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). |