Marriage Mirage

Marriage Mirage.

What is it? Why is it? Who benefits and for how long?

Marriage as a union has been in existence for some 2500 years, noted in a number of cultures around the world and has carried with it a variety of functions to mark its recognition. Although the term ‘marriage’ may not have been conceded as the governing expression throughout all this time, the term did however develop into a legitimate form that became useful by a few ruling person to stamp their legitimacy of action within a cultural frame. The ‘legal’ institution of marriage is estimate to have started about 1500 years ago by the collaboration of churches / religions and state. The first early record of marriage, called as such in the UK was in about 1200AD (?).

Although much earlier liaisons were in evidence; there is no irrefutable verification that ‘marriage’ was a normal practice for the vast majority of populations. The purpose of these official marriages seemed to have been for the establishment of family liaisons that gave strength to the joining and often was for the benefit of the male lineages, with the intention of the securing of assets and power. It was for all practical purposes a business arrangement that generated some form of kudos or influence and the practice was made formal under ‘official’ patronage. The officiated arrangement was recognised to be a good (male) thing but it was an arrangement that was principally carried out by a few powerful family interests. Church and Religions condoned the practice as it also gave them some authority being associated with the powers of the land and being as they were the representation of god on earth! However there is scant substantiation that the regular practice of marriage was wide spread in the general world population and often for most people it was no more than a formed liaison, not officiated into law or religion and was simple a matter of convenience within a social structure that linked two people together and it may have helped reinforce extended family relationships.

In the UK it was quiet common for informal liaisons and so called ‘fleet marriage’ to become notoriously normal within affluent society, this was not a legal or an enforceable arrangement but was probably just a matter of making a statement of possession. Sex of course was a primary driver to such deals and to secure the desired means solely for individual use, an arrangement like a fleet marriage commitment was a useful tool to stave off other predatory interloper as well as later meeting some element of social respectability. Apart from securing assets, family power and sexual favours, the eventual production of offspring’s was likewise just a convenience to maintain power and influence within a family lineage. However in the days before sex control and common high infant deaths, baby making was just a useful (or in poverty an inconvenient) by product for many and not linked to any form of social idealism.

More often than not the evidence for the use of marriages officially recognised in laws was for the benefit of the male. In marriage females often gave up their own possessions to the safe keeping of the male and in doing so became chattel. Females were seen as a necessary breeding attachment but in order to make the arrange ‘marriage’ work a bribe was often passed from the brides family to the grooms as he was to take on the burden of looking after the female from the marriage point onwards. It was irrelevant that the dowry may have been in a few privileged cases of a substantial nature, or that the female had some resources of her own; once the marriage was formed the male became the predominant regulator of all the joint resources.

From the above background of the institution of ‘marriage’, it might be argued that it has been about the acquisition of assets and ownership, a situation that was of benefit at least for the male up to the 20th century. For the female the benefit was illusory in only gaining some element of balanced security in the face of male dominated structures. In nearly all cultures the female has been a practical element of chattel that was to be used according to the male’s desires and restricted in the scope of their role to house keeper, child rearing, and a kept metaphorically prostitute of considered limited intellect. This was the process in many patriarchal structures and from the social drivers prevalent in the times, the created institution of lawful marriages and supporting laws stemmed, all to reinforce the minor status of females.

In a few minor ‘backwards’ social structures that followed a matriarchal form, the power and property were held by women and the power this gave was only passed on by matrilineal decent with the male providing a supporting role but not dictating any pecuniary terms. In the ‘enlightened’ west and eastern cultures this limited social stricture was not followed, the emancipation of women was not seen as a priority even though a few women riled against the inequality of females in society.

Perhaps unfortunately up to the 19th century love was not the overall illusive iconic state that dominates the direction of marriage now, it may perhaps have played a part in the need to formalise it but on a practical level the strictures of social order may not have recognised love as a prerequisite for marriage. Marriage was though in the early agricultural and industrial century’s an arrangement that may have suited both parties for convenience albeit that the female often gave up the limited independence to gain recognition in a dominated patriarchal systems, systems in which the males controlled all the functions of state which frustratingly provided very little outlet for any resourceful female. In such a resource controlled system many females were simply being forced to follow the path of marriage to avoid hardship. It may also have been an acceptance of the realism of life in an unequal poverty driven social system that required a greater degree of effort to maintain a family system by keeping house and children.

