In Defence of Global Capitalism
Johan Norberg
Cato Institute, 2003
Another welcome book in the Simon, Lomborg line, this time from Sweden, an auspicious sign. The Preface was reprinted in Liberty, where I first read it and where it makes a good summary of the argument of the book. In 1988 when the author was 16, his party – the Anarchists – got the largest percentage of votes, 25%, in the school mock-election, running an agin-the-government campaign. His position has changed somewhat – capitalism has difficulty working without a legal system and transparency in transactions – but is basically the same.
He starts by insisting that over the past three or four decades things have got better, particularly in the poorer “developing” countries. Income per capita has increased and mortality been reduced. This he ascribes to opening of the countries concerned to “the market”, both internal and external. He is, moreover, strongly against national barriers, not merely to trade, but also to migration, though here he doesn’t take into account our xenophobia. The case against tariffs is succinctly put by the quotation: “Either a branch of enterprise is profitable, in which case it deserves no tariff protection; or else it is unprofitable, in which case it deserves no tariff protection (p. 152).”
Although not explicitly against the EU as such, his analysis of its CAP agricultural subsidies and protectionism (pp. 148-) is damning, and it is even more shaming that so-called pro-Third World anti-globalisation protesters do not target them.
There is a separate chapter on “The African Morass” (p. 98-) where per capita GDP has actually decreased since the ’60s, though I think the statement that “The African countries have inherited a hierarchic, repressive political structure from the colonial powers” needs to be modified: what they did inherit, according to Bauer, was a late move to a command economy and a socialist intellectual outlook. The situation has been exacerbated by international aid, and debt cancellation would only be an encouragement of the behaviour that brought the bankruptcy about
The author refutes the prevalent belief that world inequality is growing, either between (p. 53) or within countries. He also points out that social mobility means that “the poor” are not the same people from one year to the next (p. 76). This, incidentally, is the factor most frequently, in fact always, omitted from discussions on poverty, whether absolute or relative; in fact, only 4% of the US population remain in the “poor” bracket (20%) for as long as two years, though some will remain longer.
–but also to migration, though here he doesn’t take into account our xenophobia.–
Why do I think I’ll bet that he didn’t take into account islamofascist nutjobs trying to kill us by immigration?
Or take into account the poor and/or stupid having more kids and swamping us with morons.
Am I dreaming? From Sweden? There’s more capitalists besides me and a handfull of ppl I know about? Coool….
One thing – I’m not sure that debt cancellation in some form is not a good idea for heavily indebted African countries.
If an individual or corporation goes bankrupt, legal arrangements exist to deal with the continuing situation. If we allow these sovereign states to go bankrupt, new management could be put in.
I’m not suggesting we simply write off sovereign debt, the debt holders would take over and restructure the countries for the better.
The current situation is pointless, the debt can’t and won’t be paid down.
“and debt cancellation would only be an encouragement of the behaviour that brought the bankruptcy about”
Debt cancelation would be a recognition of hard realities, as there will be no debt repayment, due to mentioned bankruptcy. Those who made the loans need to write them off and take a loss so they would be more careful who they loan to in the future.
The whole business of “loaning” to third world hellholes is mostly a fiction and a scam.
Are libertarians just like other ideologists, in that they only read literature that supports their own views? Norberg’s book isn’t bad for fledglings, but a bit like re-inventing the wheel as far as ‘adult’ readers are concerned.
I’d suggest that libertarians also familiarise themselves with Amy Chua’s “World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability” (reviewed here).
As regards Africa, the low IQ of all Sub-Saharan populations is probably the primary problem (see here). There appears to be a causal correlation between IQ and GNP. Africa’s tragedy is what happens when you impose statist economic policies on a cognitively disadvantaged breeding population.
Globalisation no doubt benefits most people — but there are also losers, and though it will resolve many problems, it will create others.
But I doubt whether libertarians will bother reading any sources that might upset their simple faith in free markets as the key to heaven on earth.
Can I pose a question here.
Is there any thread of thought here which cannot conceivably be turned around by Charles Copeland to his infantile theories of racial supremacy.
Posts on gun control inspire Charles to comment on the stupity of wogs.
Posts on free markets inspire Charles to comment on the stupidity of wogs.
Education, politicians, war, art and science all seem to require Charles to remind us how stupiud those poor benighted wogs are.
Could someone please come up with a post that he can’t infect with this nonsense.
Eamon
Apologies for the spelling errors.
It’s hard to type and froth at the mouth all at once.
Eamon
Charles Copeland:
“But I doubt whether libertarians will bother reading any sources that might upset their simple faith in free markets as the key to heaven on earth.”
But I doubt whether Charles Copeland will bother reading any sources that might upset his simple faith in IQ as the key to heaven on earth.
