GlobLog - June 2004
A direct link to each entry is obtained by using the button below the entry.

22:58 - GOING EAST: Now I am leaving Stockholm for three weeks in Vietnam. That is one of the world’s last communist dictatorships, but it also happens to be a country in rapid transition. In the mid-80’s socialism had resulted in hunger and misery, so the government began to open up the economy, deregulate and welcome foreign investments. Since then, Vietnam has had one of the fastest growth rates in the world, and absolute poverty has been halved from 75 percent in 1988, to 37 percent in 1998. I have been in the most developed, southern part of Vietnam, to make my film and to explore the effects of foreign multinationals. This time though, I will travel around northern Vietnam – on vacation. But I am sure that it will result in some on-the-ground research as well.

And after that I will spend some time writing my next book. So until early August, I won’t reply to e-mail, and I won’t write much here. So until then, enjoy summer!

(For some great travelling advice in Swedish, read Peter Olsson!)

01:44 - SERIAL EXAGGERATOR: Michael Moore often pretends to be censored by big media, and recently he claimed that Bill O’Reilly and Jay Leno have banned him from their shows. In Los Angeles Times, Patrick Goldstein shows that this is far from the truth. Goldstein happens to be a political friend of Moore, but his conclusion is that Moore seems like a ”serial exaggerator”, and that ”the problem with Moore is that if you judge him as a documentary filmmaker, his work is undermined by too many shaded facts and slippery conclusions”.

19:57 - HAYEK AND GAY MARRIAGE: One of the last blatant forms of discrimination in the Western world is the prohibition against gay marriage. A discriminatory ghost from prejustices’ past – just as it was illegal for blacks to marry whites in some parts of America not long ago. The only real argument that I have heard against gay marriage (no, God’s views doesn’t count, I think he can take care of the universe without the help from statist politicians) is that marriage is an ancient and important institution, and we shouldn’t tinker with such traditions. The same of course could be said in favour of the prohibition against inter-racial marriage. But there is some vague Hayekian plausibility to this argument – we shouldn’t try to re-arrange the world too much, too fast. But in an excellent article in Reason, Jonathan Rauch shows why Hayek would not agree.

The only thing I would add is that some observers make Hayek more conservative than he is, because they tend to think of all traditions as equally worthy of a defence from a spontaneous order-point of view (sometimes Hayek made the same mistake). A rational Hayekian does not agree – some institutions and traditions stand in the way of new piecemal experiments, and new spontaneous developments which can show us what works and what doesn’t (for example specific voluntary relationships between adults). Traditions like that should be thrown out before they get too old.

16:49 - TO GIVE YOU TIME TO READ SOMETHING ELSE: Why waste your time reading Bill Clinton’s memoirs when Slate has made a condensed version? Here are some great excerpts:

Clinton´s Life Not Lived:

Page 172: "I had fantasized from time to time about being a doorman at New York´s Plaza Hotel, at the south end of Central Park. Plaza doormen had nice uniforms and met interesting people from all over the world. I imagined garnering large tips from guests who thought that, despite my strange southern accent, I made good conversation.

On the 1992 Presidential Campaign:

Page 368: In 1991, Roger Porter calls from the Bush White House to say that if Clinton decides to run, the Bush campaign will try to destroy him personally. "We´ll spend whatever we have to spend to get whoever we have to get to say whatever they have to say to take you out. And we´ll do it early."

On "I Didn´t Inhale":

Page 405: "Maybe I thought I was being funny."

Clinton´s Unlikely Sources of Inspiration and Guidance:

Page 343: Chevy Chase.

Page 347: Tina Turner.

Page 410: Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn.