Marriage was a very convenient arrangement that greatly suited the industrial revolution up to the late 20th century. It was eminently practical as it legalised offspring’s, allowed males to dominate the whole economic production process, provided a house keeper and baby maker/minder with females having very little choice to achieve independent success other than fall into the subservient role of supporter.

Despite the obvious unfairness of marriage arrangements, the west adopted the continuance of the idea of formalised marriage and it became the accepted norm in all secular cultures with the mating of one on one. Although over time a certain amount of equality of understanding was created, the laws governing it continued to favour male dominance possible up to the later part of the 20th centaury. But despite the ubiquitous nature of marriage, its associated idealism and the creeping equality of resource commitment, marriage and the reason for it are changing rapidly.

The laws that have developed around marriage have been largely devised to suit the west patriarchy structure of society, which up to recently were supported by churches doctrine built on Christianity; such a structure are also more pressingly perverse in Islamic and Judaism all of which place constraint on the ability of females to be independent, equal in law and the making or breaking of marriage. Patriarchal power is still very much in evidence in all eastern and some western diffident countries with the Islamic followers leading the march

While these patriarchal arrangements suited the social structure of times past in that it spilt the effort required in bringing up a family with one party becoming bread winner and the other the home maker, it was a useful arrangement that very occasionally also offered some degree of security for females in the event of break up. In such a situation this generally required the male to provide resource for the female to live and perhaps support the residual off springs. Over the 20th centaury and up to recently there appeared the sense that males were being treated harshly in the splitting up of resources with females getting the best of the deal. This was and is an erroneous idea that stemmed from a few notable cases of divorces in which rich males were ‘forced’ to part with substantial resources too females (as in the recent Mc Cartney case circa 2007) but it was a compounding feature one that slowly became accepted as being prevalent and unfair. The unfairness of divorce was in a sense seen as being against males and was in a subtle way an attempt and extension of male’s power to wish to continue to dominate and control a relationship beyond its usefulness.

In the late part of the 20th century a number of things happened that may have altered the idealism of marriage, one brought on by male’s dominance of the marriage arrangement and constant patriarchal direction, this though was countered by the slow emancipation of females to enter into the dominance of the males domains and their own increased financial resources. Also the hyped miss conception and illusion of cinematic love and marriage as displayed by celebrity media. These two, love and marriage do not always go together well.

Love has been glorified and often wrapped in popular media that paints a rose tinted life style and injects attributes that do not match the reality of marriage. Love does not require marriage; marriage requires love/sex but can survive without. There is the casual affection of sex often confused with love; there is the story book vision of love without the pain and cooperative work to sustain it either in or out of marriage. There is the actual emotional and non emotional drive of love that superseded the superficial attraction of a perhaps temporary physical draw. Sex and love need not go together, both can be satisfying in their own right, it may be seen to be good if both are engage at the same time perhaps linked to marriage yet it is not essential as they can individually also be indulge in without the unjustly sense of guilt that might infect the straight jacket of marriage, if undertook in the right acquiesced situation.

Irrespective of the reasons for marriage, the first immense progressive change and which was of greater importance upon it, was the effect in the UK of two wars that took out manpower that had to be replaced with women power. From this and over the past 90 years came greater assertiveness of females who did not simply accept the continuing subordinate position in society or marriage, expectations matured as their status and financial strength increased. The aggregated impact on the social structure and the reduction of male control has helped balance the marriage contract but a price. It is no longer usual for women to get marriage at any cost or to be treated as chattel, they have gained the financial security to choose when and if they want to make a marriage commitment. Many are choosing not to become burdened with off springs too early, but are choosing to gain a material quality of life. This choice is being made by males and females and is noticed in the falling off of the number of marriages taking place but marked with an increase in divorce and independent living. This is a phenomenon that is increasing as the wealth and social ability of being independent increases. Aiding this process and also accelerating it has been the intervention of sex controls that now allows willing party’s to indulge in sex without the liability marriage, of having off springs, or consequently the legal attack of providing financial support on dissolving relationships.

