This, from the FT this morning, will end in tears, or worse:
The wealth of US private capital bosses jumped by more than $56bn in 2024 as shares of Blackstone, Apollo and KKR hit new highs, fuelled by rapid growth and their addition to the main US stock index.
The share surge has enriched private equity pioneers such as Blackstone chief executive Stephen Schwarzman and KKR co-founders Henry Kravis and George Roberts, and spawned a new set of billionaire dealmakers in the industry ahead of expected deregulation from the incoming Trump administration that could fuel dealmaking and asset growth in 2025.
I am not opposed to those who add value in life being rewarded for doing so, but there is nothing remotely justifiable about what is happening in private equity.
Nor is the power that these riches now very obviously gain in any way compatible with the well-being of most people.
Nothing about this trend is beneficial, whether to the real economy, to politics, the future prospects of the planet, or to all but a tiny number of the people living on it.
More worryingly, Trump is setting out to deregulate US financial markets, which could make these statements of grossly exaggerated wealth even more gross in the disparities that they reveal in the future.
It is impossible to see anything about this situation ending well.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Open Democracy’s latest post on the Quadrature et al. donations to Starmer’s spoof ‘labour’ Party now answer the mind boggling failure to act on the impending billionaire projects to buy up political party/’reform’ influence in Brexitania.
Ssh!…. they can’t afford to act.
Where have we heard that bullshit before?
Thank you for the prompt, Nigel. I hadn’t seen it. Labour given £4m from tax haven-based hedge fund with shares in oil and arms. “Quadrature’s donation is noteworthy not just for being Labour’s largest-ever, but for its timing ahead of election”
Credit, Ethan Stone. Thanks, Nigel Mace.
Surely the internal contradictions of the system will produce some kind of financial crisis sometime soon – but those who caused it will not be the main sufferers.
I fear you are right
Unless we think differently
The question is what crashes first, the financial markets or the environment. Any market crash will give further excuse not to tackle the pending environmental disaster approaching. Those that have acquired huge wealth will ensure that the politicians they own protect them. You don’t need £2500 glasses to see that.
Trump will give the billionaires all they want, not least because he is one of them and he will use the presidency to enrich himself further, just as he did in his first term. But also because in a real sense they own him, given the millions they contributed to his election campaign and also to his inauguration fund, which is basically a slush fund. Bezos, Zuckerberg and the rest of the gang have ponied up and kissed the ring at Mar a Lago for a reason.
Turns out that Starmer and Reeves really don’t know what to do.
“Starmer asks UK regulators for ideas to boost growth” (28 December 2024)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0n14ywzqpo
No surprise there then.
You couldnt make it up – they want their ‘less regulation’ ideology confirmed by those they have put in place.
Starmer has written to regulators, for advice on growth. Regulators. Experts on; well, not even regulation. Starmer must be a very, very foolish man, far out of his depth, if he thinks that regulators are going to be the kind of people whose life purpose is economic growth (does Starmer have no idea why people do certain jobs, but are not equipped to do others – and know it, indeed everone knows it?). Does he believe that British regulators are poachers turned gamekeepers – that would be interesting, but it never happens? Labour are clearly now desperate; which means they really never understood what Britain had done to itself by 2008 to itself in 2008 (a neoliberal addict suffering from an overdose); and then delivered the self-destructive coup de grâce in 2016.
It appears that what we can see around us every day is accurate; Labour is dead in the water.
Starmer’s thinking is really quite bizarre, and is getting worse.
was not one of the law cases against Trump being that he exaggerated his wealth? Money does not seem to buy happiness if all he and they want is more.
In fact, Starmer’s approach to Regulators is worse than mere foolishness; if he thinks regulators have anything to offer on growth; it is Trumpian – he is asking the regulator on advice to reduce regulation; and that means to make life easy for businesses incapable of growing without life being made easier for them, by making life worse for the consumer. This is some Labour Party.
Why not ask Lena Khan; or would he not care for a flea in his ear?
Surely Starmer hasn’t asked the totally useless Offwat for advice? That would be beyond satire.
He has indeed; he is asking Ofwat for help. All that is left is for Starmer to ask Thames Water for help.
That’s for the New Year.
I, a mere 78 year old pensioner, could give Starmer good advice,; TAX THE RICH.
Spot on
I have been thinking that the growing wealth gap would lead to another 2008-style financial crash. Especially given the refusal of Western governments to withdraw excess money from the rich via taxation. But I recently read a short article by Ann Pettifor suggesting that we have a “bail-out state” that will prevent another crash by financially propping up the system, averting the kind of loss of confidence that could lead to a new crisis. To be honest, I struggle to see what mechanism could be used to maintain a kind of “bail out” drip feed to preserve the status-quo indefinitely. Or perhaps I haven’t seen it.
I both do and don’t agree with Ann, who I know well. Us agreeing and not agreeing is very common.
A bail out via QE could be repeated.
But would it be accepted? That is the question.
Richard, Starmer & Reeves remind me of CEO/CFO combo of a failing large enterprise. They are pulling all the organisational levers they can find: cost reduction, borrowing, deregulation, housebuilding, enterprise zones, etc in the hope that they will be able to claim the economy/the business is growing/returning to profit.
They are using a classic formula in my view which will not work for the UK. It rarely works well for large firms.
Bold enterprising state machinery doesn’t exist in the UK. There is no group of policymakers in the UK who know how to repair our social fabric, our environment or indeed our lopsided economy.
Even if Starmer and Reeves were brilliant thinkers with a credible set of outline plans the required changes to govt thinking at all levels would take ages.
We are now stuck until 2029 GE. The worry I have is people will start searching for more extreme political solutions.
If you push this too far then there is only one end in human societies. That results in the billionaires exploring the view from the tops of convenient lamp posts. The riches may indeed be overly dearly bought!