Multinational Investment Bankers are Assisting in the Marginalization of Women’s Rights

In the days of the Trojan Wars, there were the Hellenes.  They live on islands; strung like jewels along the coast of azure beauty, the Mediterranean Sea. They have become the ancient culture of Greece. Steeped in tales of god-like supermen and unearthly beautiful women, yet the Greece of today struggles to survive.
Economically hobbled, the conservative government struggles to keep its euro dependent economy viable. Forced institutionalized economic austerity has caused a marginalization in the rights of its female populace. Traditionally the Grecian female has a feisty intelligence, but their passionate personalities hold few public offices.  They lack the power to influence meaningful legislature for the rights of Grecian women.
Greek social studies reveal a long history of female suppression. The conservative government, the New Democracy, resists even basic legislature to protect Grecian females from domestic violence and forced prostitution. It is a nation divided in political ideologies, social and economic philosophies. Similar to their sisters in other developed nations, Greek women have witnessed an increased marginalization of economic and social rights. This is due in part to the increased monetary support for conservative politics by multinational financiers and a government facing liquidity traps. During the Greek elections, a proEuropean New Democracy party businessperson said the following, “As a businessman I want political stability. I want a strong government as much as possible to represent the Greek people the best way,” Vernichos said. “I want an environment that will be more friendly to business, that will be more friendly for investments.”  This is a common refrain echoed widely among the conservative governance of multinational firms.  As a result, in Europe or the United States, women are finding that they are revisiting old battlegrounds – to fight old fights. Transnational wealth is changing the geo-political landscape.
Each country has designation of top four sovereign banks.  The rankings are based on the investment banks’ ratio of assets to GDP (Gross Domestic Product), or all the goods and services produced.  In the United States, the “big four” multinational investment banks are Bank of America, Citigroup, through its Citibank subsidiary, JP Morgan Chase, through its Chase subsidiary and globally the largest publically held investment firm and Wells Fargo.  Effective June 16, 1933 The Banking Act was instituted, commonly called the Glass Steagall Act. It made clear what constituted a banking business and what defined high-risk high yield investment businesses.  In 1998, the Democratic President Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; the 1933 Banking Act was repealed.  This act freed the multinational bankers to aggressively grow wealth in avenues that before were closed.  No longer would insurance and investment-brokers toil under the yoke of “conflicts of interest”, when offering customers creative paths to gain.
The “big four” of the United States hold 39% of our nation’s wealth and growing. They have an enormous social and economic impact on our lives (good or bad).  Their wealth measures in the trillions and have the capability of changing the nature of socio- economic growth. Since the time of the “Great Financial Meltdown of 2008”, banks have grown in wealth and size.  According to the OCC’s – Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks – 2011 quarterly Report on Bank Trading and Derivatives Activities, the notional amount of derivatives held by insured U.S. commercial banks of which JP Morgan is the largest, increased $5.3 trillion or 2.2% from the first quarter of 2011 to $249 trillion. This is nominal amount on a financial instrument.  In actuality, this money does not change hands. This level of wealth is capable of penetrating sovereign monetary mechanisms, while swaying outcomes of any political party.  Especially those whose economies are hobbled by a lack of liquidity.
Austerity is only a word. It denotes an absence of luxury; on the other hand, it describes living in the simplest of terms. Austerity has become the surname for conservative ideologists.  Institutionalized austerity enables the conservative think tanks to view budgetary needs through the lens of morale hazard. They are able to influence how revenue behaves. Whether their return on investment is better served rerouted away from institutions that support gender parity. Disintermediation of revenue away from public services affects the social economy of women the most. Multinational investors tend to move away from political uncertainty where the control of outcomes statistically proves to be problematic.  The more amorphous gender rights are, the more subordinated they are to the rights of investors. The sole purpose is to increase and maintain wealth. Therefore, speculation in any political outcomes of any nation state is based on the level of return on investment.  In order to gain gender parity the outcomes of the game must change.  Old social shackles must never be renewed in order to ensure sovereign success. Greek woman have taken to the street and openly opposed the austerity measures that have cost them their freedoms.
Multinational investment bankers, as individuals rely on sovereign leaders to insure a status quo that will fulfill wealth-building mandates. Case in point, one of our biggest investors China, has redirected more of its monetary streams to the U.S. In May 2012, the Federal Reserve granted China the right to establish a bank in Chicago Illinois, the Bank of China. It is the fourth Chinese bank to operate on our shores. In China, women are experiencing a roll back in rights.  Research and data from the All-China Women’s Federation reports the continuing marginalization of women’s rights.
Multinational investment bankers are embracing political systems that will sustain legislature in banking deregulations or support watered down regulations. This will facilitate ever increasing and creative avenues to wealth building. In doing so, they are franchising the marginalization of gender parity.