The LDP free trade rally held on Saturday (8th September 2007) during APEC was a great success. We braved the rain and the (at times) negative abuse from opponents of free trade. The crowd was quite mixed and many people were marching with quite different agendas. A surprising number of those that approached us to see what we were on about notionally agreed with the ideals of free trade. Some of the marchers even elected to stand with us for part of the morning and said that they agreed with free trade.
Of course many people clearly disagreed with free trade (or other aspects of our placards) and a few people swore at us as they walked past us. However all up the day was peaceful.
For more background read the LDP policy on free trade.
Photos courtesy of Jarrah Job and Lindsay Jones.
September 10, 2007 at 2:02 am |
3 cheers for the brave protestors. Got any more photos ?
September 10, 2007 at 3:38 am |
Miranda Devine had some uncomplimentary comments about NSW cops in the Sun Herald yesterday. They arrested an accountant on Friday who was out with his son, using extreme force. He was held for 22 hours. It turns out the guy is a friend of Miranda and was just going about his business.
Her final paragraph summarised her thoughts quite nicely:
This is what happens when you appoint underwhelming neophytes, David Campbell as Police Minister and Andrew Scipione as Commissioner.
It’s a sign of an emasculated, rudderless police force, with systemic small-man syndrome, acting like bullies in an attempt to cover up weakness, and chronic dysfunction.
She puts it so well. The only point I would have added is that our taxes unfortunately pay for these thugs and morons. Considering how expensive the police are, we are certainly not getting good value.
September 10, 2007 at 6:22 am |
The cops made some tactical mistakes on the day (which I have criticised elsewhere). However given that they surrendered the streets to thugs during the cronulla riots (and especially so during the backlash in Maroubra) and given how previous APEC type conferences have turned violent elsewhere, I think that the police did a good job strategically. Certainly I was pleased to be able to exercise free speech without any physical intimidation from opponents, some of whom exercised their free speech right to swear in my face.
September 10, 2007 at 6:26 am |
Im curious what they actually said Terje, Was it just general slander regarding physical appearance or your parents marital status at the time of conception?
Or was it more along the lines of ‘Capitalist pig” etc etc.
September 10, 2007 at 6:48 am |
I got called things like fascist, neo-liberal, d!ckhead, f&ckw!t and Pauline Hanson supporter. We were also accused of causing the cronulla riots. However I was not really trying to document the abuse. A few people were yelling at me from further away with an intimidating look on their face but I could not actually hear what they said above the noise of the crowd. One women stood in front of us and laughed hysterically and another did this weird swaying dance and then said “you suck” several times whilst looking at her feet before she dancing off into the crowd.
September 10, 2007 at 7:18 am |
Cronulla riots eh? Pauline Hanson supported eh? Neo liberal eh? Fascist eh?
Gives you a pretty good idea of the education level of some of the people present.
After all, Cronulla was actually a protest about the effects of Capitalism in regards to poverty
September 10, 2007 at 7:42 am |
Well the term “neoliberalism” does not seem that far from the mark, although the tone in which it was used also said a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
September 10, 2007 at 8:01 am |
Neoliberalism seems a bit off, though. Neoliberal often implies economic liberalism with no regard to social standards, or in some cases social conservatism. Libertarianism is much closer to Classical Liberalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#.22Classical_liberalism.22_and_libertarianism
While philosophically a lot of the LDP probably supports absolute Libertarianism, in terms of policies, we probably closest to Classical Liberalism.
As for Pauline Hanson supporters? I had to stiffle a laugh in real life. Do these people know the first thing about Australian politics? Pauline Hanson’s high-tariff protectionist policies are about as far from Free Trade as a black is from white (excuse the pun).
Fascist makes me laugh almost as much, especially if it was coming from Socialists…
September 10, 2007 at 9:49 am |
and don’t forget the very earnest young female student who kept asking us if we had heard of economic rationalism. i liked the way she asked us ‘did you guys go to university?’
September 10, 2007 at 9:50 am |
Glad you found the time to present the other side.
The font on the signs is really hard to read. It’s better to use a sans-serif font like Arial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sans-serif).
September 11, 2007 at 12:45 am |
“Neoliberalism” is just the new lefty word for “Fascism”. The majority of them would have no idea what it means, except that George Bush is one.
