We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Brian remarks that no one posts him advice about what to say about Third World poverty, but that he was relatively flooded with info about the US soccer team. This is a good sign. Worrying about the US soccer team is a relatively harmless past-time. (Revelling in their defeat of Mexico might be dangerous in some places however). The libertarian answer to what radio listeners should do about the Third World is basically “do nothing”. The three main obstacles to enrichment of people in the Third World fifteen years ago were:
1) the skirmishing of the Cold War (which I think was justified by anti-Soviet forces)
2) the absence of the rule of law
3) trade barriers and a belief that socialism was better than capitalism for developing economies
The first is redundant.
The second can only come about by internal pressures or by the imposition of direct colonial rule from the only country whose constitution I would trust: Switzerland. Realistically this means, the Africans are going to have to sort it out for themselves.
The third is very simple. We oppose Bush’s trade tarriffs. We want the European Union Common Agricultural Policy abolished immediately. We should also try to stop the IMF and the World Bank from financing welfare state programmes in countries that can’t afford them (and never will afford them, if they try to leap from pre-industrial to welfare-underclass in one go).
BRING ON BRAZIL!!!!!!!!!
Doesn’t sound like such a big deal does it? Portugal out? What’s new? So are France. So are Argentina. No, the big story is that the USA are through to the last 16, despite being beaten 3-1 by Poland. Weird weird world (cup) or what?
On a more serious note, I’m doing a broadcast for BBC Radio Scotland this Sunday morning (at about 9.15 am) on the subject of what the Trade Justice Movement hopes will be a big demo by the Trade Justice Movement. What should I say? Their campaign seems to be big on waffle and weak on specifics, which I think is probably good because any specifics they favour would probably be bad. So what specifics (a particular identified tarriff barrier – a particular WTO procedure or rule or programme) should I talk about?
Please don’t email me with why free market economics in general is better than statism in general for getting rid of world poverty. I already know that.
A few days ago, I received through the post one of those half-book half-pamphlet things (only 85 pages long but with a readable spine) that have so abounded ever since the Institute of Economic Affairs got into its stride, this one being from the Social Affairs Unit. It is called Marketing The Revolution: The New Anti-Capitalism and The Attack Upon Corporate Brands. It’s by Michael Mosbacher, who is a longish standing friend/acquaintance of mine. It’s good.
There’s a biographical note at the back which tells us that Mike, who is now the Deputy Director of the Social Affairs Unit, once upon a time “studied politics at Exeter University, writing his Master’s dissertation on the impact of the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union upon the British Communist movement”. This, or something pretty like it, was published by the Libertarian Alliance as Political Notes No. 127. This new piece is the logical successor of that earlier one. It describes some of the new globalised groups and campaigning methods and ideological themes that have elbowed their way forward to fill the void once occupied by those pathetic old Bolsheviks and all their massed ranks of useful and not so useful idiots.
Here’s a chunk, not from the piece itself, but from the press release that arrived with it:
The broader message is an old, and rather tired one, hatred of capitalism, the belief that the world is diametrically and permanently divided between the exploiting corporate fat cat few and the exploited masses. What’s changed is the way that message is now being marketed to a new, wider audience by piggy-backing on the corporations’ own publicity. The activists do this, often via websites, by cleverly parodying corporate ads, organising media-friendly stunts at AGMs and launching boycotts.
That you can play games with a famous brand and get your joke bounced around the world at virtually no cost to yourself is a fact that Samizdata readers have several times also been invited to enjoy. Think of the logo adaptations we’ve featured of London Underground (“take a taxi”), and of Intel (“Big Brother inside”).
