GlobLog - September 2003
A direct link to each entry is obtained by using the button below the entry.

16:14 - FAQ 4: LAND IN KENYA: Some have asked me about ownership of land in Kenya, since my film Globalisation is good examines how the lack of property rights makes it impossible to borrow, invest and improve. Is there no property right to land in Kenya? Yes there is, and later in the film I also meet the farmer Peter, who has a title to his land. But it is confined to a small upper class. The British colonial administration deprived the owners of their land (for example with hut taxes), and after independence the Moi government handed the best land to his cronies and political friends. Since then, large-scale land grabbing by government officials has occured regularly. The majority does not own property, and many Kenyans live on government land (like Simon in the film), and have to keep moving to other places when the government decides. And the same goes for the slums. People pay rent to a slumlord, but not even he owns the land, the government does, so noone has the incentive to improve the land and the huts for the future. 60-80 per cent of the housing is being constructed illegaly. Furthermore, even the real property rights are not very well protected in Kenya. The Economist Intelligence Unit writes that "abuses and disputes are common. The judicial system is widely regarded as overloaded, inefficient and often corrupt. There is little confidence in the lower courts." One of the big tests for the new democratic government in Kenya will be their will and ability to construct a system of secure property rights.

11:20 - ONLINE: The lecture I gave in defence of open immigration at the Telders Foundation in the Netherlands last week is now available online. But I warn you, it is pretty long and the English is pretty bad...

15:15 - FAQ 3: AVAILABILITY: The most common question about my Channel 4 film Globalisation is good is about the possibility of getting it on VHS, DVD or something similar now or in the future. For the moment the answer is negative. The only way to see it right now is if one of your friends taped it. The rights are owned by Channel 4, and not by me. But we are investigating the possibility of producing a DVD version for sale. When I get more information, I will naturally announce it here.

13:24 - BACK HOME: Just back from the Netherlands. As I predicted and hoped, my two speeches were very controversial. It is fascinating that the Dutch seem so interested in being provoked and listening to different views. I like that attitude. My keynote against Corporate Social Responsibility gave the almost 200 people from the international CSR network that was gathered in Nijmegen something to think about. Every single question they asked me was very critical. Afterwards I asked the chariman if he thought that I had managed to provoke the audience, and he replied: "I think they are all in shock". But as usual a few people approached me afterwards and said that they actually agreed with me, and could not stand the suffocating consensus that existed before my speech!

My lecture on open borders for the liberal Telders Foundation took place in an imposing church in Leiden, just look at it here, and here. Even though I am an atheist I really enjoyed the opportunity to preach there. Probably the best lecture hall I have ever been to. Most questions were critical in a constructive manner. And I think I had some effect. The chairman began by asking how many shared my belief in open immigration, and very few raised their hands. Afterwards he asked them again, and now a much bigger minority did. There were almost 200 people there as well, I think. I can say this much: I met a lot of good young people in the liberal party that gave me good hope for the future of Dutch liberalism. Next week, I will publish my lectures online here.

22:10 - AGAINST THE DUTCH TIDE: Tomorrow morning I am going to the Netherlands for two conferences. And it might be two controversial speeches. First I am giving a keynote speech against corporate social responsibility (CSR) for the CSR establishment that is meeting at Nijmegen University. Then I am giving a speech for open immigration as the annual lecture for the Teldersstichting in Leiden, a foundation that is close to the Dutch liberal party - that is implementing a more strict immigration policy in the government right now. When I am back next week, I will try to find the time and publish my speeches online.

16:44 - FAQ 2: SWEDEN FROM RAGS TO RICHES: In my "Globalisation is good" film, I say that Sweden was poorer than most African countries 150 years ago, and that we got rich because we opened up with free trade and free markets. Some people, steeped in the social democratic version of Swedish history, do not believe this. For example this gentleman in The Herald says that I forgot to mention that Sweden got rich because of the welfare state and high taxation. But that is not the case. The remarkable Swedish growth began in 1870 when we had just established a very free market, with government expenses as low as 6 per cent of GDP until the war. And until the 1950s, our taxes and expenditure were not higher than those in the US and Switzerland, and free trade was more practised. It is true that the taxes and expenses in Sweden grew rapidly from 1970 and on, but that also happened to be the time when we got relatively poorer, and dropped from being the 4th richest country in the world to the 17th in 30 years! I have written an article in English on this to set the record straight.