September 11, 2007 at 2:02 am |
Yobbo – next time don’t scare off our younger supporters with horror stories about rivers of blood in the streets. The rain was more intimidating than any of the protestors we encountered and we were barracking for capitalism in the midst of the socialist mob. Of course there were some risks but a bit more perspective would be useful next time. People with socialists ideals are in general scary because of who they support not because of how they behave personally. Most of them are pacifists.
September 11, 2007 at 5:00 am |
Well done to all of you who protested!
Mikel – from my (limited) education in the area, I thought serif fonts were best for readability?
BTW I’m wondering if there’s going to be a discussion of LDP supporters/fellow travellers’ voting intentions? Always an interesting topic, yet missing from the libertarian blogosphere: Catalaxy etc…
September 11, 2007 at 5:31 am |
The funny thing is, Yobbo, that Dubya is a pretty poor excuse for even a Neoliberal. Howard’s at least decent in that regard.
And totally agree, Terje. I think a lot of socialist supporters are really libertarians that don’t realise you can support civil AND economic freedom. They think capitalism and social conservatism go hand-in-hand.
September 11, 2007 at 5:33 am |
I’m wondering if there’s going to be a discussion of LDP supporters/fellow travellers’ voting intentions?
Que? LDP supporters/fellow travellers will of course vote for the LDP.
September 11, 2007 at 5:54 am |
Saben – If they don’t realise they can support both then typically they don’t. In which case they are not libertarians.
My point was that most of them are pacifists who won’t belt you around the head just because you have a different opinion, not that they are libertarians in disguise who really sub-consciously agree with us.
In their personal affairs most people have a live and let live attitude, however for socialists it goes out the window when they vote.
September 11, 2007 at 6:14 am |
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply that you had said Socialists are Robots in Disguise. Merely I was agreeing that Socialists are against violence.
My other statements were just further clarifying that I think a lot of Socialists are also supportive of individual freedom. And many Socialist supporters think that Socialism is the best way to achieve individual freedom. Which, to me, is because they often associate capitalism with the current world-governments which they oppose. Obviously there are some Socialists that know all about Free Trade and still prefer government controlled economics, but from my experience most of them are just on the anti-government bandwagon and would be just as likely to support Libertarianism if we were the ones with megaphones decrying the status-quo.
But that is my opinion, not something you said. And it based more on Uni Socialists (are there any others?
)
September 11, 2007 at 7:13 am |
I think Saben may have a point: That some socialists don’t seem to understand that by being anti-capitalist, they are being anti-freedom. ie: They don’t really know what true capitalism is or means. They haven’t thought about the bigger picture and are illinformed.
Combine this with Pommy’s theory that many socialists are spoilt private school kids jumping on the “it’s fun to protest” band wagon (or the “I need a way to make friends at uni”) band wagon as opposed to those who’ve actually thought out their econoimc ideas.
Then you have a stiuation whereby once libertarian ideas are better known, there could be many converts from socialism to libertarianism. (I was a socialist during year 12 at high school).
Personally, I’m quite optimistic about the future of libertarianism. Although challenging the status quo is difficult, I think the implementation of more and more libertarian ideas in society is a matter of when, not if.
September 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm |
I was thinking more along the lines of an election “from guide” / how to vote card.
For example, I feel both major parties are against social and economic freedom and I will be putting them last and second last.
September 12, 2007 at 1:14 am |
Saben makes a good point. I also used to believe that social liberalism was inherently left-wing. So did many of my uni colleagues, who never thought about it all that seriously because of distractions like drinking and girls. Although that was 30 years ago, I doubt if much has changed.
What has changed is the expectation that the government should fix things, albeit in a relatively marshmallow manner. Hence fireworks are banned, bicycle helmets are compulsory, speeding laws are rigidly enforced, the government supplies free internet filters, smoking is banned indoors, advertising is restricted, trees may not be cut down, etc etc.
I doubt if a lot of people see these things as part of the overall problem lack of freedom and personal responsibility. It’s like taking slices off a salami – you don’t notice them one by one.
September 12, 2007 at 1:17 am |
I feel both major parties are against social and economic freedom and I will be putting them last and second last.
Adam, could I suggest you put the Greens last? They are even more opposed to economic freedom than the major parties. On social freedom, they are highly selective about which ones they support.
September 12, 2007 at 2:33 am |
I doubt if a lot of people see these things as part of the overall problem lack of freedom and personal responsibility. It’s like taking slices off a salami – you don’t notice them one by one.
