In the earliest days, banking was never a profession open to the ruling classes. It was relegated instead to those who belonged to despised, discriminated, or otherwise marginalized minorities. In medieval Europe, it was largely Jews who took up this task; in other empires, it might be Christians. The arrangement had many impractical aspects, but it possessed one immense advantage: it was virtually unthinkable that bankers would ever wield political power. This created a firm and natural barrier between financial and political authority. Bankers could bribe, influence, or insinuate themselves into the affairs of rulers, but that is altogether different from exercising power directly.
As Professor Budil has observed, Venice was the first state in which aristocratic families themselves entered into banking. This was the beginning of a new model—one that gradually spread across Europe. Everywhere, financial and political elites began to fuse. And everywhere, this fusion brought short-term advantages in competition with rival states. Yet everywhere, it ultimately produced catastrophic effects, both for economic development and for the daily lives of ordinary people.
This history comes to mind whenever we hear fresh proposals to strip certain groups of citizens—say the poor, or the elderly—of their right to vote. If the franchise is ever to be restricted, then surely the first priority should be to bar all who work in banking, insurance, investment funds, and related spheres from political office or political activism. For the union of financial and political power poses a far greater threat to liberty than, for instance, the blending of judicial and executive authority.