The Over-consuming Capitalist

We live in the age of consumerism, where new products meet new needs in new ways every day. We have computers with Internet-access, mobile telephones, iPods, mp3-players in trendy city-cars or four-wheel driving monster-jeeps, bleached hair, leather-jackets, flashy espresso-machines, flat-screen plasma televisions and so on and so on. We are drowning in money-spending options in almost every field and suffocating in consumption of things and stuff that has nothing to do with basic survival, and thank god for that!

But the hyper-consumption and variety of options has its limits. We can, on the average, not chose too many ways of medical treatment, education or ways of helping the poor and helpless. The government has taken the role of supervisor over our health, education and basic upbringing. The result is that no-one complains over "too many hospitals" or "too much education" or "too few people to help". In the areas of State-control, the general rule is a lack of options, as opposed to hyper-consumption on the free market.

And isn't that worth thinking about?

Stay home and don't work!

Europe has an immigrant-problem. The problem can be summarized as follows: Invite millions and millions of people to live in your country. Pay them so much social-welfare that they don't even think about entering the job-market. Lock them up in special ghettoes so they wont have any relations to the natives. Stamp on their religion and show them that they are not the norm in the country they live in. Raise a few generations like this. Then you have a problem.

The French riots are not a shocking event. They are the social-democratic immigrant-policy in action. They are one more step in French's downfall as an economic power in the world. They are the results from 50 years of European Leftism.

The constant fight against personal liberty

Decades and, in some cases, centuries ago, most Western nations drew themselves constitutions that stated clearly what the State can and cannot do. These fundamental rules were the fruits of hard work of countless thinkers, built upon the foundations of the individual freedom to act and speak in the manner he sees fit, as long as he harms no others freedom to do the same. The foundations of freedom to act, work, speak and own where the boundaries drawn for the State to respect, and never to cross.

These new rules of State-bounding worked like a charm, giving birth to the most prosperous and wealthiest countries in the world, where freedom to act was own was respected, and the natural and productive behaviour of free individuals flourished. Of course the Left never gave completely up, and Statists have always existed despite clear evidence that the State is the sand in the industrial-motor fuelled by human productiveness. Every attack upon the foundations of free constitutions has been made - from the freedom to act to the freedom to own (although, an attack on one is always - in logical understanding - an attack upon the other). The 20th century witnessed most of the disastrous results of such attacks, giving birth to horrors ranging from Hitler's Third Reich to the Swedish welfare-model. Every submission to the Statist's views leads, in one way or another, to human sufferings, less production, less wealth, lower living-standards and fewer opportunities to create valuable property where worthless raw-materials were before. Although the death-toll of each Statist's scheme varies greatly, the long-term effects turn out to be the same: The suffocating breath of Socialism killing off life and free initiatives wherever it's carried.

The modern schemes of Statists to seize control over human society have been adjusted to modern times. The welfare-model has recently seen its decline go into full swing, and desperately socialized countries such as Germany, Sweden and Denmark have begun to see the need to shake of the authoritarian ghost. Schools and hospitals are again being released to the free market, taxes world-wide have begun to sink, the free enterprise along with its twin - the private property right - are breaking down the walls of the toughest Communist states (China, Vietnam). Globalisation and the world-wide free market are freeing millions of individuals from the poverty-claws of Statism. Economic freedom measures higher and higher, year by year. The trend is in the positive direction, and desperate fighters of socialism, anti-globalisation, reduced personal freedom and private ownership and other such remnants of the old-school Left don't shut up, but their time is out.

The constant fight against liberty continues, but so must the battle for liberty. It took blood, sweat and tears to provide the Western world with constitutions of freedom to act, speak and own. It must never be left up for grabs for the Statists to destroy.

Semi-break

This web-site will take a little semi-break now. The reason is excessive load at work, and the fact that this author now writes columns for two Icelandic newspapers, averaging to about 6 articles per month, plus writing for another politically related site and an own personal blog (in Icelandic). That should be plenty!

Perhaps something will pop up here from time to time. At some point there will be a full comeback.

E-mails are always welcome. Thank you for your visits.

Those awful Americans

Johan Norberg with a good point:

After all, who should deal with a war on the Balkans, a nuclear threat in North Korea, or a civil war in Africa? Well, Europeans, Asians and Africans, of course. As long as we don´t, and always call on the American world police to come save us, perhaps we should think again before we say that the Americans have themselves to blame when they are everywhere but home. (#)

The fact is that Europeans by themselves can't deal with the threats of the world. Americans ended World War 1 and 2, the war in former Yugoslavia and the dictator-ship of Saddam, but above all, Americans have made sure that capitalism and freedom prevail in a world filled with socialists and fascists of all origins and religions.

Of course it's not to be expected that those who focus solely on the equality of material wealth understand the concept of freedom, but surrendering to their greed for other peoples fruits of labour and life is not an option. Never!

Capitalism not only works, its also fair and just

Socialists think they are on a morally higher ground than the supporters of capitalism and the free society. Socialists want an equal distribution of wealth. Everything else seems to of less importance. Is that really what matters? Is the material battle of equality of wealth so important that everything else can make way for it?

Of course not. But the socialist has another approach on his wealth-redistribution approach, and that is to point out the inequality of capitalism. Historically this has worked well for the socialist, and the capitalist usually finds himself in defense. The capitalist can point out that capitalism means peace, wealth, food for all, clothes for all, freedom for all. However, there's always the inequality of wealth. The socialist keeps the capitalist in defense with that sole, insignificant factor of free societies.

This must end. The capitalist does not just have all the facts on his side, and all the practical research and numbers. He also has the moral high-ground.

This author will soon invest in the book The Capitalist Manifesto. Not because is contains anything new. Not because it has some new philosophical ideas. But because maybe it can shake capitalists out of their unjustified defense-position and start the offense against the remnants of socialism. It's taken far too long to kill socialism. Who knows, maybe it will work in this wave of attack?

Pre-emptive strike

Osiraq - a pre-emptive strike no-one yells about today (not even the Left).

Economic freedom

Economic freedom is another way to say: Libertarian Economic Policy. It means low taxes, small government, few regulations, well protected private property rights, rule of law and a free market. It means Capitalism. Again and again it has been shown that capitalism is the best system to improve lives, health and environment, and is also the only system which passes the tests of logic, reason and fairness. However, many focus on usability of political theory and Capitalism meets all the demands in that respect.

To be continued...

Tax-cuts are a human rights issue, not money issue

Tax-cuts have always been a big issue in the political debate. The Right wants them because it boosts the economy, creates jobs and strengthens the State's revenue foundation. The Left opposes them and wants the State to control the society's wealth and thereby control individuals and companies, plus claiming that high taxes insure the State a strong revenue foundation. The Left doesn't know that time and time again, tax cuts increase, not decrease the State's tax revenues. The socialistic method of increasing taxes to fund a bankrupt State is still alive, despite evidence of the method's cruel consequences and complete lack of results.

Taxes are State control. Only a small part of taxation is actually about money. Taxes change behaviour, distort decision-making and move power from the people and to the politicians. Tax-cuts are a human rights issue, and cutting taxes is equivalent to stopping violence and hindering theft.

A new must-read website

An interesting website, The Private Sector Development Blog, recently emerged as a must-read for the (classically) liberal surfer (link via). A small self-portrait:

The Private Sector Development Blog (PSD Blog) gathers together news, resources and ideas about the role of private enterprise in fighting poverty.

But of course there is no lack of information about the great power of the free market to slash down poverty and reduce human misery. Capitalism is, after all, what separates the doing-wells from the doing-bads in this world.

The warming of Politicians

A useful point in the discussion of global warming:

While temperature numbers can be added up, the result is not a “total temperature,” because no such thing exists. Neither does the global “average” temperature describe the actual climate, any more than the “average phone number” describes the phone book. (#)

After decades of talk back and forth about global warming, global cooling and in general, changes in global climate, it is only just recently that some actual consensus has been reached about the methods for measuring temperature changes in Earth's climate. With that discussion coming to an end, the next question is to figure out what exactly causes these changes, if they are of any significance, if they are our (the human race) fault or no-ones fault, and if changes in global temperatures should become a reason for political intervention.

The Kyoto-protocol turned out to be just another tool of the Left to grasp control over the free market. Suggesting that politicians have a role when it comes to climate issues is a risky business. How about giving the free initiative a chance a little longer? It has worked wonders until now, and there is no reason to think it won't from now on.