But by the time you’re done, you breathe is so bad no-one will come near you.
Personally, David, you spoke the other night about the Greens and Democrats following their “moral compass” and wanting to enforce that on others. Well, that’s true, but then again so do the major parties. And personally my “moral compass” points in a similar direction to both of those parties. I’d rather be told what to do by a government that is morally similar to me, than told what to do by a government that is totally different to me.
As a gay man I can’t support either of the major parties until they change their policies to be more equitable. And I don’t necessarily think the Greens would lead to economic ruin- after all look at the strength of European currencies where more socialist governments are in power. Also, if a government is going to spend tax-payers money I’d much rather that money be spent on education, welfare and the environment rather than on wars, advertising and corporate welfare.
Overall I still don’t like the Greens much, they are against freedom in a lot of ways, but I personally, will be preferencing them above the major parties.
September 12, 2007 at 2:53 am |
I’d rather be told what to do by a government that is morally similar to me, than told what to do by a government that is totally different to me.
Unfortunately that encapsulates most political debate in Australia. It has become a contest to decide who gets to impose their moral views on everyone else.
As a libertarian I take a different approach. I don’t want the government to impose moral values on me, whether I agree with them or not. I’d like it to clear off and leave me and everyone else alone.
That goes for economic issues as well. Freedom includes the right to spend my own money on education, welfare and the environment. Or not, as the case may be.
The Greens, Liberals and Labor all want to tax us so they can spend the money in accordance with their moral values. The Greens differ by also wanting to choke off the source of tax revenue through regulation and other economic constraints.
Economic freedom is just as valid as social freedom, Saben. Only libertarians support both.
September 12, 2007 at 3:19 am |
I know, David, which is why I’m a member of the LDP.
And economic freedom is definitely as valid. But just not as important to me personally, at this stage in my life. The things that are the most important to me- the Greens agree with me on. They might arguably provide less “net” freedom, but they provide the freedoms that I feel are more important, or at least more relevant. Ideally the LDP would be able to provide universal freedom economically and socially, but until we have more mainstream support, we will each need to decide how to direct our preferences.
Part of my support for the Greens always comes down to them being a minor party, too. Anything that sees more political debate, more discussion of ideas, more bargaining needed to pass legislation helps improve our democracy. A 3 party system is better than a 2 party system- and it makes it harder for government to reduce our freedoms even more.
I am definitely more fond of economic freedom than I once was. And I am seeing it now as equally valid to social freedom. I’m considering preference Liberal above Labor for that reason, something I never would have done a few years ago. But when it comes down to a choice of freedoms, it’s terrible that we can’t be free in all regards, but I think we need to pick the freedoms that are most important for each of us, personally. At least until our party grows and we can have more impact on the political debate.
Who we preference as a party should come down to who advantages us the most. It’s sad, but necessary that we resort to dirty political games. Fingers crossed that we’ll get a hung parliament, or that if Labor wins, we’ll see the Senate remain under coalition control. Rudd has been talking about the “mandate” he’ll have to do whatever he wants with the IR laws. As the Democrats were saying, though, being elected to government doesn’t mean a party has the support of the public for every word in every piece of legislation. Being “democratically” elected doesn’t mean you get to play dictator for 3 years…
September 12, 2007 at 3:37 am |
Oh and incidentally, I’m necessarily support communism or socialism. I just think that any socialist movement has to come about through social change, rather than government intervention or enforcement. Communal ownership would be “fair”, but I think the best way for it to come about is for employees to stop being so focused on security and safety. Under capitalism those who takes risks prosper and if employees bought shares and became part-owners of their employer I think they’d be in a much better position to negotiate things.
There is definitely an unfair disparity in income between people that goes beyond “hard work”. Some people are born into fortunes, some people are dishonest to acquire their fortunes, and any growth in the economy always seems to benefit the rich the most (even though it provides a universal benefit). After all, 1% of $1mil is a lot more than 1% of $30k. I don’t see the government as a solution to remedying this disparity. People need to risk their jobs to negotiate for better contracts with their employers if they feel they are being treated unfairly. People need to take financial risks and see the benefits of passive income and ownership. People need to be smart consumers and spend efficiently.
The LDP’s economic policies have the potential to make the world a less fair place. But it is not the role of government to enforce fairness. There is the potential for financial equality in a economically free world, but only if people are assertive and take risks. If people are too scared to task risks, then really they do “deserve” the limited reward that their need for security brings.