Would that Mike Mosbacher’s work was making equally clever use of the Internet. Alas, the Social Affairs Unit website makes that of my dear old Libertarian Alliance look downright advanced. That it doesn’t refer in any way to this publication is peculiar (although technical difficulties have also prevented any reference to the LA’s latest batch of paper yet finding its way onto our site). But far worse than that, the SAU website commits the basic old-school sin of using the internet only to try to sell paper, instead of also to distribute text free of charge. There’s nowhere on the site from which you can download anything “published” by the SAU, other than short bits of sales blurb. If you actually want to read anything substantial that they’ve “published”, you have to order it through the post. You have to pay money. (For all the difference it can make me saying it here, you can buy Marketing the Revolution by sending GBP9.95p plus GBP1 for postage and packing (blogspotbollocks won’t do pound signs so please decypher that as best you can) to: Social Affairs Unit, 314-322 Regent Street, London, W1B 3BB. Or ring Mike Mosbacher himself on 020 7637 4356.)
You’ve got to make a living, and if you are in politics, “public affairs” etc., that tends to involve doing things that ignorant old people think will influence the young, rather than doing things that actually will influence them. I don’t blame Mike Mosbacher for the foolishness of writing interesting things about the internet but then publishing them in an internet-hostile manner. Well, maybe I do, because like I say he doesn’t just write for the SAU; he is its Deputy Director. Whatever. But let’s be clear what the next step is: an internet presentation of Mike’s stuff which actually deploys some of the good work that he’s been doing in an internet-usable form.
Because it is good work. Mike is not overwhelmingly strong, for my taste, on analysis. His big picture is somewhat unpersuasive. He makes much, for example, of the fact that anti-capitalists make a living within the world of actually existing capitalism by having capitalist money of their own, and by accepting great lashings of it from others who do if they don’t. So what? This is like moaning about Soviet dissidents who also had jobs as government scientists. What were they supposed to do? Starve? The case against these anti-capitalists isn’t that they are taking money from capitalism to trash capitalism; it is that they are trashing capitalism.
But if the big picture is somewhat blurred, the small pictures are in exact focus again and again. Just as with PN127, Mike digs into just how this campaign operates, and what that bunch of lefty-capitalist self-haters actually say and do and ill-spend their well-gotten gains. Waffle it is not. And again as with PN127 (communists who reviewed that said it was very accurate), those it describes would recognise the details as accurate rather than the polemical and inaccurate waffle that is often presented as anti-anti-capitalist “analysis”.
Mike is good on the way that capitalism appropriates the imagery of youthful rebellion and uses it to sell things to those same youths when they get a bit older. (While doing this I also noted a TV advert featuring the late Jimmy Hendricks emitting all manner of anti-establishmentarian vibrations via the latest psychedelic computer-graphical trickeries, in honour of the latest Audi.)
But one of the better bits of analysis comes not from the text itself, but from that same press release which I’ve already referred to. Just after the bit quoted above, it goes on to say:
Because its impulse is anti-capitalism rather than ameliorating the practice of corporations, the anti-corporate movement views progressive corporate policies as simply an attempt to mask the true nature of capitalism; which it is their mission to unmask. The harder an individual corporation seeks to show that it is doing good, the more important it becomes for these activists to seek to show that it is not. Progressive companies are attacked not in spite of, but because of their progressiveness.
I don’t remember anything as bang-on-the-nail as that in the thing itself, although of course in Marketing the Revolution itself there’s much more detail:
The TV stations of Turner and the skin care products and lotions of the Roddicks are, of course, themselves identified by the anti-branders with all the alleged sins of branding. They are, in fact, seen as especially heinous offenders by some: the mainstream media represented by Ted Turner is seen as the engine behind the construction of the branded world and Anita Roddick is the champion of what they see as the blind alley of ‘ethical consumerism’. Hence, The Body Shop was a prominent target on the web-based hit list of corporations to be subject to ‘anti-capitalist actions on Tuesday 1st May 2001’.
Here we have a principle that might enable the pro-capitalist movement to start making some waves of its own, by piggy-backing on the anti-capitalists. We can note which corporations are trying to be seriously “progressive” to the point of being actually anti- any capitalism but their own, and especially if they are doing this not just with their messages but with their money. We can point out to them not only that they are asking for trouble, but that, if they don’t stop letting the capitalist side down, we will set the anti-capitalist dogs on them.
It’s no use blaming anti-capitalists from getting money from whoever they can, but you damn well can blame capitalists for giving it to them.