Myths

Myths are many in the political debate. Here are two of them:

Video games are becoming more and more violent, and they result in more and more violence: Of course this statement is usually followed by some kind of State-intervention, new laws, bans or restrictions. This myth has been attacked with sound logic for a while, but it doesn't hurt to show (via) that the numbers clearly suggest that video games are not what triggers violence.

In order to save the Earth's climate from drastic changes due to human activities, we must force industries to reduce the release of CO₂ into the atmosphere: This myth is not only wrong, but also cruel: "If electricity prices are driven up, making air conditioning less affordable who will suffer the most [during heat waves]? The poorest amongst us who can least afford higher prices, and who thereby would suffer more heat related deaths." (#) Tech Central Station's Climate-section is an excellent reality-check in all the global warming hype.

The latest science indicates that the temperature increases over the past 150 years are simply a recovery from the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1400 to 1850. Current global temperatures aren't even as warm as the Medieval Climate Optimum of 900 to 1350 AD, a time when wine vineyards flourished in England. Vineyards also thrived in Britain two thousand years ago, during the earlier Roman Warming. At this point, three independent, real-world climate records -- ice cores, seabed sediments, and plant pollen databases -- indicate that a moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has occurred for the last half-million years, driven by variations in the intensity of our sun. And the science supporting the natural climate cycle grows day by day in the peer-reviewed literature. (#)

So, why are the rich countries of the world flushing billions of dollars down the toilet? And why is the market facing harsher and harsher regulations and costs in the name of environmental protection? Oh, because of an Ice Age 500 years ago! Those who confuse global warming with urban warning should be left out of the debate and not left to write the headlines.

A new wage-policy in Socialism

Everyone knows the old communist slang, From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. It's not Karl Marx's words, but a description communists use themselves when packing their evil ideology into something sellable (gulags, Stalin and empty old-Soviet store-shelves don't sell that good any more).

But now it seems socialism has had a face-lift. The so-called Communist Party USA, and old-fashioned anti-trade, labour theory of value organization of socialists, has re-shaped the old communist-slang, and now it's become:

From each according to his/her ability, to each according to his/her work.

..followed with a short explanation:

Socialism provides incentives for working better, producing more and higher quality goods, acquiring advanced skills. It does NOT equalize wages. Wages vary according to occupation and efficiency, although everyone is guaranteed a liveable wage.

This is an important change. Now wages are dependant on something: The doctor is rewarded for his education and skills (hence he's not going to join other doctors in Cuba in the taxi-driving business). The un-skilled worker is rewarded for his increase in skills (hence he will have less incentive to join workers in France on social welfare while jobs stay vacant). In short - communism has become market-oriented and abandoned the labour theory in principle.

It takes a long time to shift an old ideology like socialism in the right direction. However, it's possible and it's happening. Who knows, maybe in another 200 years we will have eliminated the ideology and the majority of its descendant ideologies?

Not If, but When

The following picture is a popular one to have on fashionable clothes available in the capitalistic free-market: The question now is not if, but when the same crowd, which decorates itself with that picture, starts to use the one here below: Of course I might be wrong, and I hope history will prove me wrong, but I don't think so.

Myths

The media is filled with myths. Some myths are repeated so often that it's often hard not to believe them. At times like that it's good to have the shelter of good think tanks to seek protection from the brain-washing.

The current [state operated, tax-funded health care] system [in Britain] provides care to all regardless of income. Again, there is a belief that this requires nationalised provision. And again, this is a myth. The mixed system that once existed in the UK, and similar systems that currently exist in other countries, generally provide better health care for the poor than the does the NHS. Health care for the less well off can be financed by general income redistribution or by the provision of government finance to allow the less well off to obtain private insurance. Indeed, the voluntary sector is often more effective than the state in providing assistance to the less well off. Changes to the structure within which health care is delivered in the UK could benefit all and end the equality of misery from which we suffer at the moment. Today’s system of allocating resources through the political system does not benefit the poor: it benefits the articulate, and those in the more prosperous areas that have the least difficulty attracting medical staff. (#)

A nationalised, tax-funded, centralized health care system is a crippled one. It has no incentives to improve its practice, increase quality and service, cut costs, attract good staff, prevent people from getting sick or help people get well. The only mentionable incentive is the ambition of the good, well-intentioned bureaucrat who regulates with his right arm and hires more bureaucrats with his left.

The myth of the nationalised health care-system is very much alive, despite facts, research and experience telling a different story. How can we change that?

Freedom to... surf?

An Icelandic Leftist recently wrote a bad article about libertarianism, stating many weird things about the fundamental logic behind the ideology (sorry, its in Icelandic!). The article was typical in the way that it described the fundamental difference between those who doubt the power of the State, and those who doubt the power of the free market and individual liberty. One of the claims the author made was the following:

According to the ideology [of libertarians], a certain reduction of the individual's liberty is involved with the State giving everyone access to basic rights without regards to income.

(Yes, he wrote "access to basic rights"). The reversed version could be something like this:

The State should have the right to give everyone access to basic rights without anyone feeling like his individual liberty is being reduced.

The basic difference between the mindset of the libertarian mind and the socialist mind comes clear to light: The former defines liberty as being free from violence and fraud. The second defines liberty as some kind of certain "basic" materialistic standard of living.

Of course no-one has to doubt which one of those two ways of thinking has worked better (one being a utilitarian only interested in such things). The negative definition of liberty, like the one the libertarian uses, is by far superior to the positive definition of the socialist, and huge amounts of historical experience and research data verifies that every time (mail me if you aren't convinced - geirag $at$ gmail.com). But what about the justification? Can it be justified that liberty shouldn't include some kind of "safety" for the poor and the weak? Isn't it cruel and inhumane to exclude materialistic needs from the definition of liberty? Is anyone free when he's poor and hungry?

To answer this question one needs to answer another question first: Do we accept the self-ownership right of the individual? If we do then liberty can only be defined as the right to be left alone. If we don't, the first question is up for discussion. By defining liberty as the right to some materialistic values, such as access to schools, hospitals, food, housing, clothes, internet-connections and mobile telephones (like an Icelandic student-union once suggested), transportation and more, we reject the self-ownership of the individual. The liberty purely becomes a definition of what the members of the society should have in order to be "free". Factors such as the will to work, the individual's ambitions and goals in life and the individual's drive (be it money, a view to the ocean or an interest in collector's stamps) becomes irrelevant because he has been defined as a member of a society where he must first and foremost have access to certain services and products before he can seek other things in life.

So the basic issue involves the individual's self-ownership. The socialist rejects it, and so do the descendant ideologies of socialism. The libertarian accepts the individual's self-ownership, and so do the descendant ideologies of libertarianism/classic liberalism. By hiding this basic difference between Left and Right the socialist has been able to keep his popularity with the public. If it's fundamentals were realized by more, we would have had socialism and its Leftist-offspring away a long time ago.

The ever-lasting victim (to the Left)

Activism is a physical expression of an opinion. It is that of protesting, walking with a sign, meeting people on the streets, distributing fliers, holding speeches and giving out a message in any form. It is the opposite of sitting at home and nag about the state of things. It is the active person versus the inactive.

However, not everyone would share this personal view of mine on what activism is. Groups of people seem to think that activism is a licence to destroy, disrupt, injure and steal. The justification is that the ruling class of some sort is bulldozing over the common man and nothing less than hard action is necessary to express the public outrage against the political elite. Those who give themselves the licence to destroy tend to look at themselves as victims, and sometimes even oppressed victims. When their behaviour is criticized they fight back by claiming everyone else is sucking up to the political elite. Even the most common guy who raises his voice against a group of sabotagers can catch himself in the storm of name-callings and sometimes even threats. No-one can criticize those who destroy in the name of oppression and victimization.

In Iceland, my native land, this trend is unfortunately coming very much alive. A small group of professional protesters is destroying road-signs, tools and cars in the name of their self-righteous battle against the ruling class. Another group of protesters took up the French method of road-blocking to create a name for themselves. Those who object these methods are nick-named members of the ruling class - if you don't like the destruction and the disruption you are one of those, one of the rulers, one of the controllers of the public debate.

We all know where the sabotaging protesters land on the political spectrum. The are Leftists, Greenies and anti-capitalists. The liberal/libertarian protester [1, 2] respects the free will, the free debate, private property rights and the democratic framework. Pointing that out to those who sympathise for sabotage in the name of protest doesn't help. It results in more Leftist-wrath and name-calling. I know.