Charles Copeland:
“There appears to be a causal correlation between IQ and GNP”
Look, maybe there is such a correlation. It’s reasonable to guess there would be such a correlation. So what ? Can you change IQ ? IQ is a given fact. (Though I don’t beleive in IQ measuring methods). There is no policy you can adopt to change IQs. IQ is like the weather – it just is – an inertial fact that we cannot modify.
I beleive that free markets, capitalism and globalization improve the lot of everyone, irrelevant of their IQ. It might help able people more than others, but even less capable people are better off under free markets than under control economies.
What is the point of your mentioning IQ ? Do you beleive capitalism is OK for high IQ people, but lower IQ guys would prosper under socialism ?
Do you have a program whereby the IQ of whole population will be raised by 30% within 5 years ?
Is socialism that program ?
Jacob,
If you can recommend any sources (other than ad hominem stuff and quibbles about methodological shortcomings of IQ studies) to me, I would be most grateful.
Perhaps there exist studies that indicate that racial IQ differentials are purely environmentally determined, besides mere assertions to that effect. Do you know of any? Given the kind of flak I get for mentioning the role of intelligence in determining the prosperity of population groups, I’d be delighted if I were mistaken.
Looking forward to your recommendations (and NOT of course to suggestions that I re-read garbage written by Marxist, egalitarian ideologists like Stephen Jay Gould).
My key argument is that prosperity is determined both by intelligence and environmental factors such as statist policies, nutrition, etc. I admit it’s a complex and controversial topic. But the reason I ‘bang on’ about IQ is that few others in the libertarian community seem to be doing so.
BTW, my Number One libertarian hero is Charles Murray.
Ayn Rand comes pretty much at the bottom of the list.
Jacob asks:
“ Do you believe capitalism is OK for high IQ people, but lower IQ guys would prosper under socialism ?”
A good rhetorical question – from the way I worded my first posting, it might have seemed that I do. Mea culpa.
No, of course I don’t believe anything like that. My point is that while almost everybody will prosper under capitalism, some will prosper a lot more than others. High IQ groups such as Jews and Chinese will profit more while other, low IQ groups, such as Negros, Russian peasants, etc. will profit less (statistically speaking, of course). The consequences: envy, ethnic hatred, pogroms, the whole kaboosh.
It’s not that I have any magic solution either.
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no great thing was ever made.” (Kant)
So Charles, assuming there is a close correlation between IQ and GNP – from where do you get the evidence that folk living in sub-saharan Africa are on average of lower IQ than say, in the West? Have you personally gone round the continent of Africa playing the locals at Trivial Pursuit?
Zulus?
“My key argument is that prosperity is determined both by intelligence and environmental factors such as statist policies, nutrition, etc. I admit it’s a complex and controversial topic….”
Ok.
We have some recommendations concerning those statist policies.
Do you have OTHER recommendations concerning statist policies ? Do you have ANY recommendations concerning the imrovement of intelligence ?
“….some will prosper a lot more than others…”
Sure !
What do you recommend ? That we hold them back by force so they wouldn’t rise too high above average ?
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no great thing was ever made.” (Kant)
“The crooked timber of humanity” is what Kant was made of.
Disregarding Kant, humanity acheived some very great acheivents.
Charles is both an elitest and a racist.
Even Darwin thought that African people were dumb, and he was wrong too.
There have been great achievements by these so called lower IQ peoples. You ever eaten Peanut Butter Charles? Or used any of the other items discovered by one George Washington Carver, who oh my goodness happened to be an African-American.
People considered him to be inferior as well.
Or the multitude of New African immigrants to America who are quite successful.
And to even suggest that nothing great has came out of humanity is just nonsense. What I hate are intellectual elitists, who really believe that if they have the right people in charge, Communism/Socialism will work.
Those policies will only work when we all become one of the hive mind. But I like individuality too much to buy into the hive mind thank you.
Oi! Ach! What I wouldn’t give to drive a stake throught the heart of GW Carver and every freaking one of his ghastly peanuts! My Februaries have reeked of the peanutty stench of Carver for forty years. However much I might agree with you in principle, James, everytime I hear the words Carver and peanut together in a sentence, I think, “is that really all you got, my brothers?”
Anyhow, he didn’t invent peanut butter. He invented three hundred stupid goddamned things you can do with peanuts, but he didn’t invent peanut butter.
Johnathan,
I’m sure you won’t believe this, but I’m gradually boring the pants off myself on this race and IQ debate. Now I truly understand why so few thinking people like getting actively involved in politics — they have to repeat the same old stuff ad nauseam and ad infinitum, day in, day out. And they have to suffer fools gladly.
Johnathan, I don’t know how often I referred Samisdatarians to Richard Lynn’s magnum opus -“IQ and the Wealth of Nations”. A summary is now available on line and it’s here.