Hard-line socialist journalist Paul Foot Paul Foot waxes indignant in the Guardian newspaper on Wednesday about what he sees as the systemic sickness of capitalism, as demonstrated in his view by the demise of such U.S. corporate behemoths as Enron Corp and conglomerate Tyco. Foot quotes the Goldman Sachs chief executive Hank Paulson, who warned last week that “Business has never been under so much scrutiny. To be blunt, much of it is deserved.”
These words, which will hardly strike readers of this blog as controversial, come in for the following Foot broadside. Let’s quote the man in full: “The problem with this argument is that it overlooks the central feature of capitalism: the division of the human race into those who profit from human endeavour and those who don’t. This division demands freedom for employers, and discipline for workers; high pay and perks for bosses, low pay for the masses; riches for the few, poverty for the many.”
In other words, life is a zero-sum game. If I profit from selling you a pair of shoes, a newspaper or a motor car, then you have “lost”. If you are poor, your poverty must be caused by my wealth, and vice versa. No-where in Foot’s mental universe is the idea entertained that both sides in a trade gain, since why else would they trade in the first place? In his world, no wealth is really ever created, just redistributed or grabbed by one group from another. His world is essentially closed. It is not surprising that a world fashioned according to such beliefs will be marked by stasis and decline. If we were to accept Foot’s take on capitalism, the history of mankind and its staggering increase in wealth at all levels would be incomprehensible.
I have no quarrel with the many commentators who have blasted the U.S. financial system for the bad lapses in recent months. The demise of Enron, the faltering faith in the quality of corporate accounting and the shenanigans of analysts secretly trashing stocks while plugging them in public have damaged the U.S. economy. But surely what these sagas show is that capitalism, often with brutal power, punishes malefactors and ultimately puts a premium on honesty and fair dealing, and at the same time educates the masses into investing carefully. In short, capitalism works because it embraces a form of feedback, as mis-judgements and crooked behaviour get punished. This is something one won’t readily find in the socialist world of which Paul Foot dreams.
In the recent Samizdata article American Perfidy it is claimed that “apart from the tax cut” Mr Bush has allowed his agenda to collapse.
Actually (as I and others have pointed out) “apart from the tax cut” Mr Bush did not have an agenda worth talking about (just a lot of waffle about being “compassionate” by handing out tax payers’ money to religious charities). To be fair if Mr Bush had gone into the 2000 election with a decent agenda he would have lost. The “window of opportunity” that existed in Britain in 1979 and the United States in 1981 has gone. Just over 20 years ago most people would have accepted real budget cuts and deregulation, but this mood has past. The public (in both the Britain and the United States) are now obsessed with the “public services” and see new regulations as the correct response to any problem from Enron to hay fever.
Sadly the judgement on Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher must be that they had a chance but failed (in terms of regulations and welfare state programs government is bigger than ever now) – although in both cases one can produce a case for the defence (Mr Reagan faced a House of Reps controlled by the Democrats, Mrs Thatcher was surrounded by traitors from day one…). As for Mr Bush – he never had a chance. The media were against him, the “intellectuals” and their universities were against him, the Republicans did not have firm control of the Senate – all these things might have been overcome. However, Mr Bush faces a general public the majority of whom are statist – and against that what can he do?
Oh by the way – no Mr Clinton did not favour free trade. Mr Clinton liked trade agreements if they led to regulations being imposed on countries (especially “pro labour” union type regulations) and he especially liked trade deals if they helped build up the old dream of a world government (replacing G.A.T.T. with the W.T.O. was a fifty year old dream in certain circles in the U.S.) – one step at a time was Mr Clinton’s way (after the health care defeat early on in his administration). However an actual free trade deal – no, Mr Clinton never very keen on them.
Paul Marks
The recent massive U.S. government increase in subsidy to its domestic farmers comes in for a deserved and amusing mauling from Daily Telegraph journalist and Tory MP Boris Johnson. He is right to point out that by signing off the vast increase in aid to American farmers, Bush has compounded the damage to international free markets made when he agreed to steel and lumber tariffs earlier in the year.