Materialistic, work-a-holic, hyper-consuming... and happy!

A fine point made here by Johann Norberg. It seems Europeans are not just poorer than Americans, but also less happy, or is there a connection?

Europeans usually get a thrill talking down to Americans. "Americans are big, fat, stupid television-junkies" is not an uncommon statement in the mouth of the European self-acclaimed intellectual. Americans don't mind that much. They are more successful, richer and happier. Why should they care? Do Europeans care if the average sub-Saharan beggar nicknames Europeans big, fat, smart-ass materialistic idiots? I think not. The European is the poor, cheap, grumpy and unsuccessful man in America.

Americans pave the way in medical science. Americans bring us GPS, most of the satellites orbiting Earth, an army that keeps all threats from hostile countries well away from Europe, the biggest economy in the world to do business with, the latest energy-saving technology available, most of the newest science-breakthroughs in the world, the best universities in the world, and the list goes on. What's the grudge all about then? Jealousy and envy? Some, of course, make big bucks on the capitalistic free market by selling anti-American anti-capitalism propaganda to Europeans and American Leftists, but for the most part it's about envy and bitterness. That's this author's theory.

Who can?

A good question indeed:

Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work? (#)

Unfortunately, the answer is not no-one, but many, and they have many names, for example: Statists, socialists, social democrats, national socialists, fascists, Leftists, anti-capitalists, Greenies, etc.

Poor and happy, or just poor?

In a relatively recent article in the New York Times (subscribers only, but subscribtion is free) a few rather little-known facts are listed about Norway and other socialized European countries. An example:

After adjusting the figures for the different purchasing powers of the dollar and euro, the only European country whose economic output per person was greater than the United States average was the tiny tax haven of Luxembourg, which ranked third, just behind Delaware and slightly ahead of Connecticut.

Also:

Alternatively, the study found, if the E.U. was treated as a single American state, it would rank fifth from the bottom, topping only Arkansas, Montana, West Virginia and Mississippi. In short, while Scandinavians are constantly told how much better they have it than Americans, [...] statistics suggest otherwise.

And..:

While the private-consumption figure for the United States was $32,900 per person, the countries of Western Europe (again excepting Luxembourg, at $29,450) ranged between $13,850 and $23,500, with Norway at $18,350.

The numbers give a clear message: Europeans would be the poor ones if Europe and America were one country.

But maybe this isn't so bad. We "all" know that Norwegians, for example, take very good care of their money. They own big sums in the bank, owe next to no money, take lunch-packs to work and do with very little consumption (or?). Some say that Norwegians are very satisfied with this and have no use for a more materialistic way of life, like for example the hyper-consuming average American. (Of course seeing a Norwegian coming to Denmark gives another picture. The Norwegian usually drinks himself silly in his Denmark-visits because the beer-prices are about half of what the Norwegians are used too at home. But lets keep the reality to the side this time.)

Yes, true, many a person can do with little and feel good about. Aren't other things important, like "free" this and that, a big generous State and a nice mountain-view? Sure. The African does with desert-sands, filthy clothes and surely, lunch-packs to work, and despite all this he will still go out at night and dance and sing and rejoice life with his family and friends after a day of work. But is this something to brag about? Can it be said that the Norwegian is tight-held on his money by choice rather than by need?

How is the story about the people of the old Soviet Union again? During the Soviet-era everyone got their food-stamps, "free" housing and a job. People could save their money and keep it safe under their pillows. When the Soviet Union collapsed, everyone had a nice stack of money under their pillows, but unfortuanelly at that time, it was worthless.

Some believe in the Norwegian policy of living poorly, have a big, fat bank-account and aim on living it out "later". The Norwegian State has billions in oil-money saved up, runs an unsustainable welfare-policy and plans on using up the billions on sustaining that system when the oil runs out. To this author this sounds like holding ones breath as long as possible and wait until the air starts to smell like roses, and then breathe. It leads to sufferings, is no guarentee for anything better coming along later and will most likely lead to more (brain) damage than pleasure.

The Left says: Tax those most who earn the least!

In principle the State needs money to fund its operation. The less the State does, the less money it needs, naturally. The more it does, the more it needs, naturally. When a State has expanded enough it starts to feel the need to tax more. Nothing new here. However, at some point it seems the State has to override the unwritten laws of fairness and justice and tax beyond the lines of common decency.

According to hard logic the State should collect a fixed amount from every person. Everyone is getting the same police-protection, the same access to a legal-structure of courts and procedures and everyone has to obey the same laws. When the State expands, this kind of taxation wont cover the expenses of it. The need for a proportional tax arises - everyone pays the same fixed percentage of their income, of the prices of products bought, etc. But again the State expands and the point of unjustifiable discrimination starts. Some people are made to pay higher percentages than others. Some products are taxed more than others. Some behaviour is rewarded and some other is punished. The balance of paying everyone's expenses versus keeping those expenses down forces the State into the road of discrimination.

When this point is reached the taxation starts to hurt those who have the least. Prices on everything rise due to taxation. Low-income people loose their incentive to work harder because margin-taxes from rising tax-percentages eat up all the benefits of higher wages. Owning a car becomes an almost impossible burden. Smoking becomes a trap because high cigarette-prices hit the poor hardest, creating an even more stressful life, making it less and less likely that a relaxing stop-smoking-course is put on the agenda. The society truly becomes a society of the rich at the expense of the poor. And the strangest thing of all is that the Left, above all, is the main force behind that development. By expanding the State the poor are made to bleed.

The alternative is to go back to flat, low taxes with a small, restricted and a well-defined State that focuses on keeping the law. Those who truly need help are a very small group, easily helped by compassionate humans (or at the very most a very small governmental institution). By taxing everything in order to help someone only makes the total need for help bigger and thereby increases the need for more funds to help those who need help, which again increases taxation, which again increases the need for help.

I believe the so-called "welfare state" will be a historical memory before 30 years have gone by. The sooner that better and for the sake of the poor.

Does the State create jobs or problems?

Many, including the followers of the economics of John Maynard Keynes, think the State can "create jobs" and "get the wheels of the economy started". The principle is simple: The State borrows (or prints) money in huge quantities and spends it. As a result som individuals will get jobs doing something, get paid for it, spend the salary on something and thus create jobs for someone else, who in return spends the money, and so the ball rolls on creating lots of jobs and happiness.

We now know this is not the case. Keynesian economics are simply outdated by logic and experience, and haven't had a positive effect on any economic recession at any time.

The government "pump-priming" myth and other Keynesian myths became widespread through Paul A. Samuelson's introductory economics textbook Economics, which was introduced to college students in 1948. While the economics profession has long since abandoned much of Keynesianism, Samuelson's textbook has not been replaced with a more suitable one, leaving two generations of college freshmen (including today's lawmakers and reporters) exposed to outdated 1940s economics. (#)

What the State spends, you don't. What the State "invests" in, you don't. What the State borrows or buys, you pay. You can't choose tax away unless you break laws or don't work. You can protest public spending with one vote every four years. You can protest private spending (for example, your supermarket's lates price-increase) every single day.

...and since all this "money-talk" is problaby uninteresting to the Leftist-reader who is probably on welfare himself, I think it's in order to remind the reader that a persons property is a persons extension of the persons self-ownership. In other words, a persons property is his because a persons body - and the fruits of its labour - is his.

Alternative to capitalism?

Is there an alternative to capitalism? Lets ask Google and see what comes up. I try to pick the most organized articles and the most concrete sentences. The reader can check the context himself to see if I have manipulated any message to fit my "cause":

Workers World Party: What's the alternative to capitalism? "Just asking the question leads to a discussion of socialism--a society where production can be planned to meet human needs because it has been broken out of the stranglehold of private ownership." ... "What gives [the rulers] nightmares is the fear that the workers who built the means of production will become organized, politically conscious, and powerful enough to pull this small class down from its pinnacles of power--as happened with socialist revolutions in Russia, then in China, and more recently in Cuba." ... "By the end of the capitalist war, 40 million people had died. But in Russia, the enraged masses had toppled two governments and set up a new state unlike any in existence--based on councils, or soviets, of workers and peasants. Marxism, which had become so watered down in Western Europe, had been rescued by Lenin and the Bolsheviks as the doctrine of revolutionary struggle."