September 12, 2007 at 3:38 am |
Okay, no idea what happened with that first sentence, it should read:
“Oh and incidentally, I’m not necessarily against communism or socialism.”
September 12, 2007 at 3:51 am |
Saben – Voluntary communalism is not the same as communism. Being a socially conscious person is not the same as socialism. Means and ends are not the same thing.
September 12, 2007 at 4:02 am |
Yeah, I know Terje, yet anarcho-communists despite being avowedly anti-government still call themselves communists. I was using the words in their broader philosophical and social sense, rather than as descriptions of actual political systems.
I guess what I’m trying to highlight is the fact that I’d rather live in a socially free, communist nation, than in an economically free nation with little-to-no civil liberties. Others here might prefer the opposite if given a lesser of two evils choice. But where I think where we all agree is that we don’t want the government to enforce any moral code or philosophical point of view, no matter how much we may agree with it.
September 12, 2007 at 5:31 am |
“I guess what I’m trying to highlight is the fact that I’d rather live in a socially free, communist nation, than in an economically free nation with little-to-no civil liberties.”
The truth is they end up being the same thing. Look at even the silly and strange bedfellows of the left feminist movement, the Australian Institute and religious conservatives.
September 12, 2007 at 2:00 pm |
Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era.
History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom. Clearly it is not a sufficient condition. – Milton Friedman
Ch. 1 “The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom”
My point being Saben, That history shows that countries that adopt economic freedom benefit from social and political freedom as a result. Because of this i would be forced to support a economically free nation with little to no civil liberties. Because history tends to repeat itself and so the economically free nation with little to no civil liberties wouldnt exist.
Countries that benefited socially and politically from capitalism-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Chile
Hong Kong, Iceland and Estonia.
September 12, 2007 at 3:29 pm |
Of course Perry, wouldn’t using that logic imply that the Scandinavian welfare model would have slowly seen its citizens with less and less civil rights? Yet in terms of education and social progressiveness Scadinavian countries still rank extremely highly despite being amongst the highest taxed nations in the world (at least compared to other OECD nations).
When an upper class elite is intent on maintaining power over its “lessers” I think economic freedom and social freedom go hand-in-hand. And most highly controlling governments prefer to limit both. A well intentioned state trying to preserve freedom will generally allow both, albeit to different degrees.
And despite recently developments in Chile, some would argue that the socially motivated English Civil War led to economic change in the form of the Industrial Revolution. So it’s not entirely a one-way path.
I think fighting for freedom in general leads to more freedom. I don’t see either economic or social freedom as more valid than the other. Just that for me, as an individual, I’d rather social freedom if given the unfortunate circumstance of having to make a choice.
September 12, 2007 at 11:58 pm |
They don’t have many civil freedoms, do they? Hate speech, restrictions on liquor sales etc.
Restrictions on civil freedoms ultimately are economic oppression – if an artist cannot express themselves they cannot freely produce an income stream. If men cannot think freely, the entrepreneur is held down.
If people cannot produce an income freely, their resources and hence political power are reduced.
Economic oppression will also become social repression, even if only to toe the aprty line. Social oppression becomes economic oppression as above and previously. They invite one another, look at the whacky anti-boozing propaganda of the USSR during the 1980s.
September 13, 2007 at 12:02 am |
“When an upper class elite is intent on maintaining power over its “lessers” I think economic freedom and social freedom go hand-in-hand. And most highly controlling governments prefer to limit both. A well intentioned state trying to preserve freedom will generally allow both, albeit to different degrees.”
I’d say Australia comes close to having a (very weak) caste system! – while people are upwardly mobile, the tax, welfare and regulatory systems make it very difficult to fall or rise above whrere your parents were. We have global media dynasties built upon favouritism and any bright minded, middle class or lower class entrepreneur must pay a heavy price in taxes to buy into high society and a lower tax rate. Once there, the Govenrment will offer regulation to limit competition.
September 13, 2007 at 2:39 am |
I see what you’re saying, but I’m not really sure that Australia’s more socialist welfare system makes it harder to progress up the class ladder than America’s more economically “free” system!
I’m from a single-mother “welfare” family, although my mum worked part time (unlike some single mothers). I’m now studying at Melbourne Uni (thanks to Centrelink payments) and I’ve definitely already ascended at least partially out of the “lower class” I was born into. But I am still accruing a huge HECS debt, and compared to countries where higher education is “free” that will disadvantage me.