On a broader point, this makes me wonder whether Bush is headed for going down in history as one of the most protectionist Presidents since the Second World War. On the domestic front his pre-election agenda seems to fallen apart with the exception of the tax cut. Instead, Bush is resorting to pork-barrel politics to shore up support in supposed key states for the Republicans ahead of the Congressional elections this autumn. Of course, we libertarians hold no illusions about politicians as a group, so I suppose Bush’s slide into cynicism should not surprise us. But I never thought I could write the following words – I am beginning to miss Bill Clinton. At least he believed in free trade, if nothing else.
As everyone knows by now, US Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill and U2 frontman Paul “Bono” Hewson just completed a week-long tour of Africa. While the unlikely pair seem to play off each each other well on stage, and seem to be getting along well offstage, it is not entirely clear how Mr. Bono has suddenly emerged as a power-broker. Several news sources attributed this quote to the man with the wraparound shades:
“[O’Neill] is the man in charge of America’s wallet … and it’s true, I want to open that wallet.”
None of the news sources I saw chose to elaborate on this comment’s obvious falseness. The treasury cannot release any funds until the proper appropriation and authorization bills have made their way through Congress. (I will cut Mr. Hewson some slack because he is not an American; but if certain members of the press need a refresher course in this area, I would recommend that they review their Schoolhouse Rock.) At any rate, it makes you wonder why we should take anything else the guy says seriously.
Bono’s cause is third-world debt relief. He argues that the heavy external debts of foreign governments are the principal obstacle to their emergence from poverty. We shall examine those claims briefly. How effective are official debt-relief programs in improving economic performance? Well, we can let history be the judge, since we have tried this before. In the late 1980s, the US treasury department began a debt-relief program called the Brady Plan, in which creditor banks were encouraged (through the stick / carrot of the federal tax code) to refinance debt at subsidized rates and reduce principal levels by allowing banks to replace severely discounted loans with new debt at levels closer to par value.
Was the Brady Plan a success? It depends on how you define success. If the objective was debt reduction as an end in itself, then the Brady Plan looked good — more than $60 billion in foreign debt was forgiven, by one estimate. But did the Brady Plan succeed on a larger scale, i.e. did it promote economic growth and encourage more responsible borrowing by third world governments? Sorry, Bono, but the track record there is not so good.
In his book International Debt Reexamined (unfortunately no longer in print, though I have a copy from my grad-school days), economist William R. Cline demonstrates that the economies of Brady Plan participants did not outperform those of nonparticipants with similar debt levels in the 1990s. So much for the argument that debt relief is a sine qua non of future economic growth.
Moreover, there is evidence that the Brady Plan (and other official debt relief programs) merely crowded out private debt relief efforts such as debt-for-equity and debt-for-nature swaps, which had commendably been on the rise throughout the mid to late 1980s. The announcement of the Plan itself had the effect of encouraging further profligacy — if your mortgage banker announced that it might be forgiving or substantially reducing your mortgage debt in the near future, wouldn’t you think twice before mailing in your next payment?
Bono’s line of reasoning on third-world debt would have found a favorable audience with economists a generation ago, but has long since fallen out of respectability. The new generation of development economists, spearheaded by the Peruvian economist and think-tank chairman Hernando de Soto, argues that the people of the third world already hold the solution to their poverty. This makes things difficult for would-be celebrity messiahs like Bono. Sorry, pal, but the world is ready to move on, with or without you.
… Paul Staines does not think so!
British Chancellor Gordon Brown’s recent splurge on the National Health Service was supposed to be supported by a bouyant economy, but first quarter figures (just released) are terrible.
Manufacturing output tumbled by 1.5 per cent, leaving it 6.5 per cent down on the same time last year ÷ the biggest annual decline since the recession of the early Eighties. A further slump in exports, by nearly 7 per cent, also took a heavy toll.
On the plus side that means mortgage rates are very unlikely to rise near term, but taxes may be more likely to rise as the economy stagnates – unless you think New Labour would actually consider reducing state spending?
As the graphic shows we have slipped from first to last in the G7 growth league – as the other G7 countries voters all shifted rightwards.