Conclusion: The "alternative to capitalism" is simply the old Soviet-union. We all know how that went. Yes, the same path as any other country that took up communism during the 20th century - down the drain.

Paul Burrows: Is There An Alternative to Capitalism? "I favour a "participatory economic" vision influenced by the libertarian Marxist, anarchist, and syndicalist traditions. But I think it would be redundant, a waste of everyone's time to stand up here and regurgitate yet another stand-alone variant of socialism." ... "Solidarity has to be put into practice, it has to be lived." ... "In my opinion, the first of these forms of socialism (which existed in the old Soviet Union and exists today in Cuba) should be off the revolutionary agenda--not because it doesn't work (it does, even by comparison to capitalism), but because it's not compatible with the greatest fulfillment and development of the majority, of the workers and consumers themselves." ... "But if we're going to develop a true alternative to capitalism, we need to be very clear about what values and principles we want to uphold."

Conclusion: No real conclusion except perhaps that since communism worked in the old Soviet Union and works present Cuba (!) there is no reason to think it couldn't work else were.

Sean Hannity: Alternative to capitalism "We advocate public/social property relations in place of privatized capitalist property relations. In the new system, each workplace is owned in equal part by all citizens. This ownership conveys no special right or income. [...] Instead, we all do--or symmetrically, if you prefer, no one does. At any rate, ownership of productive property becomes moot regarding distribution of income, wealth, or power. In this way the ills of private ownership such as personal accrual of profits yielding huge wealth, disappear. But that's it. We haven't accomplished anything more than that, only a removal." ... "This entitles us to a share of the product of work. But how much? This new vision says that we ought to receive for our labors an amount in tune with how hard we have worked, how long we have worked, and with what sacrifices we have worked. We shouldn't get more by virtue of being more productive due to having better tools, more skills, or greater inborn talent, much less by virtue of having more power or owning more property. We should be entitled to more consumption from society's product only by virtue of expending more of our effort or otherwise enduring more sacrifice in its creation."

Conclusion: Remove private property rights and hope for the best. Remove the incentive to work and hope people still would. This and a complex system of all sorts of mandatory councils and decision-making bodies.

It seems that the "alternative" to capitalism is still the good-old socialism - the biggest killer of the 20th century. Or does anyone have another suggestion?

No debts, but then what?

Everyone knows about the huge debt-relieves recently promised by the G8-countries for the poorest developing countries. Won't they help a lot? Wont they benefit the poorest of the poor? No, and here's why:

According to the [2005 Index of Economic Freedom], of the 18 countries (Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia) that would immediately qualify for debt relief, 13 have "mostly unfree" economies (right next to plain "unfree") and only 5 have "mostly free" economies. Most of these countries have little protection of property rights, high corruption, and little domestic security. Some of these countries, such as Bolivia, are currently a political mess, and others, such as Niger, Rwanda, and Tanzania are virtual dictatorships. What are the odds that these countries will use the economic flexibility afforded by debt relief to help the people and not to line the pockets of the ruling elite? Sustained growth will be difficult for these countries to achieve as more foreign aid follows debt relief, leaving them without any incentives for economic reform - just as before. (#)

These debtrelieves will have nothing to say even though they could be a great opportunity for a country to get a fresh start in reforms and economic policy. What would help these countries, with or without debt-relief, is increased economic freedom.

The Germans shook of a huge war-penalty and a ruined economy in record time by putting the forces of the free market to work after World War 2, becoming the strongest economy in Europe within few years. Any aid given to them did neither do harm or any particular good. The same goes for everyone else, debts or no debts.

A good advice

Read and learn:

African nations can become prosperous, but we are fooling ourselves if we pretend that rich countries can achieve that result through government-to-government wealth transfers. Modesty is missing in the debate. The hard work of economic development has always rested squarely in Africa. It is time for African governments to embrace economic freedom and for rich countries to stop discouraging them from doing so.

Facts, experience and logic all point to the same conclusion: Encourage Africans to embrace capitalism, dump socialism and build up a free market of protected private property rights and economic freedom. Aid, debt-relief and other such tools have never worked (except reversely compared to the intentions). We need no further proof. We really don't.

The key to success

Some news are better than others. While freedom gains ground in some places it looses grounds elsewhere. Every year we learn a little more about what creates healthy and wealthy societies and what does the opposite. All in all the lesson is clear: Economic freedom, most often mixed with democracy, social freedom and respect for human rights, lifts societies from poverty to riches. Economic freedom paves the way for political freedom. Political freedom paves the way for social freedom. Social freedom paves the way for increased respect for human rights and care for the environment.

This is not surprising for the reader of classic political liberalism. Even before all the experience of today had been accumulated it had been predicted by liberal philosophers that economic freedom was a necessary ingredient to create a wealthy and healthy - and free - society, and perhaps the most important of all ingredients. Modern socialists try to tell us that regulation and social justice must come before economic freedom. This has not turned out to true. Experience and liberal logic tells us otherwise.

A private choice for the public or a private choice for the private?

Supporters of a tax-funded school-system argue that the State must pay all elementary and most higher education, and some say the State must pay for all education for everyone in order to prevent some rich from receiving a "better" education than most poor. This argument has the flaw of eliminating the price for the individual student, thereby hiding the needs for his education from him. If an education is popular many are willing to seek for it. Most likely, because many seek for something in limited supply, the price for the education increases. However, due to increased numbers of students graduating with a certain degree, the need for that certain education decreases. Salaries for those who graduate drop as a consequence and fewer see the rewards in paying for the education as a result. Fewer take the education, supply of graduates stabilizes according to demand on the market and salaries recover. This is the tuning-system of the price-system seen in everything but health-care and education in Europe. That's why the world is filled with unemployed French-literature graduates and that's why many die needlessly on long waiting-lists.

However, this kind of argumentation has no effect on the socialist. "The society," he says "must make sure the poor have a chance to seek education too, and research show that education is beneficial for everyone in the society!" Ok, lets say that is so and for the reasons the socialist gives (of course education is just an investment like everything else - houses, cars, televisions, clothes - and the poor have the best chance of affording those investments when the market is free, but lets keep these facts out for now). On what grounds, then, does the socialist choose his own personal education? Does he study unemployment-numbers to see what education is the most likely one to lead to a job-offer later? Does he look at the hospital's waiting-list to see if there is more need for a nurse or a doctor? Does he count the number of old people who need support or streets that need police protection and choose an education accordingly?

In most cases the answer is no. Having no need to bear the cost of the education the student will in most cases simply base the choice of his education on his own personal interests without regards to possible future earnings or need on the market. Despite all the fair descriptions about "benefits for the society" or "national need" he will choose according to his own personal will. Luckily most people realize that there is more need for this than that and make some realistic estimates about the future possibilities for a good job after finishing a certain degree, but that is simply a sign of resistance against a system that tries to force people into school for the "society". It is simply a fortunate coincidence that people choose something which is missing instead of crowding into differently useful lectures about the bees and the birds. The human's survival instinct simply doesn't allow us to think that the "society" will welcome any education even though its noble and nice and lead to beautiful poetry and writings.

When it all comes down to it we don't think to much about the society as such. We are individuals and we make choices that benefit our own future and present needs. A nationalized school-system needs other logic than the "benefits the society" to argue for its existence. Here's a suggestion: Because the State must control what we learn!"

Two for the reading-list

US donations to Africa outstrip Europe by 15 to 1: American citizens donated almost 15 times more to the developing world than their European counterparts, research reveals this weekend ahead of the G8 summit. (#)

President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change: "Our approach must be flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new technology. We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world. We should pursue market-based incentives and spur technological innovation." (#)

A short explanation

George W. Bush is in Copenhagen now for a short visit. A group of Danish people have organized a protest in Copenhagen during the course of the visit called Stop Bush. The group behind the protest writes (roughly translated, and bold text is my doing):

Bush and his world order stands for war, threat of war and torture, for making education a market product, for privatizing of common welfare. It stands for speculators and environmental-pigs getting free hands. It attacks democratic rights in "the fight against terror" and promotes Christian fundamentalism - all of this is only for the benefit of a small, privileged minority.

