
basically the system remains the same today around the modern
world: credit, speculation and a race for profits. Many major
companies then (and today) hide their actual financial situation
from their stockholders. As we can see, there is nothing really
new in the world: a couple of years ago, who would have suspected
the collapse of the US energy giant Enron? Is there something
wrong with the system or is there something wrong with modern
humans? Probably both.
(For those interested in John Law's contribution
to our modern world, I would recommend you read Janet Gleeson's
The Moneymaker, originally published in London (Bantam Press)
in 1999 and reprinted by Bantam books in paperback in 2000
(ISBN 0-553-81247-5).
As in the days of the Mississippi Company
and its British counterpart, the South Seas Company, financial
speculation can reach a fever point, but the 'bubble' usually
eventually bursts. And it still does so today. But some countries
or areas get into a fever pitch about money itself, particularly
if and when it is something relatively new. In Eivissa/Ibiza
money was mostly in the hands of a small number of interlinked
families in Ibiza town (the famous 'senyors de vila') and
a scattering of priests. The arrival of tourism changed that,
making access to money possible for sections of the population
who had had almost no access to it before. A 'money fever'
hit the island in various areas from the 1960s onwards, and
continues to this day. Parts of Eivissa today have become
a microcosm of much of the western world so aptly described
in the following quote from John Grisham's The Testament (1999,
page 253):"It's a sad culture. People live in frenzy.
They work all the time to make money to buy things to impress
other people. They're measured by what they own". But
Ibiza always has its own twist on things, even in the modern
world. The rest of Euro-America might be living in frenzy,
but at least on this island the frenzy only lasts the four
months or so of the tourism summer, and then after that the
island returns to relative normality. But money now rules
here and not always in the best way. The days are long gone
when, in 1962, a sympathetic and adventurous English couple
on a country walk visited peasant household two kilometres
down the hill from my house here. The men were out in the
fields, but the lady of the house was in and kindly welcomed
the travellers. The couple eventually left, with a wonderful
souvenir, one of the massive ancient family heirloom emprendade
gold chains (part of a woman's dowry), for which they had
paid 5000 pesetas. They assuredly believed they had 'made
a killing', and they had: the ancient gold chains are incredibly
valuable. Wealth, however, is relative. They were not to know
that immediately after their departure the peasant wife rushed
out into the fields with the money clutched in her right fist
to find her husband to tell him the good news. As she ran,
she shouted "Sous del Rey! Sous del Rey!" (the equivalent
of "A King's ransom! A King's ransom!"). Which just
goes to show that a little money can make some people very
happy. A lot of money here has not necessarily made people
happier, as islanders are wont to point out (bearing
particular well-known local individuals in mind).
Kirk W Huffman
| |