Things are going to get more difficult for Brown, sooner rather than later.
Paul Staines
World trade could be a powerful motor to reduce poverty, and support economic growth, but that potential is being lost. The problem is not that international trade is inherently opposed to the needs and interests of the poor, but that the rules that govern it are rigged in favour of the rich.
-Oxfam, from the Introduction to their Report Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade, Globalisation, and the Fight Against Poverty. See their Make Trade Fair campaign website (but don’t expect the rules to be any less rigged by the time they’ve finished with them).
No doubt anti-market commentators will be using the current troubles of U.S. broking giant Merrill Lynch to bash the capitalist system. But they would be wrong, just as wrong, in fact, as to say that the demise of U.S. energy titan Enron was a slap in the face for we free-market types.
Not so. What I think the Merrill saga shows is that in a dynamic marketplace where more and more wealth is attached to the realm of ideas rather than physical capital, it is crucial to ensure good behaviour. Merrill has suffered over doubts about the impartiality of the analyst advice given to clients. It shows how the brutal forces sweeping global capitalism can chasten the brashest of Wall Street players.
And it ought to show investors in stocks and bonds something else – let the buyer beware!
One of the things that the blogosphere provides is stories, for the mainstream media. And I’m starting to believe that the multinational pharmaceuticals corporation Pfizer – best-known in the UK, if known of at all, for producing the world-renowned wrinkly recreational drug Viagra – is a story.
The thing is, Pfizer supports the free market, with arguments and with money. The magazine Prospect, for example, now contains, on the inside of each front cover, not mere adverts for Pfizer, but essays under the heading “Pfizer forum”, frequently of a decidedly pro-free-market persuasion. In September of last year, for example, they had one by Milton Friedman.
Go to the Pfizer website. Look there under “public policy” and you get the Pfizer forum website. It turns out that one of those pro-free-market essays is by Johan Norberg and is called “In Defense of Global Capitalism”. So they’re not making much of a secret about being in favour of capitalism, are they?
I have already passed the question on through a mutual friend, of mine and of Pfizer. (He wrote one of the Pfizer forum essays.) I repeat the question here: What if the global anti-capitalist left decides to “expose” Pfizer? What if they try to turn them into corporate demons, the way they demonised Dow Chemicals (napalm, if I remember it right), and then Monsanto (genetic engineering)? What if anti-capitalist stirrers start showing up at Pfizer annual general meetings? Maybe this has been tried, but hasn’t worked.
Pfizer must have thought about this because like I say they are not supporting capitalism in secret; they are advertising that they support it. Yet if you type “Pfizer” into Google, you have to wade through a ton of pro-Pfizer material before you encounter anything remotely critical. (The first anti-Pfizer thing I spotted was Oxfam complaining about Pfizer’s attitude to their patents. I guess Pfizer believes that their patents are theirs.)
It is because most multinational corporations do not like the answers to questions like the one I am asking that they do not support capitalism other than in apologetic whispers. How come Pfizer thinks it’s good business to support it out loud? I am delighted they do. Nevertheless, why? I am sure some of this story has already been written, but not so I have noticed. And written or not, like I say, it is a story.
Cato Institute member, scourge of protectionist idiocy and blogger Brink Lindsey pays a fulsome and moving tribute to recently-deceased American steelmaker Ken Iverson, who tore up the script on how to make steel. Iverson reads like a character straight out of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. He founded the “mini-mill” model of steel production using scrap steel and smaller, less cumbersome production techniques, founding the North Carolina firm Nuccor.
Iverson consistently opposed tariffs and other protectionist measures, believing his style of business could flourish in a free market. His success as a businessman is a poke in the eye of deluded economists and vote-grabbing politicians who think that such key industries as steel can only survive under the umbrella of government support. Iverson proved the opposite. Ken Iverson was by all accounts very different from the sleek business figures of left-wing demonology. A down to earth character who took his own phone calls and motivated his staff. He surely will take his place in the Pantheon of real capitalist heroes. Reading his brief life story helped brighten my day.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