Every sane person can, of course, see through the most basic errors: Bush hasn't gone to any war because it was his and only his idea to do so but gone with a number of democratic states into one country ruled by a man who had threatened the Western world for a decade or so. Education is a market product (sometimes financed with taxes and heavily regulated). Bush hasn't privatized anything in the USA that counts although he has suggested that young workers in USA are allowed to set a little aside in private pension funds instead of pumping every pension-market dollar into the soon-bankrupt social security system. Bush has not given free hands to anyone doing harm to the environment, or has he? (Tips on the issue welcomed.) However, he refuses to buy the useless, expensive Kyoto-nonsense and maybe that's enough to call him bad names. Bush has, and that's true, like many other State-leaders, wanted increased "security" in order to "fight terror", but it's nothing he alone stands for. Also true is his passion for his own Christian values and those who share them with him (a few tens of millions of Americans for example). But so was his opponent's in the presidential race, John Kerry, and this is something most big-name politicians in America share with Bush.

What is left is that "Stop Bush" has very little to do with Bush himself, and more to do with a group of socialists who have plenty of time and social support to organize protests against everything coming from America. An un-named friend of mine and a supporter of the protests (per say) thought that maybe the protests are in principle about how "ugly" Bush is, and that stands out as the best explanation yet.

Too cold to get warm, or too warm to get cold?

[..] Europeans should be happy that the EU is not pursuing Kyoto with the necessary strength. If it did so, their only hope would be global warming, so that warmer temperatures makes it less necessary to burn fossil fuels to heat their houses. (#)

The problems with Kyoto are many, big and unsolvable. Maybe the reason is the lack of its need to exist?

Color of money should be all that counts

Western societies fight a number of problems that in one way or another all come down to one thing: The color of money. The poor want money to improve their lives, the rich want money to sustain their lifestyles, the student wants money to buy beer, the mother wants money to buy diapers, and the illegal immigrants want money to survive. The lack of money can result in bitterness because those who have money are envied. It can result in racism because the rich look at immigrants like they are beggars asking for hand-outs. The two genders, male and female, can become enemies if an individual of one gender suspects an individual of the other gender of receiving a higher pay for the "same" job (and there are plenty of groups out there that make that claim!). Lack of money creates many problems, and an obvious solution to them could then be to increase the amount of money available to everyone!

But what increases the amount of money available? Some claim that there's plenty of money to go around and suggest that it's distribution should simply be altered. This solves nothing because a system of money-distribution brings problems of justifications, regulations and administration. A system of money-distribution (the so-called welfare-state or socialist-state) cannot be operated without violating the rights of the individual. It cannot be supported with facts and experience either. "Groups" which are classified as "needy" and therefore have the "right" to receive social-support usually remain needy. This goes for families with children, immigrants, handicapped and all others considered needy by public officials. High taxes must be collected to fund the money-distribution, which again can lead to a system where it is hardly worth it to work harder or longer, seek promotions or take risks in hope of benefiting later. Money-distribution is clearly a bad solution to the lack-of-money-problem.

Another approach to the distribution-problem is to "ease" access to the jobs that pay the good wages. A familiar approach are all kinds of laws that say that "discrimination" is forbidden in a way that keeps employers from choosing the job-candidates they choose and instead forces them to hire and pay according to the will of some public officials. Minimum-wages are an example of that, and they have the familiar effect of reducing the amount of jobs available for those who are in the salary-scale around the minimum-wages amount. Another example are laws that tackle the "problem" of gender-discrimination. Those kind of laws have not only fueled a bitter relationship between opposite-sexed individuals competing for jobs, but also lead to the expansion of the State in the field of supervision and administration of the hire-and-fire processes on the market. A costly and bureaucratic development with no chance of being "successful". The problems stay as long as someone gets paid to solve them.

What does work?
But what is then to do to make sure as many have as much money as possible? How can we tackle discrimination, poverty, hate, anger and bitterness and other problems largely related to the lack of money for some people and not other? The answer is pretty straight forward: Make sure the society is as flexible as possible so individuals have as many possibilities as possible to seek their own fortune without stepping on the toes of others (by themselves or via the State). This means in practice that the State should hold itself back as much as possible and not be tempted by new and new offers to regulate this and that, give money to this and that or tax this and that.

The State discriminates with respect to gender, color, age and many other factors - that is, the State discriminates according to individual traits that cannot be changed. Companies discriminate with respect to skills, education, talents, grades, work-will etc. - that is, companies generally discriminate with respect to traits that individuals can in most cases improve or find use for somewhere on the market. The only color companies have interest in is the color of money. That is why a "helping" State is usually a lot less helpful than an absent State.

Societies that follow the path of regulation and taxation will stagnate at some point. The Soviet Union did it in relatively few years, the big countries of Western Europe stagnated a long time ago and perhaps the trend in the USA is also to regulate and tax more, eventually leading to the same result. The flexible societies have rich people and poor people, but the rich and poor individuals have a lot more opportunities to improve their lives in the absence of too much "help". And isn't that more important than statistics?

Predicting the unpredictable - again!

A must-read about Kyoto and the subject of global warming and climate change. A little story taken there from:

It is tempting to draw a comparison with the experience of mathematical models in economics. Their use was the subject of discussion in the first half of the last century between pro-market economists on the one side and pro-planning economists on the other. It was one of the most crucial debates that has ever taken place in economic science. It was conducted between Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek of the so-called Austrian school on the one hand and Oskar Lange and Abba Lerner on the other. The central question was whether it was possible to make economic calculations in a socialist-planned economy. Lange was a proponent of market socialism with state ownership of the means of production, as embodied in the Soviet planned economy.

Using mathematical models and computers, the planned economy was supposed to be able to imitate the market and thereby solve the problem of economic calculation, according to Lange. Mises and Hayek believed that such a system could never function satisfactorily. They emphasized the importance of private ownership, in particular of the means of production, as a necessary precondition for price formation. Without personal property, there are no markets. If there are no markets, there is no price formation. And if there is no price formation, people lack the information to act in an economically rational way, with large-scale waste of resources as a result.

Thanks to the collapse of communism with its central planned economy, the debate was settled in the late 1980s in favor of Mises and Hayek. But, before that time, even many western economists had great confidence in the forecasting value of economic models. They recognized that these were not yet perfect, but believed that the shortcomings at that time could be remedied through further development of statistics, econometrics and the use of powerful computers. However, especially during the stagflation of the 1970s, economic models demonstrated that they were less and less able to explain and predict economic reality. This made economists increasingly aware of the fundamental limitations of the model-based approach to the economy. Will climatologists eventually also come to the same conclusion?

A truly brilliant analogy! When will man accept his limitations when it comes to predicting the unpredictable? The socialists of the 20th century didn't. The believers of global warming can't today, and all real data works against them. What is left is the simple belief that the world must in some way be coming to an end, and that it's man's fault.

I must repeat: A must-read.

...and to prevent any misunderstanding: That of doubting the need for today's Kyoto and the existence of any significant man-made global warming is not doubting the need to take care of the environment and monitoring behaviour in Earth's climate. However, a drop of blood doesn't always have to mean an open-heart surgery! Sometimes a plaster is enough.

Two myths faced with facts

Myth 1: The globe is warming up, and mankind is to be blamed for it!
What is this myth based on? Certainly not data! Certainly not facts! It's based on predictions.

Weather satellites have been measuring global temperatures since 1979, but have shown no climate warming - contrary to all expectations. According to computer models cited by the U.N.-sponsored science advisory body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a substantial warming of nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit should have occurred during this 18-year period. (#)

Already during the Renaissance-period scientists learned that godly theories and philosophical predictions are useless in the real world if facts, experience and reality don't confirm them. This lesson must be learned again, it seems.

"Since 1940, there has been a 35-year-long cooling trend and not much warming in the past quarter-century, according to global data from weather satellites." (#)

Theories, which don't take facts into consideration, should be abolished.

Myth 2: A universal, national, single-payer health-care system is better than a system based on privately-insured and -paid medical-treatments.
This myth is hard to get rid off, despite the evidence of its flaws. The following was said about the single-payer Canadian health-care system:

"Many patients on non-urgent waiting lists are in pain and cannot fully enjoy any real quality of life. The right to life and to personal inviolability is therefore affected by the waiting times." (#)

A number of myths about single-payer health-care systems are discussed and undermined here by using hard data and facts. The final-words of that discussion are:

Advocates of national health insurance would do well to look at how countries like Germany, Sweden, and Australia are choosing free-market reforms to alleviate the problems of their national health systems. Through painful experience, many of the countries that once heralded the benefits of government control have learned that the best remedy for their countries’ health care crises is not increasing government power, but increasing patient power instead.