Then I have friends in America, from single parent families, whose mothers work full-time for minimum wage just to cover life’s expenses. They can’t afford to get into the expensive colleges, despite academic merit; they can’t move away from home to improve job prospects either, because they can’t afford the establishment costs associated with moving into a new place. Unlike here where I can get payments from Centrelink when job-seeking, allowing me freedom to move where I want, rent assistance, advance payments to help with bond, etc.
America’s lack of welfare is one of the things that scares me about any weakening of public welfare. Americans pay less tax, yet a poor American is far worse off than a poor Australian because there AREN’T private welfare organisations and charities to help out. Privitising welfare as a form of charity is great if people think to give, but even the most well-intentioned person would probably end up contributing less, out of thoughtlessness if nothing else.
It is wrong for a government to use coercision to force people to be charitable. But it is wrong for people to not be charitable in the first place. And there are some heartless rich bastards out there that either justify their incomes as “not enough” or those that just don’t care.
Public welfare is the reason I gained enough education to rationalise politics and join the LDP as the only logically consistant party. I think in an ideal world welfare wouldn’t be needed because no-one would be without. But in a world of limited resources and greed I think at least a basic level of socialism is needed. Which is why I do like the 30-30 policy, I think that is a great step forward to increase the efficiency of welfare, decrease the tax spent by most people, encourage people into the workforce, etc. I do think that $9000/ year for someone unemployed being below the poverty line is worrying, especially for say a single mother who only receives an increase of $3000/ child (assuming $10k increased tax threshold per child), that in comparison to the $6000 low income parents receive now. The numbers might be a bit off, but I believe the principle is definitely sound.
Free trade, lower taxes, smaller government. All definitely principles I agree with. How far we can take them and still maintain a degree of equity in society is yet to be seen. Hopefully an economically free Australia would lead to better outcomes for everyone, but I don’t think it’s guaranteed. But I still think greater economic liberty would lead to a better outcome than our current government, or state socialism, even if it doesn’t end up being a utopia.
September 13, 2007 at 3:05 am |
I completely disagree with you about the hecs debt thing. The skills you are learning are probably worth far more than you are paying for them if you know how to put them to good use. From the skills you are learning at university, It should provide you with the skills and knowledge that will allow you to make far more than what you paid for your education.
Did you hear the story where Picasso was sitting in a restaurant and a woman came up to him and said, “Draw something on this napkin and i will pay you whatever you think it is worth”. Picasso scribbles away for 30 seconds and hands it back to her and says, “That will be $10,000″. The woman is shocked and says, “What?! But that only took you 30 seconds to do!” Picasso replies, “No, that took me 40 years to do”.
And i believe that if you look at the way you are taxed, and consider how many ways your tax dollars are split, private welfare would work just as well if there were no taxes. Because people would be free to donate at their leisure. I could see private welfare getting much more money than any state welfare program.
September 13, 2007 at 3:17 am |
Too many people go to uni. Australia’s unis aren’t that great compared to those in the US. Also, although we have high uni attendance rates we have a skills shortage! Too many arts student bums who could easily learn administrative type tasks on the job.
Scandanavian countries aren’t that socialist. Sweden for example now has a centre-right wing government like Australia.
Norway is a bad example considering its small population and oil reserves. Put Scandanavia into perspective: Look at all the socialist type politics in Africa, Sth America, Asia, Eastern Europe and look at the damage they’ve done.
Milton Friedman talked about how western privatised service industries are paradoxically often less free than Scandanavian equivalents due to excessive government regulation.
Saben, if you don’t want to endorse or be partially responsible for the poor policies of the major parties, you have the option to donkey vote. Do the policy cons outweigh the pros? (NB/ I’m not recommending this option just saying it is an option).
Some consider non-voting an act of voluntary resistance to government coersion.
September 13, 2007 at 3:49 am |
Perry, I support education for the sake of education. I think knowledge and enlightenment are important, even if they don’t provide job related skills. I don’t think too many people go to Uni at all, Tim. Do you really think having a lesser educated population would be better? Education shouldn’t just lead to job-related outcomes, research and expanding knowledge and growth are requisite for an enlightened society. The day I only live to work is the day I commit suicide.