In some way it is also being recognised that marriage is a very expensive arrangement on two fronts. In a cases where one of the party has considerable greater resources that the other and a break occurs, there is generally a unresolved sense of a grievance that one party is forced to hand over a portion of their assets to the other who may not have directly helped amass the resources in the first place. Also the raising of children has become much more expensive and affects the ability to finance them, live a selfish consumerist life style and which for most people now requires the input of two incomes. These perceived difficulties attached to the potential cost of a break up may also be holding people back from making a marriage commitment. It is right and proper that provision is made for the up keep of any off spring and support given for the authorised carer up to the stage that they become self supporting or if they never can be self supporting. That is the primary deal of having sex and producing offspring.

Such accumulated negative aspect of marriage may be a situation that has become prevalent with the antics of the rich or self considered affluent as they may seem to have the most to loose however it cannot be true of most (working class) females or males who do not have such large resources to part with, yet even these seem to making the choice of marriage abstinence.

So what of the future of marriage? It would appear that as a culture matures and the essence of equality in all things becomes much more influential in the application of laws and practice, that marriage as form of institution and ceremony seemingly designed to secure rights to the resources of one over another, will become less popular, meaningful or relevant. There will be little value in having a formalised arrangement that afterwards requires a long complicated process to dissolve it, as is the case now and the risk attached to one party being forced to overly compensate the other will, (as both male and female achieve self sufficiency) be eliminated. Much is being made of pre nuptial agreements not recognise in the UK yet, but it will increasingly be called for to support and safeguard certain aspect of legal marriage in some situations.

The diminishing status of marriage and the requirement for inbuilt safe guards is a slow development that is occurring now but its extension will only be possible in a secure affluent confident culture. If though the economics of a culture is placed under stress and society became insecure, the strength of marriage in the shared application of resource, family ties, extended family relations etc can redeveloped to counter social fragmentation and could be part of the prime buttress that is the bed rock of successful marriages, apart from the influences of the initial emotive drive.

It is against this changing background that a different legal statute needs to be formed that is seen to be much fairer to both parties that sign up to a ‘marriage’ commitment. This statute should recognise the resources that both have attained prior to attachment and can be used as a bench mark from which to assess any additional resources that accumulate from the marriage and parenting. It ‘marriage’ then becomes more like a business and societal relationship, very similar to how the whole mess started.

© Renot 2007

Money Money Money

Money, Money, Money.

So what happens next in the world of corrupted finance?

What damage is to come in the suddenly created world of highly corrupted finance that is afflicting the western world economy? Everyone thinks they know what the problem was, is, what steps to take to resolve it and yet have no idea where it will lead.

The problem was initially with the credit crises, culminating in high LIBOR interbank rate, lack of interbank lending, lack of confidence in bank asset values, huge losses in the assumed value of financial assets, forced takeovers to “secure” confidence in some investment houses, mortgages defaults, reducing house values, a threatening inflation rise, and the roller coaster ride of share values. All were symptoms of the ‘credit crises’ and sub prime defaults that are being well rehearsed in a variety of media. Some focus is being placed on low interest rates that fed exploitation feeding a house and real estates property boom but a sudden rise in interest rates exposed some American mortgage payers to an inability to repay loans, default occurred that unwrapped the value legitimacy of financial instrument sold to internal and foreign ‘asset’ holders as ‘triple A’ bonds when in actual fact they were very suspect.

The trouble seem clear yet one immense effect is to under play the mention of the billions being pumped into the financial markets by governments to try and install some confidence into market systems that have for years decried state regulation and fought off any form of oversight supervision or intervention in ‘market’ activities. The defence against supervision has been vociferously using the self evident and widely held belief of the ingrained argument, that the financial systems and market forces are self regulating. A belief that even after the past months activities is still being audaciously espoused by some that can only be taken as a rearguard defence of the indefensible or portraying an exuberant of self deception.

It is abundantly clear that although the markets may be self regulating in structures that are isolate into discrete commercial and productive activities or are functioning in ‘normal’ unstrained operating times and faithfully reliant on the operant of the markets to be commercially rational, properly reputable and with people acting in good faith; intervention is not generally required. But the complexity of financial structures, the compound nature of asset negotiations and the huge importance that the financial system has on influences within the local and global economy, not to mention the risk to the individual personal finances of the population, has all become too inter-reliant to believe that complete self regulation can ever be allowed to work again.