Of course this author realizes that many myths can be attacked with biased data and by selecting the right facts and not the wrong ones. However, anyone is welcome to offer rebutting evidence and prove that the fore mentioned myths are in fact the reality.

Blame freedom and you're wrong!

Warning - a completely un-structured thought only to be read with a good cup of fresh coffee in the blood!

The free market is the only justifiable form of communication-structure between individuals, their companies and State-rulers. It's core principles - individual freedom and protected private property rights - should never be interfered with, as long as these rights of one don't reduce the same rights of another. This is the free market as far as this author is concerned.

But in the public debate it's not enough to justify something - it also has to be supported with experiments, data and pragmatic reasons, such that the free market has proved to be the most beneficial tool to eliminate poverty of any other the human race has come up with, and that early measurements of economic freedom compared with life expectancy, health and wealth show that the more economic freedom a country has, the better the lives of its citizens.

This line of argument creates no problems for the supporter of the free market. Not only can the free market be justified with pretty clean abstract logic but it can also be argued for with extensive experience and data. However, when using the latter approach some problems come up in the debate, because the amount of different data available creates the possibility of arguing for everything based on some number or another.

Those who oppose the free market have realized this a long time ago. They can therefore dig up a number of different data-sets to "show" that the free market does more harm than many think, and in that way argue for the increased need to control it with regulations and taxes. Fortunately it can be shown in most cases that the problems of the free market are not related to its freedom, but its lack thereof. A few examples now follow:

Minority groups
Many groups are considered "vulnerable" in the free market society, and discrimination, poverty, ignorance and white people are blamed. Therefore most Western countries have implemented a broad variety of special helping-regulations and social support to "help" groups like women, immigrants, handicapped people and older individuals (to name a few!). The State-supported help involves, for example, regulations which make it hard to fire certain "vulnerable" individuals. This creates incentives to fire individuals who look like they are becoming "vulnerable", and to not hire those who are. Also, those the State is trying to protect begin to look at the State as its savior from hard conditions, which again decreases their incentives to fight on their own terms with their own competence as a weapon.

Minimum-wages are designed to help those who land the lowest-paid jobs. However, minimum-wages cause unemployment because employers are being forced to overpay certain jobs so they hire fewer employees than they would else had, again leading to an over-supply of workers which again will drive wages down.

The groups that remain behind, for example young or middle-aged white men, are left to fight on their own on the free market for market-wages and in market-controlled job-conditions. Individuals in these unhelped groups realize that the State can not be used to promote themselves and that the only way to succeed is to fight. Therefore it's usually the unhelped ones - those who receive no special attention from the State - that are the ones who get all the "good" jobs, which again encourages the politicians to increase help to the "vulnerable", thereby closing the circle.

In short, the lack of freedom on the free market could explain why the free market seems to show tendency towards rewarding certain groups more than others with the best and highest-paid jobs.

Environmental protection
Many think the free market can't be left on its own when it comes to environmental issues. It is said that companies, in their reach for bigger profits, show no regard for natural resources, natural wildlife and basically everything related to nature and environment. Experience shows, it is claimed,that companies have been accountable for many environmental disasters, and show no signs of changing their attitude despite all talk about the necessity of good treatment for nature.

But where does this experience come from? It doesn't come from developed countries. Some might say that regulations are to thank for that, but the reality is that private property is to be thanked. Private property means responsibility. A person or a company that pollutes my water supply must compensate the damage, just like sabotagers are sentenced to compensate for damage they make on buildings and other property of others. In the developing countries the prime reason behind companies chopping down rare tree-species and bulldozing rain-forests in the name of cow-production is the lack of private property rights. No company spills its property without taking steps to insure future income from its resource as long as possible - preferably forever. Exceptions are few at best. However, both companies and individuals gladly spill or over-use resources they have no direct relations to. A government that "hands out" a resource for a limited number of years, while always having the option or removing the license, is in fact encouraging the destruction of the resource.

Why would a company destroy nature and its wildlife? Isn't it a source of great negative publicity? Isn't tourism one of the biggest growing industries in the world? Wouldn't an unspoiled land go for a huge price on the free market to organizations that claim they want to protect the environment and nature as a whole? A company that destroys beautiful nature by chopping down forests and pushing rare animals to extinction is clearly working against its own interests, but then if there is no property in private-ownership that is being decreased in value, then there is hardly anyone who looses, so to speak.

So once again, the lack of freedom in the free market can be related to bad performance of many companies/individuals when it comes to protecting the environment. Where the freedom does exist, nature flourishes. That is the black-and-white lesson Europeans learned during the Cold War and its Iron Curtain of clean-West versus filthy-East.

The richer become rich and the poor become...?
Many have the misconception of thinking that in the free market the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. While the former is true, the latter most certainly is not. The free-er the market, the bigger the number of companies competing on it. The fewer the regulations and trade-tariffs, the fiercer the competition and the harder the price-wars. Sometimes huge monopolies arise. Lets name Boeing and Airbus as examples - both protected with regulations and sponsored with tax-money. What else? Wal-mart in America is pretty big, but can anyone say that it's because of lack of competition? Lets name another example - Microsoft. It has been hammered with a bad reputation among the self-acclaimed know-it-alls, smashed with fines and regulations and constantly faces competition from strong competitors like Apple and countless "open source" ones. Has the State-interference helped the consumer in even the tiniest little way?

No-one, I repeat no-one can logically or empirically demonstrate that competition law has done any good. A proof of otherwise is very welcomed! However, State-operated institutions that can without restraints dictate companies, their product-prices, their mergers and split-offs, and so on, have done a huge amount of damage. Companies haven't been able to price according to the laws of supply and demand, not been able to merge to cut costs to the consumer, and the list goes on.

If competition-law has ever done good, then that good can in no way match the bad they have done. How come international companies (outside the European Union) are not posing a great risk to consumers? Do the United Nations need to establish an international competition-court? Answer: No, because international competition flourishes in the absence of such a court. Globalization makes sure the local, vote-seeking politicians can't get too regulation-greedy in their attempts to suck up to lobbyists who are trying to protect their own skin by imposing restrictions upon others.

Lack of freedom is the suspect
This author will go so far as to say that everything negative about the free market is because of lack of freedom. Of course there's nothing perfect - not even in peaceful, volunteer communications between individuals and their companies, but that is not enough reason to implement something even more imperfect, namely a regulation-market dictated by politicians and based on forced communications on State-terms.

They understand it, but then again they don't

The free market is a concept that many find hard to understand. Those who have a negative attitude towards it see it as an inhumane machine of money-making and profit-obsession. Others see it as a venue for free people to exchange ideas, products and services according to the taste and wantings of each individual and/or his companies. Some see it as an instrument of evil where the weak and the unfortunate get crushed in a ruthless competition of the few and strong. Others see it as the best instrument ever to have existed where everyone can be successful and find happiness on his or her own terms (a very pragmatic view and not a justification for the free market as such, but a useful one in the often very pragmatic-oriented debate).

This author belongs to the more positive team and has a hard time figuring out why the typical anti-free marketer (or anti-capitalist) can enjoy a game of football but have a negative view of the free market. Sports are all about competition and the will to succeed. No-one wants Tiger Woods to be chained down by anti-trust laws (competition laws) just because he wins 10 tournaments in a row. No-one suggested that Venus Williams should be fined for, at that time, having a seemingly unbeatable edge over her opponents. Maria Sharapova has, so far, not been accused of playing unfairly just because she's a stunning beauty and a good athlete.

When it comes to sports it seems everyone understands that those who stand out are not inflicting harm upon anyone else, but simply raising the standard so others can follow. When it comes to the free market the attitude is often reversed and those who stand out, win the public or stay number one for a certain period of time are considered cheaters and bullies which have to be punished with existing laws or new ones.

Coming up short

This text might get longer/shorter or in others ways be reviewed, edited or changed during the next few days, as long as this text stays.

In an interesting article, Why the Ideas of the World Bank Come Up Short, a former economist at the World Bank, Robert E. Anderson, asks why the World Bank has been less successful in the developing countries than expected by its owners and the world community. He says:

For example, economic growth is the most powerful way to reduce poverty, and the World Bank recognizes that a healthy private sector is the only way to increase growth. Thus, the Bank advises poor countries to improve their business environment.