Why don’t you just familiarise yourself with the literature? Read what Richard Lynn writes and mull it over. Perhaps you’ll change your mind.
Jacob, you’re certainly by far the best sparring partner around. Phew! Why don’t you just call me a racist bastard like the others and then I can retort that all you’re good at is ad hominem vilification? Well, here are a few thoughts about how to improve intelligence.
Richard Lynn was the first to propose improved nutrition as one way of improving intelligence – and that is almost certainly true of Africa. IQ affects income but if you’re starving your non-income almost certainly adversely affects your IQ.
Another approach is to encourage intelligent women to reproduce, and discourage the dumber ones (or the left tail of the bell curve, to use the jargon) from doing so. Easier said than done — hardly have you opened your mouth than somebody knee-jerks in return about eugenics leading to Hitler and the Holocaust (recent example: the otherwise highly talented and commonsensical Melanie Phillips in last week’s Daily Mail – here).
Then there’s preimplantation diagnostics. I’ll take embryo No 374 with the genes for blue eyes, classical music, and advanced mathematics. Bin the rest ….
Finally — and this is just for your amusement. It’s like something out of Ripley’s Believe it or not. But I’ll have the vanity to call it Copeland’s ‘Believe it or not.’
Believe it or not, but just a generation ago the government of Venezuela appointed a certain Dr Machado as Minister for the Development of Human Intelligence. Honest! This is not a joke and today is not April 1. He launched the so-called Venzuelan Intelligence Project, the aim being to increase everybody’s intelligence, from charlady to Professor Egghead. And I don’t really know what came of it — there’s some stuff on the Net and some day I’ll check it out. More info here.
Any Venezuela experts out there who can fill me in?
“This is not a joke …”
Well, Venezuela IS a joke, no matter how you look at it.
“Another approach is to encourage intelligent women to reproduce…”
Go ahead, encourage them. (Not with my money though).
“Richard Lynn was the first to propose improved nutrition….”
Great idea. I’m all for improved nutrition, IQ or not. Does socialism improve poor peoples’ nutrition??
THE CROOKED TIMBER OF HUMANITY
Sorry – my misquote. What Kant wrote was:
“Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made.”
Straight – not ‘great’.
Apologies for my error.
Must be my ‘doomster’ gene expressing itself again.
Jacob writes:
“Does socialism improve poor peoples’ nutrition?”
A bit under the belt, this time. Not even the Lefties really believe that crap any more.
On the other hand, hungry people also have been known to exist in free market societies: if you lack talent and lack physical strength you will be unemployable and will eventually starve unless you beg or unless the state transfers income to you.
Both Hayek and Milton Friedman have argued in favour of income transfers to ‘combat poverty’.
Are they socialists?
Well, IQ tests measure little other than ability to take IQ tests – but certainly low protein diets don’t help people. Starving also doesn’t help.
I think I saw this Norberg character do a programme a few weeks ago on Channel 4 about this subject. While he ignored a couple of problems and downplayed some of the real issues, I am generally strongly in agreement with him on this subject.
Methinks Charles has raw natural intelligence confused with education levels and culture biases.
Swaths of people have been characterized as “dumb” or intellectually inferior and those characterizations evolve like fads. At one time or another the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Africans, Koreans, Latinos etc etc etc have had their detractors but it always had less to do with the intelligence – brain power – of those people, but rather their education levels and the degree to which they held beliefs or behaved like “civilised” men.
In reality most humans are about as smart as most other humans and given access to education and an environment that supports learning they amply demonstrate this. At the individual level there are fairly large discrepancies, but at the societal level (between large groups) this is not the case.
Gypsies/Roma (at least many groups of them) are famed for eschewing literacy and schooling. Jews are famed for holding learning in very high regard. So here is a “cultural” preference that leads to a behaviour that leads to what appears to be higher IQ… but it is really not genetics.
Why do so many Latin American countries (like Uruguay or Costa Rica or Chile) have higher levels of literacy than the US does today when this was not the case 100 years ago. Did they evolve? No, they spent money and effort on education. The same thing as has been taking place in a number of Asian countries over the past many years.
When St. Patrick arrived on the emerald isle my mother’s people were eating each other and to a Roman’s eye they were savages. Yet, at least according to one author, they “saved civilisation” in the Dark Ages through centers of learning. They did not evolve genetically as much as they adopted different behaviors.
We libertarians must believe that it is freedom for the individual that allows him and his family to succed in gaining knowledge, wealth and to adopt behaviours that benefit him and his posterity. That is still the main reason why people emigrate to the US – opportunity. And their children, the first generation born here, typically are very high achievers.