The colossal effect of the current financial crises is of such a nature that strong regulation and supervision is now essential. The idea that governments like the UK and US, adherents to the philosophy of free market forces, and lasisez fair economics, could have ever been put in a position, with others, to take the current interventionist action, was preposterous. Unless states intervene with public funding, injecting into ‘markets’ to stop a systemic breakdown of the western world economy was thought classical economically derisive, that such action would be necessary, was unthinkable. The unthinkable has happened and at a mammoth cost.


We are now at the cross road of re-writing the text books on liberal economics. The massive unprecedented peacetime direct intervention of government action into market manipulation may, in the long run, have unintended consequences. The hoped for effect is that some stability will be forced into the market conditions. Governments are forced into taking up virtually all of the so called ‘toxic debts’ from banks and some finance institutions to ring fence those debts that are all assumed to be associated with the housing sub prime critic crises. A difficulty with this presumption is that no one really knows how much the actual ‘sub prime’ debt is worth but the chances are that the whole of the sub prime mortgages within the USA and UK do not of them selves constitute the value of the billions now being pumped into the financial sectors. Although the collapse of the sub prime market is still being used as the initial focus of the current financial crises and held responsible for the extended economic difficulties, this is not the whole story. Any cursory look at the assumed number of possible homes that might be subject to a mortgage default does not equate to the 1,000+ billion of monetary resources being used to stabilise the markets.

One can legitimately assume that a large over injection of money into the markets has something more to do with not just the housing credit crises but to cover up the over exuberance and corruption of markets in developing hyped financial instrument that have no intrinsic asset value attached to them at all. The whole financial market has become detached from the reality of what makes and supports the real value of monetary, commodity, assets markets.
In one sense it is no wonder that markets devoid of asset links have imploded, such markets are not rational, they are not moral, there is no self regulating systems that can kick in to warn of self defeating practices and who’s existence is technically intangible. Individuals operating within the market, driven to achieve financial returns in the mode of the highest profit for the lowest commitment, inevitable leads to unjustified short term rewards that promote unquestioned individual and corporate greed which in turn reinforced the market conditions to become uncontrollably expansive. Market operation became so complicated that very few people had the expertise to realise what was going on, that it was erroneous and due to the lack of regulatory oversight by government that played a part in standing back from the boom to feed the illusion of growth, has resulted in this panic now being fought off.

What happens next will be interesting. If the toxic debt can be isolated by having the USA an UK government hold and ring fence those debts into isolated holding bonds, or essential acting as guarantors, this will take the uncertainty of the unknown debt that a holder like banks have, away. This will allow a breathing space to have them reassess their own financial positions in relation to each other and time to revalue the potential defaults of sub prime mortgages. This may then ease the interbank lending rate and start a cautionary movement in cross bank trading. The eventual relaxation of credit restraint should shortly allow general lending to take place and restart a very limited housing market trade. There will continue to be a degree of uncertainty in trading until the toxic debt has been isolated. An effect of this uncertainty will be that the smart city money with again seek a home for fast investment returns and this will lead to fluctuations in basic stocks linked to food, oil, water, gas, electric and gold; with rapid rise and falls in the stock market shares. Such shares linked to stocks can be at least valued to the essential assets and output performance of supply and demand with them being associated to listed companies and commodities.


The unprecedented action by governments to stabilise the financial market will no doubt help banks to retrench and rebuild their finances but it will take time. It took Lloyds TSB 7 years to recover from the near fatal losses it was hit with in the SA defaults. It now has the strength, with a government nod, to now take over the HBOS in a forced unnecessary merger as a result of short selling. The subsequent moves by government to stop funds being involved in short selling, (temporarily banned In the UK / US) will help inject some control but it does leave future traders, hedge funds and the derivatives markets to continue largely unchecked other than with an extensive lack of cheap liquidity. Now that credit will be no longer cheap or multiple manipulated, it is likely that there will be no major take overs or private equity raids for many years. Realism of secured loans matched with close asset values will be the order adopted by all providers of funds.