16:21 - SINCE MANY ASK: No, I am not going to the small city of Norberg, to beat the record in the category how many people with the same name as the city are there at the same time (for the Guinness Book of Records). I don’t think it’s the role of politicians to use our money to put cities on the map. This project is actually financed by EU subsidies ("Objective 2" money). And the politicians still don’t understand why the voters think that EU is silly…

09:51 - STATSIDEOLOGINS BLINDA FLÄCK: En ung invandrad kvinna vittnar mot sin släkt i ett känsligt hedersrelaterat brott, men får inget beskydd av svensk polis, och mördas under en resa till det gamla hemlandet i Asien. Hur kan svensk polis göra en sådan tabbe? Det är faktiskt inte konstigt, med tanke på de besked som kommer från högsta ort. Det finns nämligen inget sådant som hedersmord, faktum är att det inte ens finns några kulturskillnader i världen, det har integrationsminister Mona Sahlins nye gunstling, den nye integrationsutredaren Masoud Kamali slagit fast. Allt handlar om klasskillnader och ”strukturell rasism”. Som jag förstår den nya statsideologin kan det alltså inte ha funnits någon specifik hotbild mot kvinnan om det inte rörde sig om ekonomiska maktrelationer.

16:11 - REQUIRED READING: Christopher Hitchens is one of the world’s best left-wing journalists – independent, intellectually honest and always well prepared. Now he has written the most insightful and devastating critique of Michael Moore and his distortions that I have ever read. His conclusion is that “To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability.” As for Moore’s statement that he won’t appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning, and that he will take critics to court, Hitchens replies:

”I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let´s redo Telluride [where they once debated]. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let´s see what you´re made of.”

If Moore dares to accept the challenge, I will eat my hat.

15:49 - SYSTEMBOJKOTT: Nu är det lätt att bojkotta systemet. Det finns ju privata alternativ.

09:32 - MOORE´S NEW TACTIC: Interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, Michael Moore has given us a first taste of his new “war room" tactic, supposed to counter “lies” about his film with instant “facts”. Let’s see how he does this by looking at this excerpt about the Saudi flights:

STEPHANOPOULOS: [I]t says here in the 9/11 commission report that these flights didn´t take off until after the airspace reopened. That is true, correct?

MOORE: No, they were on charter flights. Once the airspace opened for commercial flights, they hadn´t opened for the charter flights. And so the charter flights that picked up the bin Ladens around the country, that went to the various cities — this was all assisted by the White House, which really should be the real focus of this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, but Richard Clarke, who´s probably at the top of the White House enemy list, says that it was his decision, he takes responsibility for it. He doesn´t think it was a mistake.

MOORE: Right. And he said that he´s made mistakes, and he apologized to the 9/11 families for those mistakes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that wasn´t one of the mistakes.

MOORE: Well, I happen to think it was a mistake.

In other words, when confronted, Moore changes his old allegation, from having been that this happened before commercial air space opened, to saying that this was among the first chartered flights that were allowed. When confronted with the fact that the former White House terrorist expert Richard Clarke took responsibility for the decision, Moore answers that Clarke has acknowledged mistakes, and pretends that this was one of those mistakes, which it wasn’t. But Stephanopoulos knows this and comes back again. Then Moore simply replies that he thinks it was a mistake personally! So that is what is left of Moore´s huge conspiracy theory and accusations of systematic lies, when it meets research and tough questions – I think it was a mistake.

This is a tactic of replying out of context, hoping that your journalist does not have specific information about the case, so that he is unable to see when you evade the question and talk about something else. Unfortunately for Mr Moore, Stephanopoulos is too knowledgeable to fall for the trick. In that case, the only way out is to switch to another subject immediately. (Another example is here when Moore lies about what a Congressman Kennedy has told him in an interview, assuming that Stephanopoulos won´t check his story against the transcript, which he does here.) But just wait and see, Moore’s tactic will work against many other less knowledgeable journalists in the months ahead.

Oh, did I forget to mention that Moore has another new defence against accusations of inaccuracies? His first one was “How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”. His second one was “I don´t want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree”. His new one is:

“Well, it´s an op-ed piece. It´s my opinion about the last four years of the Bush administration. And that´s what I call it. I´m not trying to pretend that this is some sort of, you know, fair and balanced work of journalism […] Did I mention it´s a comedy too?”