But the World Bank too often recommends the sophisticated policies found in rich countries without seeming to recognize that poor countries cannot successfully implement them. The result is often a worsening of private-sector performance. Instead, the Bank should take into account the institutional weaknesses typical of developing countries: low skills, corruption, and the influence of special interests.

Then he goes on to name a few examples, and finally make a few suggestions for improvement, in short saying that the World Bank needs to allow the laws of the free market to rule over the laws of politicians.

Of course Mr. Anderson gets it right. The World Bank is an institution operated by individuals from developed countries who grow up in free societies of law and order, capitalism, protected private-property and freedom. The views of such individuals on the world are naturally influenced by their own background and environment. Unfortunately, that environment is not the same in developing countries. That's perhaps the source of the World Bank's many misjudgements.

But this could easily be corrected. Like Mr. Anderson says: "Instead, the Bank should take into account the institutional weaknesses typical of developing countries: low skills, corruption, and the influence of special interests." This simply means that a few lines in the World Bank's working-procedure should be changed and the problem is solved. Another issue, not so easily corrected, is the attitude of the opponents of capitalism, free trade and globalization.

The anti-capitalists
The anti-capitalism movement is a collection of many different groups and individuals with many different goals and ideas. However, they have a common goal: To delay, stop or push backwards the process of globalization leading to more open markets and a free-er flow of people, capital and jobs across the globe. The anti-capitalist movement is mostly known for demonstrations during meetings of world leaders, destruction of public and private property in the name of publicizing its agenda, and foamy talk about the poor and how the rich are exploiting them in the name of bigger profits, regardless of the human and environmental cost.

The "intellectuals" of the anti-capitalistic movement silently support the actions of the masses, but officially they preach their cause differently. They talk about "fair trade" as an option to free trade. Fair trade can seemingly not be defined, but an idea of what it's about can be given by quoting the view of the fair-trader on free trade:

Free trade is well hyped today. It doesn't say much about fair trade, though...

Many trade pacts and agreements seem to conveniently ignore social aspects such as the rights of workers, leading to possible conditions like sweat shops, encouraging such low wages that one cannot live on them and forcing children into harsh working conditions. Some of these agreements do not do much to help developing nations, but do a lot to help large corporate profits. Environmental degradation is another concern.

Accountability is a major issue in all of this... It is often the case that large corporations can make profits but socialise the costs (i.e. get the tax payer to pay for any cleaning up of problems). (#)

Of the supposed problems are more or a result of a lack of private property rights and a phenomenon mostly related to the lack of capitalism - namely poverty. But regardless of that, the intellectuals claim the corporations are entirely to blame.

(I won't deny that a company that pollutes the environment and offers children unsafe working-conditions have a fault, but I guess everyone knows the temptation of breaking the law when it's known that there is no police on the way or anywhere in the neighborhood. It's not an excuse, but the temptation is only for the strong to resist.)

The point is that those elements of the World Bank's strategy that cause the many failures of its plans are the elements which the anti-capitalists fight for when they promote "fair trade", namely more worker/working-environment/minimal-wages regulations (while assuming the poor countries have the necessary institutions to impose them) and stricter environmental-codes (while assuming that starving, desperate people care more about rare animal- and plant-species than the whereabouts of their next meal). The voice of the anti-capitalists is a reflection of the weak sides of the World Bank and its strategies.

The world needs more free trade, less of the so-called "fair trade" (a.k.a. regulation-trade), more respect for private property rights and above all more globalization. Everything else is just a direct or indirect delay towards the goal of a unified world market where wars are raged between companies on the free market, but not between governments on Battlefield Earth.

A few thoughts

A short list for those who are considering taking up socialism:

Thought 1a: "We need a society of equal distribution of wealth. Let the rich pay high taxes which then go to aid for the poor." Effect: Fewer feel the urge to become rich. Few want to break their backs to become rich when punished with higher and higher taxes on their way up the income-ladder. Those who are rich flee the system. The burden which was meant to be carried by the rich is now carried by the middle- and low-income groups, and the biggest financial-baggage for most people becomes the tax itself.

Thought 2a: "The system must prevent the rich, or their taxable wealth, from fleeing the system, so they or their wealth can contribute to the State like planned." Effect: No wealth is created, and old wealth vanishes. Only a few friends of the system are allowed to enjoy wealth, for example the leaders of the ruling communist-party.

An even shorter list for those who are considering taking up liberalism (in the classic meaning of the word):

Thought 1b: "We need a society of justice and freedom which is not based on who owns what and how much." Effect: The State does not interfere with incomes or wealth on the base of the magnitude of income and wealth. Having little money or a lot of money does not affect the level of taxation. Wealth becomes a goal to strive for. More try to become rich, and more succeed. The individual proportional tax-burden does not change, but the absolute individual tax-burden increases. Fewer have need for aid, and the State has more resources to give aid to those who need it (if that's the State's intention at all!).

A few notes on immigration

A small discussion here on MajorityRights.com has thrown a few thoughts in my face worthy of a few words on my behalf: Immigration - how to handle?

The ideology is simple and clear on the subject: Open borders across the world! Free flow of people according to the laws of supply and demand! No restrictions for law-abiding people in search of jobs and happiness!

That being said the reality-check comes with full throttle and questions are asked: What about ethnic backgrounds? Do I not care about the color of my skin? Am I not threatening the very society I live in by opening up its borders to people from other cultural and religious areas? Have I not read the statistics where it shows that young criminals are more often than not people with other ethnic backgrounds than the native one?

The reality-check is not a shocker for the ideology. As an Icelander living and working, and previously studying, in Denmark I see two very different social-systems ("welfare"-systems as some call it) work in two very different ways. The Danish have from the very start pushed social-checks into the pockets of immigrants of all backgrounds, gathered them into special housing-projects, put restrictions on them when it comes to seeking jobs, and hoped for the best. The obvious result: A large group of relatively isolated first, second and third generation immigrants who hardly speak the language after 30 years of staying in the country, with crime-committing teenagers and oppressed, cloak-wearing women at the mercy of their husbands.

Iceland has no such problems even though it also has a large percentage of its inhabitants today with another origin than Icelandic/Nordic. Iceland does not have the generous social-system of the other Nordic-countries. Iceland has a flexible hire-and-fire job-market which has hardly seen unemployment in many years. The thousands of immigrants in Iceland know the only way to survive in Iceland is to work, and that's about it. A couple of groups of trouble-making teenagers with yellow skin have been used as an example for the need to restrict more, but that's not convincing. A couple of examples of arranged marriages within the Muslim-society of Iceland has also been used as a reason to restrict, but still not convincing. All in all the immigration of non-white immigrants runs smoothly in Iceland. Seeing the situation in Denmark does nothing but confirm that notion of mine.

I'm an immigrant!
Being an immigrant in Denmark is an interesting experience. I had to learn the language in order to get a job outside the cleaning-sector (and I very much wanted to do that, having a degree in engineering and all). I had to find a job to be able to pay off student-debts, rent etc. (social-checks don't cover such expenses in my case). Sure, someone might say that in my case everything is different because I'm a Nordic-person who likes the domestic beer and knows that women are equal to men by law. But if I hadn't learned the language I would have been forced to isolate myself to other Icelanders in Denmark, sharing entirely what they have to offer, and settled for a job in the service-industry. Me and Abdul from Iran are not any different in that respect.

But what about opening up all borders tomorrow and let anyone who wants wander into the land of riches? That should be the goal, yes, but as long as the system is a system of free social-checks and high unemployment, no such goals can be reached. Helping the poor of the world become rich should be step number one. Rich and free people are more reluctant to leave their families and friends behind than the poor and desperate. Few Icelanders care to move to Denmark and look for a job (me being a rare exception). Few Germans care to move to Sudan. The stream is in the other direction and that should be a lesson to learn.

Europe vs. USA?

Europe was displeased with the USA for leading a war against Saddam Hussein and his regime of homicides and tortures. Europeans accused Americans of working "unilaterally" (along with most of the other Anglo-Saxon states of the world, Japan, several states in Europe and several others). The French and the Germans wanted the United Nations to give the thumbs up on attacking Iraq. The United Nations has never taken any action in any situation at any time, and that on top of the French's promise to veto everything in the United Nation's Security Council says that the United Nations would never have approved of removing Saddam Hussein and his Baath-party from the palaces of Iraq.

In short, the Europeans where not too happy about Americans making a decision about something without full consent of the world-community, even though that decision was something the world-community had been saying needed to be taken at some point if Saddam wouldn't stop his threats against people of the free world.