And US universities are better for research, but up to and including Undergraduate level, I believe US education is inferior. At a high school level that is largely due to government interference. But that’s because governments in the US are just plain stupid. Give me a smart socialist government over a dumb capitalist government anyday- or preferably give me no government at all.
I can see the potential for lower taxes and lower state welfare resulting in a better outcome than the current system, but I don’t think it is guaranteed and there’s definitely need for caution. Freedom is great and all, but equity and empowerment is requisite for true freedom. In an equally free world someone with billions of dollars has far more freedom than someone with nothing. I do support the cautious and careful privatisation of government industries. I am a member of the LDP after all.
As for your comments that Sweden isn’t that socialist, Tim- with a 51% of GDP being taken as tax revenue, I find that hard to swallow! Sweden does have a great private sector, too and despite the high taxes probably one less regulated than Australia’s. I totally agree with Friedman that government regulation of the private sector is dumb, I think the government could do so much more with so much less and allow the private sector to do the same. Efficiency is one of the great positives that comes out of capitalism.
I don’t donkey vote because I’d rather show the government that I disapprove of their policies by voting for other parties I am more in-line with as a first/ second/ third preference. Even if one of the major parties gets my vote eventually, by not giving them my first preference at least they don’t get $2 of public funding from me.
September 13, 2007 at 3:55 am |
“America’s lack of welfare is one of the things that scares me about any weakening of public welfare. Americans pay less tax, yet a poor American is far worse off than a poor Australian because there AREN’T private welfare organisations and charities to help out. Privitising welfare as a form of charity is great if people think to give, but even the most well-intentioned person would probably end up contributing less, out of thoughtlessness if nothing else.”
America has private charity organisations. There is historical data which shows that less taxed societies give more to charity per capita, and they give more as income rises (albeit at a slowing rate).
I think you need to go back and revise your argument because it is based on weak premises.
September 13, 2007 at 4:44 am |
Okay, let me rephrase:
“There aren’t enough private welfare organisations in America to make up for the lack of compulsory, public welfare”
Yes, less taxed nations do give more to charities, but if you are being taxed 10% less, then surely you need to be giving 10% more to charities to ensure that the needy aren’t in a worse position (of course, this is assuming the private sector is as ineffective as the public which is not the case).
My basic argument- which I admit is based more on personal observation than any specific set of data- is that “Americans pay less tax; the poor in America (and other lower taxed countries) are worse off than the poor in Australia (and other higher taxed countries).” If you have evidence contrary to this claim it would be appreciated and it would allow me to revise my position.
In general- nations with higher tax rates seem to have less problems with income inequality. Socialist systems seem to be more “fair” even if they are less “free”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_Map_Gini_coefficient.png
September 14, 2007 at 12:38 am |
It would be nice to see a truly capitalist country emerge so that we could actually have a real world example. We need a country to bite the bullet and try it out, then everyone else can see the results.
September 16, 2007 at 5:49 am |
Somalia is what you are looking for.
No tax whatsoever, no Government interference in the economy at all.
It is chaos there, but they have the best telecommunications network in east africa. Somalia’s internet cafes have the fastest broadband in east africa, and in Somalia it takes 4 days to have a landline connected, where as in Kenya – a stable democracy – it takes over 2 weeks. The telco companies in Somalia are not interfered with by the warlords, because they dont favour one clan over another, and the warlords realise if they give the telcos a hard time, the phones go down, and noone can talk to anyone.
Somalia’s busiest internet cafe is only a few hundred meters from the Bakarra Market, the most violent street in the world, and in the 90’s it was the biggest weapons market in the world (also where the scenes from Black Hawk Down were supposed to be set).
The only purely free market in the world.
I wouldnt want to live there though. And the managers of these telco companies have said themselves they are doing well, but they would be happy to forgo the cheap prices, take lower profits and pay a bit of tax if they could have a central government and a bit of security.
September 16, 2007 at 6:07 am |
Saben,
The Gini coefficient doesn’t actually show the welfare of the poor. It just compares them to the wealthy within that nation.
September 17, 2007 at 1:38 am |
I’d like to read the source of your data Stephen.
I understood Somalia was in the control of Islamist Warlords, the ICU, a group that didn’t even allow people to attend soccer games because it was “immoral”. I wouldn’t have thought this was conducive to freedom or capitalism. But I have read an article on Kritarchy in Somalia so it’s a place I’m interested in.
How does the government and the military support themselves? Maybe through international aid?