10:29 - FAQ 1: ANTI-GLOBALISTS: According to the response on the Channel Four forum, you either love or hate my film Globalisation is good. The response I get personally is very enthusiastic and full of praise. Many are astonished that pro-globalisation ideas at last get some time on the TV. I will deal with the criticism one by one here in the GlobLog, as I have the time. FAQ 1: Some people claim that I misrepresent the anti-globalists when I blame them for protectionism. So? It was the wealthy protectionist American unions that launched the anti-globalisation movement in Seattle 1999, the anti-sweatshop activists claim that we should boycott countries that are too poor, the French Attac movement write in their platform that defence of the protectionist Common Agricultural Policy in the EU is one of their most important goals. Even groups who are opposed to the export subsidies for Western farmers, for example Via Campenesa, has that view only because they are against large scale trade in agricultural goods generally - and so are opposed to other free trade reforms in the area. Lately there are some great exceptions among NGOs. Especially Oxfam has produced a great campaign against agricultural protectionism. But I would never call them anti-globalists since they believe in trade and foreign investments. On the contrary I have praised Oxfam for their campaign.

17:17 - A MANIFESTO FOR GERMANS: The German translation of In Defence of Global Capitalism, with the charming title Das Kapitalistische Manifest, is sold out, and just went into a second edition at the publisher, Eichborn. If you read German, you might be interested in these reviews in Financial Times Deutschland, Die Welt and Weltwoche, or this attack from a former German minister for social affairs. Considering his statist record, I consider it a great acknowledgement. :-)

17:53 - CLOSE TO A MILLION!: Gosh. I just received the first figures on the number of viewers of my Globalisation is good film. No fewer than 800,000 viewers saw the film when it was sent last night. And those who know tell me that this is very good for a current affairs show, let alone something about economics. Furthermore, these figures do not include those who tape or tivo the show and watch it later. Usually I count myself very lucky when I have an audience of one hundred people for a lecture. Last night I had almost ONE MILLION. So today I feel great - and retroactively very nervous about my performance.

09:43 - THE DAY AFTER: My film Globalisation is good aired last night on Channel Four, UK. And in just a few minutes I received lots of reactions. A lot of praise and a lot of criticism. Thank you for both! The common denominator seems to be that both sides are stunned that a pro-capitalist message gets time on British television. That says something about expectations of media bias... I will get back when I have received more reactions and questions, but I would already want to comment that some criticise the film for being too superficial. Well, I think that the TV medium is superficial in itself. It is not the right place to back up your claims with sources and documentation. Those who are interested in that should have a look at my book In Defence of Global Capitalism instead. That thought has apperantly occured to many, since the book quickly climbed the sales rank of Amazon UK yesterday.

10:29 - HOLY COWS: We should blame the EU, and especially France, for the failure of the WTO meeting in Cancún. In an article (in Swedish), published by several Swedish papers, I accuse the EU of letting special interests in agriculture endanger the entire multilateral trade system.

11:44 - ON TV: I just got the transmission date for my UK Channel Four documentary, Globalisation is good. It is on the air this Sunday at 8 p.m. In this film, I am travelling to Vietnam, Kenya, Taiwan and Brussels to look at how global capitalism creates development, and how the lack of it produces poverty and stagnation. I consider it an honor that Channel 4 transmit my film the same evening as Star Trek: Enterprise. So far, only the British will be able to see the documentary. Tune in, turn on, drop tariffs.

10:10 - THE WTO MEETING COLLAPSES: Last week I suggested in the Washington Times, that if the EU is not serious about dismantling its agricultural protection "developing countries may drop out of the trade talks". Tonight this happened after the European Union and Japan refused to accept serious reforms, and insisted on discussing other issues, not directly related to trade. WTO is much more democratic than most people think, and the insistence on consensus makes it possible for poor countries to stop futile negotiations. Now the whole world should point their fingers at the EU and its holy cows. It has once again allowed a small group of oversubsidised farmers hold the multilateral trade system hostage. The World Bank has calculated that a substantial free trade agreement would have added as much as $520 billion to global incomes by 2015, lifting 144 million people out of poverty. The EU seems to prefer $58 billion in annual agricultural subsidies.