Market operators will in time no doubt press for a relaxation of any “temporary” constraints once the toxic debt is firmly and realistically collateralised and allowed to work its way out of markets and balance sheets. For the moment market traders will reluctantly have to accept closer supervision but they will still hold to the belief in the now defunct absolute freedom of the markets and that any applied constraint will limit competitiveness on a world playing field.

At a past meeting of G7 finance ministers, worried about growing financial turbulence, they endorsed the approach to regulation presented to them in a report from an eminent expert group including the chairman of Britain's Financial Services Authority, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the chairman of the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The report began with recognition of past failure: "A striking aspect of the turmoil has been the extent of risk management weaknesses and failings at regulated and sophisticated firms." Its recommendations amounted to 3 proposals: greater transparency, greater disclosure, and stricter risk management by firms. Unfortunately the committee was restating what was essentially the practice of financial regulation for the past thirty years wrapped in the idealism of a practiced ‘light regulatory’ ideology. So, even then the problem was recognised but without a new much firmer approach the regulators will fail again.

Although there is clarion cries for more regulation and supervision of banks and financial instruments. The chances are that much verbosity will take place but the markets will use the international nature of finance movements to stem any great controls. However some control can be put in play. It is unacceptable that banks that operate in what is clearly now a much protected environment with the taxpayers / state being the “lender of last resort” and ultimate holder of all risk, therefore traders should not be allowed to continue unrestrained for the foreseeable future. The people that operate in markets, in countries that can demonstrate legitimate control, should be made clear to them that they must operate within defined limits of laid down propriety and culpability, so much so that any action by them that evokes careless risks should be made “ultra vires” and be personally held responsible giving rise to a ‘surcharged’ placed against them. This is a process that is just like that which can be laid against local authority officers and elected members in the UK who undertake actions that are financially onerous without due regard to probity or standing orders.
The international nature of financial markets means that unless a global consensus is achieved on how to limit the corrupt exuberance of market activity and rapacious trading, controls are not going to be effective on a local national level. Governments can though be much more diligent in observing what market are doing to create destabilise scenarios and curtail it immediately.
The alternative is to make closed short selling and off balance sheet trading illegal. Banks could also be made to hold much more cash and governments to be much faster in closing the market down, which is what Russia did for two days to gain corrective time.

For the time being no one is being legally charge for any form of corrupt action but it is most certain that there are some individuals who should be held to account, whether chasing them or handing out stiff penalties of one form or another will send a sobering message to the market, or will help curb future maladministration, is debatable. What is certain is that bailing the markets out without culpability being laid certainly will.

So the good times will roll again. Wrong!

This initial resultant fall in current credit activity will promote a long recession with a very close skirt with depression. What is being overlooked is that this retrenchment into seeking proper valued investment, will take place in diminishing market of opportunities with a higher rise of consumable cost due to increase scarcity value. Inflation will be a growing imported problem. Exportable productivity particularly by the UK to offset the ‘balance of payments’ is not strong, with its 20% GDP manufacturing base it is in a very vulnerable position and will be forced to increase its borrowing requirements. Import cost will rise and inflation will be to the fore again at a time when people’s individual financial position will be under pressure as well. People will simple not spend, they will try to do, if they can, what banks will do; rebuild resources. The value of the pound will get battered.

There are imperceptible indicators that show the current crises will be surmounted in the short term 3-5 years but its long term effect is going to be pernicious. The termoil has seriously indicated that there is a systemic weakness in the way governments can manage their economies. There is increasingly a lack of resources that allows them to be independent of world affects and they do not have the financial generating resources to buy their way out of the impending trouble. The US is unusually attempting to be the broker of deals to help banks in the US and around the world over their liquidity gap by providing a facility to pull down term loans. Although it has huge resources to do so, it will also suffer from a recession and a terrifying PSBR deficit created to bale out its financial institutions and the sub prime debts. Through the result of this credit crunch, it has unwittingly done something that attacks the fundamental bases of financial systems and that is, that it has broken trust in the value of financial instruments. This will lead to another element of the ongoing saga which will shortly play out. It will be a fight for the dollars supremacy. Make no mistake, this credit crises and the exposure that has opened up for the dollar will eventually see an escape to other currencies.

Despite all this presumptive bad news, there are things that can be done, one of them is to realise that it’s not a rich mans world.



© Renot 2008
2509081353