Before the government collapse of 1991, Somalia was one of the world’s poorest countries and today they are better off than some of their neighbours even though they are still plauged by civil wars and Islamist take overs etc.
It’s interesting to see businesses survive in the absense of stable government.
Of course as well as economic freedom you need protection of property and this requires a functioning court system. I think some areas of Somalia are an example of how that can be achieved through customary law courts.
So I should change my wish to be, if only there was a truly capitalist country with fundamental human rights protections (not those phony rights like education and health). I’m not really sure of the situation in Somalia today, but I think I might do some quick research.
September 17, 2007 at 6:42 am |
The sources I read was from around 2002/03.
The islamists were incontrol last year, and since have been thrown out by the legitemate Somalia government in exile with the backing of the Ethiopian military.
At the time of the articles I read in 2002, Somalia had no government, and was a country only de jure (in name and concept only). It was dominated piecemeal by warlords. Not quite anarchy, but not a government either. Somewhere between.
This isn’t any of the articles I had read, but its on the same topic from the same time, and is all I could find, so it will give you some idea.
A snippet:
September 17, 2007 at 6:48 am |
I would add, theres an interesting doctoral thesis right there for an economist brave enough to go to Somalia, heh.
September 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm |
Saben,
The Gini coefficient doesn’t actually show the welfare of the poor. It just compares them to the wealthy within that nation.
I know that Mark. I was pointing out that OECD nations with high-tax (the first link) have greater wealth equality (Gini coefficient map in the second link).
I don’t think this is the only way to do it. Low-tax nations probably have other regulatory systems that are not conducive to aiding the poor. But I do think that caution is needed as economic systems are liberalised so that major disadvantage does not occur. As a system becomes more liberal I’m of the belief that there will be less and less poor within a nation. But it has to be a transition. I’m definitely a fan of gradual progression rather than radial ideology. Especially on economic issues.
I don’t think many people can be hurt by a rapid increase in civil liberties. But a rapid increase in economic freedom will hurt some people that rely on government welfare, at least in the short term, a gradual approach will see fewer people “left behind”.
September 17, 2007 at 11:41 pm |
I see your point, and the solution is actually quite simple. All you have to do is keep individual welfare running until incomes increase sufficiently and there is industry restrucutre. Industry adjustment packages on the other hand are really not needed – they end up misuesed as corporate welfare.
A bit of lateral thinking helps here too. What if there were a lot of cuts to the funding of services coupled with the change in ownership to communtiy groups and transfers of cash from the sale of and shares in publicly owned assets?
September 18, 2007 at 3:18 am |
Somalia is definitely an interesting case study.
I believe the UN is quite surprised that the country is not in a worse state considering its lack of government. Yesterday I found an article claiming, Somalia is better off stateless. http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf Mind you, that’s probably not hard compared to past governments and Islamist warlords.
September 19, 2007 at 9:05 am |
Saben, wealth equality is not necessarily a good thing, nor the opposite a bad thing. Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge has substantial wealth equality, everyone with the exception of the KR leaders was at below-subsistance levels.
As to the specific comparision you make (between the more equal Europe and the less equal America), studies have shown that the poor in America are better off than the average in Europe. For example, the average European has 976.5 sq ft of dwelling space, whereas the poor American has 1228. 72% of poor American households own cars.
You should read this: http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/pdf/EU_vs_USA_English.pdf
September 19, 2007 at 10:52 pm |
I believe Taiwan has an equitable distribution of income, yet its very free market too. If you put freedom before equality, you’ll end up with a substantial measure of both.
Big rich corporations like Macquarie Bank are paying a lot in tax. Big fan of public spending (socialists) should be encouraging these heavy taxpayers not bringing them down. We need more rich people to create jobs for poor people.
September 19, 2007 at 11:55 pm |
Saben,
You implied earlier that the US has a lighter tax burden than Australia. This is not true. Tax freedom day in Australia is slightly earlier than in the USA. The burden relative to income for Americans is comparable to Australians but the American burden is bigger. It is true that Australia spends more on welfare but Australia does not tax it’s citizens harder.
Regards,
Terje.
September 20, 2007 at 2:07 am |
Here are the details in relation to tax freedom day showing that the USA taxes its citizens harder than Australia:-
Australia – 24 April
United States – 30 April
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Freedom_Day
September 20, 2007 at 6:11 am |
But of course not all taxes were created equal.