The opposite of this disagreement is the Kyoto-protocol. There the Americans are saying the Europeans are trying to force a decision down their throat that harms more than it benefits. The Europeans sail their path of state-controlled pollution-reductions and the Americans refuse to take part, rightly stating that it does more harm than good (we all know rich people pollute less than poor, and that the Kyoto-protocol harms the economic-growth of its participants, which again keeps people from becoming rich and thereby polluting less). The Americans could rightly say that the Kyoto-protocol had to be agreed by the United Nations as international law before it can be forced upon individual members of the U.N., just as the Europeans say that to remove a blood-thirsty dictator from power needs the approval of "everyone".

Its a battle of the bureaucrats and no-one wins. The world needs less politics and more freedom, and that's the lesson to be learned.

Getting rid of the Minority

A society is a group of individuals with different opinions on different issues. Many want cheese on their bread, others don't. Many enjoy American movies, others don't. Many enjoy the sun-set, others don't. All in all there is no way of saying everyone agrees on this and that or likes the same or even similar things. A tattoo on one person doesn't mean another person should get one. Heavy-metal music in my neighbor's stereos puts no pressure on what I put on mine.

This is a free society where each individual's choice is his and his alone to make or reject. Another kind of society is the unfree one. In an unfree society the opinions of the minority are sacrificed in the name of common will (which, by the way, is a tricky one to define). My taste for violent movies becomes an issue for politicians - should violent movies be allowed for everyone or no-one? My taste for a beer follows the same path, and the same goes for cannabis, sky-diving, boxing and what else there is to have a taste for.

As soon as politicians make it their business to "discuss" a certain hobby, food, chemical or opinion, the risk is that some new laws and regulations come to exist. Those new laws will then define when what is okay and when not, and usually it means the Minority which enjoys, likes or not-dislikes something is pushed to the side. When a politician is handed an issue to tackle he will more often than not sacrifice the Minority to please the Majority.

Don't we have a good definition of State-interference then?

Freedom has proven itself.. more or less!

Freedom is the path to justice, peace and prosperity in all its forms. Those who limit freedom limit human well-being in all aspects. This has been proven, more or less, for most areas of, for example, the political debate. Freedom decreases poverty, lengthens and improves lives, creates an effective market of technological improvements and shrinking prices on essentials, and so on. This is indisputable and can be shown with facts, logic and reason.

However, there is another list of areas where freedom has also shown its great power, but has yet to be presented in a way which eliminates the resistance to freedom. It is clear to most people that freedom decreases pollution, encourages people to care for the poor and the sick, helps the poorest to rise in living-standards and leads to improvements in the lives of the socially worst-off. Facts and logic can verify all this, but the existence of a Left proves the presentation has been lacking something.

How can this be? Didn't Milton Friedman make himself clear enough? Aren't the economics of the Austrian economics speaking in plain language? Don't the graphs and plots from the Index of Economic Freedom speak for themselves? Isn't the success of the liberalized Asian- and Eastern Europe-countries effecting enough? Also the opposite - doesn't Africa teach us anything when it comes to having a shortage of freedom?

The answers point to one direction: People are not getting the picture, and that is to be blamed on those who preach freedom as the path to prosperity. There is no use blaming the opponents of freedom - they have always existed and spoken loud - but their numbers can only be decreased with education and information, and that is up to the spokesmen and -women of freedom to provide.

Sustainable what?

The Leftist is the one who most often uses the phrase "sustainable development" when he suggests this and that State-interference with the free market. He says we must have encourage development "that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (#), but while this all sounds well and good is a grossly misunderstood term in a free market society where the needs of today can in no way be predicted to be the needs of the future. Further details on that here

But the sustainability is not in general something the Leftists cares much about. The Leftist does not want companies to be sustainable. A sustainable company might be defined as a company that runs today without compromising the ability of future owners/shareholders to run it in the future. In other words - a company that makes profit! The Leftist is all the more keen on companies being in the hands of the State, and not necessarily making a profit because the Leftist has few objections to State-sponsorship to selected enterprises (health care, education, regulation, supervision, monitoring).

In short - those who decorate themselves with the word "sustainable" do so only when it suits their fight for a bigger State and more regulation. Isn't that strangely consistent for a statist? ..and yet so inconsistent for a person.

The Limits of Government - helping the poor?

Libertarians and liberals (in the classical meaning of the word) are people who want limited government and unlimited individual freedom (as long as no one else's freedom is being limited). The general idea, based on some experience, extensive logic and many facts, is that a Minimal State is the only fair and just form of state, and that the State's main function is to stop violence, make sure contracts are enforced and protect lives of individuals along with their property...

...and make sure that the poorest in the society are helped with some kind of a security net funded with taxes and operated by the State (either directly administrated by it and funded with taxes, or just the latter).

Or what?
The last statement bothers me. Is it really the State's responsibility to make sure the poorest of the poor have somekind of safety-net? I admit that the thought sounds right, and this is what I've heard from even the most liberal of libertarians (excluding anarcho-capitalists of course). But still the statement bothers me.

The Problem
The State is in an awkward situation when it comes to defining those who need help, and those who don't. Also, the State cannot allow access to tax-collected funds to just any-one who makes a strong enough case and does a good job convincing the social servant of some needs for help. The State must treat everyone equal and that means making general rules which again means putting different individuals with different problems into similar boxes which get similar help.

This is not what the hungry, the sick or the unlucky needs to improve his or her situation. Those who need help need it on individual basis. They need help - not welfare-checks or forced institutionalization. Only private charities and organizations can meet the individual needs of the individual because they don't have to follow a general set of rules which have to treat everyone the same.

The States responsibility
That being said I must say I oppose State-supported welfare-programs, even those only intended for the most poor or the most sick. However, this is not to say I oppose that it is the societies responsibility to make sure no-one dies on the streets from diseases, hunger or whatever it is. I think it's the societies responsibility to take care of those who need help, and show understanding for the individual's individual circumstances!

To the Socialist: Aim on poverty!

A very strong line in the Leftist's ideology is "protection" of this and that. The national socialist wants to "protect" his race from "mixing" with other races. The economic socialist wants to "protect" local jobs from competition in a globalized world. The green socialist wants to "protect" the environment from changes by human activities (usually calling it pollution or destruction).

How are these protections to be implemented? The socialist has tried just about everything which he can use the State for: Tariffs, border control, regulations, special projects of all sizes and shapes, taxes, executions, and God knows what. However, the solution is simple: Increased poverty is the tool which the socialist needs!

What happens when a country is poor? No-one wants to move to it and no-one can afford to leave it so the national socialist should be happy. No jobs exist which can afford to use modern technology to be efficient and competitive so there is very little risk of someone wanting to steal them, and therefore the economic socialist should be happy. The people can't afford cars, electricity or warmed up houses so the need for energy is little. Also, no-one has the money to invest in new powerplants or buildings so disruption of land should be at a minimum. This decreases "pollution" in all its forms, hopefully to the enjoyment of the green socialist.

It seems to be obvious that the socialist has to put poverty at the top of his priority list if he's ever to see his goals fulfilled.

The Non-Promise

Politicians promise. We all know that. They promise more funds to this and that, tougher laws on this and that, lower taxes, more freedom, higher taxes, less freedom, and God knows what. The result is usually a bigger State today than yesterday, a less flexible society and so on. The politician means well in most cases - he wants to make sure he stays in office so his favorite groups of voters can have a brighter future, and fuck the rest.

This approach is completely wrong as far as this author is concerned. The endless flood of promises has many negative effects on the voter. The voter begins to think all problems are the politicians to solve. He begins to think the individual contribution means nothing because the State is so much bigger and stronger. The voter, in short, hands more on more of his independence and initiative over to the State, which is in all respect bad.

Anti-promise
Instead of making a promise of doing something, this author believes a promise of not doing something is a more fruitful approach for the politicians and the society. What happens if the politician promises he will not increase funds to development-aid in Africa? What if the politician promises he will not start State-operated programs meant to cure the obeast, give riches to the poor or free addicts from addiction?

What will happen is that people will understand that it is not the State's job to heal every single disease or change every single out-of-the-normal behavior in the society. The result is increased private-initiative, more generous donations to private charity foundations, more care for the hungry and the tired, and a bigger personal responsibility in a society of humans.

We need politicians who promise not to do things. Everything else is an illusion.