23:48 - NO TO THE EURO: Today the Swedes rejected the euro by a wide margin, 56.1 vs 41.8 per cent, despite the wave of sympathy for the murdered foreign minister Anna Lindh. I am part of the majority, because a) At last we have a functioning monetary system in Sweden with an independent central bank and low inflation (No 1 in the world according to the Economic Freedom of the World project), so why should we replace that with a politicised system where the French and the Germans break the rules after just two years? and b) The euro is a method for some European politicians to centralise economic policies to Brussels. The next step is probably a European tax and massive distributions between the countries. So I welcome the rejection, as I have written elsewhere (in Swedish). However, I do not rejoice. I am sure many of the other no-voters have intentions opposite to mine, and it is not joyful to see the greens and ex-commuist left dancing and cheering. A mixture of nationalism and welfare state nostalgia has also played an important part for the rejection of the euro. The strongest force in this election, however, was the distrust in the establishment. They were all in favour - the government, the social democrats, the opposition, big business, the media, etc. In that case it is hard not to be suspicious, even for Swedes used to trust the authorities. And the voters did not seem to reject trade and openness, on the contrary they complained about the bureaucracy and regulations in the EU. The message to Brussels is pretty clear: If you continue to harmonise and centralise, the people will not follow.

10:24 - ANNA LINDH MURDERED: Today Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh died after an unidentified man stabbed her several times. This is a terrible shock to me, and almost every single Swede. Not the least because she was such a sympathetic person, it must have been difficult to dislike her. It is a tragedy in so many ways, and brings back memories from the unresolved murder of prime minister Olof Palme in 1986. Underestimated when she was appointed, partly because she was a young woman, Anna Lindh won respect from all sides through her competent work, and her efforts to bury the old Swedish neutrality doctrine. Being a modern, international social democrat she was considered the obvious successor to prime minister Göran Persson. In secret, some of us free-marketers hoped that she would become the Swedish Tony Blair, a reformer and moderniser. We have no information yet, but it is a reasonable speculation that the murderer might have been driven by hatred of the modernisation and globalisation of Swedish society. That the killing was actually welcomed by a few individuals among the radical communists and nazis in Sweden, shows that some saw her as a symbol of that process. One thing we do know for sure is that the second victim is going to be the relative openness of Swedish society, and the accessibility of our politicians. That is a tragedy too.

16:23 - RADICAL CHIC - MOI?: In her Washington Post column today, Anne Applebaum writes about "two glamorous young pro-capitalists" - the brave French libertarian anti-protest protester Sabine Herold - and myself. Applebaum thinks that we symbolise a trend where "the young, the hip and the free-thinking" are fighting for and not against the free market. I am not sure about the specific flattering remarks, but I think Applebaum is right about the trend. Surveys show that the support for anti-capitalist groups in Sweden comes from the older generation that turned left in the 60s, and see this as a reunion. And more and more I see that the young and radical are becoming radicals for capitalism. By the way, Applebaum has written a book on Gulag that I really admire, so she should be right in this case as well.

04:36 - NORBERG VS KUTTNER ONLINE: Today the WTO meeting in Cancún opens. My best guess is that the negotiators will arrange a face saving deal, but they will make no substantial progress, and all the tricky issues will have to be solved later. For the occasion an online symposium is launched by The American Prospect, Cato Institute, A World Connected and The Nation. There I am active throughout the week in an ongoing online debate against Robert Kuttner, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and a leading left-wing skeptic of free market globalisation.

19:11 - CASE FOR PESSIMISM ABOUT THE WTO: A recent deal on drug access and an agreement between the EU and the US on agricultural trade has made many skeptics more optimistic about the WTO meeting in Cancún, Mexico, 10-14 September 2003. Not so fast. The EU-US agreement is actually totally devoid of commitments on free trade reforms. The only thing it says clearly is that they are going to break their only substantial promise from the Doha meeting, that all export subsidies were to be abolished. As I write in The Washington Times, if they do not change their positions dramatically, there is a real risk that developing countries will walk out of the meeting.

16:00 - GOING WEST: This week I am travelling to Washington DC. The reason is that Cato Institute is publishing an American edition of my book In Defense of Global Capitalism, both in hardcover and paperback - available from Amazon. The book has been updated and Americanised in an excellent way by Julian Sanchez, and I am very happy about it. Among the events, there is a formal Book Forum at Cato on 4 September. If you can´t make it to Cato, you can see the event online.