23:41 - MR COUNTERBALANCE: Say you are Swedish and get your news on USA, Iraq and foreign policy generally from the Swedish media - often uninformed, always anti-American. What do you do if you want some balance, to get the facts they never report, to be able to judge for yourselves? You could follow a good American newspaper like Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. But what if you don´t have the time? In that case, you should read Dick Erixon´s blog on a regular basis. I don´t always share his hawkish perspectives, but he thinks for himself, and is critical, witty and actually interested in the rest of the world. Traits you rarely find in the Swedish media. Recently he has written about how Swedish journalists systematically refuse to report on the cruelty of Saudi and Iraqi terrorists - for example the beheading of a Swede in Khobar.

17:26 - THE FINAL FRONTIER: I just saw history being made. The television just brought me the pictures of the succesful landing of the first privately funded and organised human spaceflight, SpaceShipOne. This is fantastic. Now we know that space flight is possible without a massive bureaucarcy forcing people to pay for it. And with succesful space entrepreneurs, at last we will see a commercial space race to make space accesible to people in general. I for one hope to celebrate my 50th birthday in orbit.

16:55 - MOORE MEETS CRITICS WITH FORCE: Michael Moore is so worried about criticism of his film Fahrenheit 911 that he has created a “war room” to offer instant responses to attacks on the film. Moore has hired Chris Lehane - according to the New York Times a “Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of ‘oppo,’ or opposition research, used to discredit detractors” - and a team of fact-checkers, led by two men from the magazine New Yorker. And if people persist in criticising the film, “he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation”. "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force", he added.

This says it all. When I work – for example when I wrote my book In Defence of Global Capitalism, and made my documentary Globalisation is Good – I spent a lot of time doing research before I produced them. Afterwards, when people criticised me, I presented my case and my facts to discuss the issues, not my opponents. Michael Moore does things the other way around. First he makes the film. When he is criticised for glaring inaccuracies, he starts doing some research to defend his case. And he tries to dig up dirt on his opponents, and if that doesn’t succeed in discrediting them, he threatens to sue those of us who persist in criticising him!

Oh, did I forget to mention that Moore has a new defence against accusations of inaccuracies? His old one was “How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”. His new one is “I don´t want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree”.

14:32 - NOTHING LIKE 1787: Back from a trip to Gotland, I see that the EU leaders agreed on a constitution. And we should all be grateful for Tony Blair’s staunch defence of the British vetoes. Otherwise we would soon see harmonisation of taxes and other domestic policies. I am glad at least one European has the guts to rebuke president Chirac. But the major points of this constitution is that no power is transferred back to countries or individuals (it’s the other way around); that it will be easier to make new decisions despite resistance from a big minority; and the fact that it includes a bill of rights, which calls almost every aspect of the welfare state a “right” (labour market regulations, social security, and so on). In other words, the EU constitution talks about human rights to things that the EU is not entitled to legislate about. A classical way of increasing EU power silently, step-by-step, through the back door. Is there nothing good to be said about this constitution? Oh yes: It will probably not be implemented, due to the voters’ resistance at the polls.

11:46 - MORE TRUE STORIES: Do you want another example that socialism and rationing does not create the world´s best health care system? Hospitals in Malmö, Sweden´s third city, has started hiring security guards, to deal with patients who turn aggressive and violent when they don´t get help or treatement.

11:12 - SOCIALISM KILLS: Here is another true story about socialised health care in Sweden: Jack gets a brain tumour. He is being sent around several different institutions, where he sits and waits for hours. He gets no diagnosis, and is simply told to wait. After two months he finally gets the diagnosis. It´s a big tumour, too difficult to remove surgically. Even though this is a highest priority case, and even though Jack has paid taxes all his life to get health care when he needs it, his waiting period for radiation treatment is more than a month. “Unacceptable, but not much to do about it”, the doctor concludes.

Jack begins to look for alternatives abroad, and is warned by his doctor about “unserious” foreign alternatives. But four days later, and by borrowing 250 000 SEK ($33 000), he gets surgery in a German hospital. It is successful. And it turns out that Jack wouldn’t have survived another month if it hadn’t been for the surgery.

(Here is another true story about Swedish health care.)