To think otherwise is to claim that freedom is only proper for some and not others – but history demonstrates that all peoples, given the right incentives and system can succeed. Or Charles, do you think the North Koreans somehow genetically different (inferior) from their southern cousins and after a mere 50 years apart?
BTW the Russian peasant comment from Charles is very surprising – Russia has been producing top computer programers, mathematicians, chess champions, writers, etc etc etc for decades. If it is genetics, how can this be if the peasants are sooo inferior? Are there distinct breeding populations in Russia carefully selected for certain tasks – such as the breeding of dogs for guard duty vs hunting? Impossible in such a short time frame and just demonstrates Charles ignorance.
Charles is a rascist and believes nonsense. It is a shame.
The way to prove him wrong is to expand freedom and capitalism to the far corners of the globe and watch these “blighted” people succed.
BTW, Johan Norberg has an interesting blog of his own here. He’s just won the Hayek prize.
As regards his book, it’s good stuff on the whole but much of what he writes on Africa is truly full of shit – such as the bubbly optimistic claim that “[t]he democracies are growing in number and urbanisation is breaking up old tribal loyalties …” (page 104 of Timbro edition, November 2001). Oh yeah? Like in Liberia? The Congo?
The section entitled ‘Oppression of women’ (pages 40-43) is also something of a Pollyannish fantasy: “Awareness and criticism of gender discrimination is growing” (page 42). Where? In Saudi Arabia? In any Arab country? In Turkey? The menfolk there want MORE gender discrimination, not less.
Still, not bad by Scandinavian standards …
Garth
I really do get tired of this nonsense.
When St Patrick arrived in Ireland he found a migrant civilisation that had invented the following.
Iron; soap; cuniform writing and a matriarchal legal system that predates any other. The oldest still standing structure in the world is to be found at Newgrange.
What have the romans ever done for us.
Eamon
Eamon,
Yes yes. And the Aztecs had running water and bathed frequently but they still ate their own.
It may well be an apocriphal point so I will no longer make it since I have no facts to back it up – it’s just something I heard a few times along the way. (and to be frank I would love to be descended from people who really did eat each other – think of how far we’d come! Makes up for fact that none of us were snake-handlers)
But I do know for a fact that on my Father’s side go back far enough and they painted their bodies blue!
I am sure Charles’ ancenstor would have found that simpy barbaric.
🙂
Garth, Eamonn,
As a Galwayman myself may I point out that both of you make it embarrassing for me to admit I’m Irish. Some of the claims you make are mortifying. Just a few points (it’s Friday evening and I need a drink):
Garth:
“Gypsies/Roma (at least many groups of them) are famed for eschewing literacy and schooling.”
Never heard that one before. Why didn’t you mention our Irish tinkers, most of whom are leading intellectuals, if not quite philosophes?
“Russia has been producing top computer programers, mathematicians, chess champions, writers, etc etc etc for decades.”
Most were, in fact, Russian Jews rather than native Russians: Bukovsky, Aleksandr Zinoviev, Brodsky, etc. etc. Russian Jews: 1% of the population, 50% of the elite.
“Charles, do you think the North Koreans somehow genetically different (inferior) from their southern cousins and after a mere 50 years apart?”
North Korea is a vile statist country.
South Korea is a relatively free society.
I assume that Koreans have much the same IQ, North and South. It’s the economy, stupid!
Eamonn:
“When St Patrick arrived in Ireland he found a migrant civilisation that had invented the following.
Iron; soap; cuniform writing and a matriarchal legal system that predates any other.”
So the Celts invented iron? Jesus wept. Have you been reading that low-level junk by Thomas Cahill or what?
The Jesuits taught us in Galway that when St Patrick arrived in Ireland he banished all the serpents and homosexuals — but they never mentioned anything about the Celts being alchemists …
Know what we need to finish off this thread?
We need an instantiation of Godwin’s law. Godwin’s law states that all threads come to an end when one participant accuses another of stumbling down the slippery slope towards Nazism. Also know as reductio ad Hitlerum.
Ok, for once I’ll do it: Garth, Eamonn, you’re clearly libertarian enemies of the welfare state and want the lower classes to starve to death.
Just like the Nazis.
Charles
For someone who spends a lot of time whinging about ad hominem attacks, you sure don’t mind launching a few yourself.
I’ll clarify. There is ample evidence to prove that the celts were the first to start smelting and working Iron. Obviously Iron can’t be invented. It merely exists. But you know that already. You’re just dishonest as well as being a racist.
And seeing as alchemy is the practice of turning base metals into precious ones it’s not suprising they never mentioned it in relation to iron works.
By the way, if Patrick banished all the homosexuals then he didn’t do a very good job of it.
Does this mean I can label you a homophobe as well as everything else.
By the way Charles I’d go easy on being ashamed by being Irish. You have lots of other things to be ashamed of.
Eamon