09:36 - SARA LIDMAN: Just a week ago, many Swedish left-wing intellectuals and journalists said that it was awful to see everybody paying tribute to Ronald Reagan. Today they all embrace everything ever done by the Swedish author Sara Lidman, who just died. The difference of course, was that Lidman hated the US, liberalism and the free market. Since you will be hearing that she was full of love and solidarity for the whole mankind over the next few days, it´s worth mentioning that Sara Lidman adored the Vietnamese dictator Ho Chi Minh, whose communist regime murdered more than one million Vietamese (unrelated to the war). She found harsher words for western businessmen, whom she saw as a "junta", intent on killing the third world. She refused to protest against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the company of the Swedish Committee for Afghanistan because they "help the right", but she had no problem with protesting against the American invasion of Afghanistan in the company of dogmatic communists.

08:35 - CANDID CANDIDATE: Since the EU leaders cannot agree on a new head of the European Commission, Luxembourg’s Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, is once again mentioned as a compromise candidate. Why not? He understands the EU system better than most, and he is honest about it. Just listen to his words to Der Spiegel 1999:

”We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.”

23:34 - PERCEPTIONS: I just got a nice e-mail from a reader, saying that he enjoyed what I am doing - and he also said with sympathy that I must be a minority in Sweden with my pro-capitalist message. The funny thing was that this was a reader in China! Apparently not a place where pro-capitalist views are in a minority any more.

By the way, just to set the record straight: I often complain about Swedish policies, and taxes and government spending here are internationally unique. But at the same time it must be said that we have less regulation and more open markets than in most other countries. In the Index of Economic Freedom, Sweden is the 12th economically freest country on earth, in the Economic Freedom of the World, Sweden is the 26th. In other words: Astonishingly, about 180-190 countries are even less capitalist than Sweden. You can begin to worry now.

21:04 - MAKE IT SO!: Did you think that Star Trek was just fiction and no science? Think again. According to the journal Nature, two independent research teams have now performed successful teleportation. It is not atoms as such that are teleported, it is the properties of one particle that has been teleported to another particle in milliseconds - at the push of a button - without any physical link. Perhaps we will never teleport individuals (would you like to disappear and see your properties transported to other atoms?), but experts tell the BBC that ”This is a milestone”, which will make new ultra-fast computers with quantum wiring possible. And in four days, the first commercial manned flight beyond the atmosphere is taking place. That is a first step toward space-tourism that will make space open to everyone. “Second star to the right, and straight on ‘til morning.”

16:13 - SVT VILLE STOPPA JOSEFSSONKRITIK: Kommer ni ihåg att jag tipsade om Jasenko Selimovics intervju med doku-propagandisten Janne Josefsson? Eftersom intervjun verkligen fick Josefsson ur balans är det föga förvånande att det nu visar sig att SVT:s samhällsredaktion i Göteborg ville stoppa sändningen av programmet. Det är maktens arrogans.

23:18 - AGE OF COERCION: ”Monibiot believes in a better world". So says the headline to an interview with this British anti-capitalist in Svenska Dagbladet today. This is because George Monbiot proposes a ”global democracy” in his new book, ”The Age of Consent” (now in Swedish), by which he means a world government, where Chinese and Indian voters can rule our lives if they chose, and where it is impossible for the individual to make exit to any other type of system.

”Monbiot believes in a better world”. When did you last read such a statement about a free-marketeer like Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell? Probably never. And the difference is that they really do believe in a better world for all, Monbiot doesn’t. He thinks the world is a zero-sum game. He believes in a better world for developing countries, but that this has to mean that ”I will get it worse, and England will definitely get it worse”. I wonder who had to get it worse from the start, for us to get from stone age to silicon age. Whom did we take all these cars and mobile phones from?

22:42 - SVAR: Förresten, Systembolaget svarade på mina frågor med ett standardmail, där det enda intressanta i sak är att deras annons mot nyliberalismen kostade 1,9 miljoner kronor. De försäkrar vidare att annonsens syfte inte var att skada liberalismen. Nähä? Trodde de på allvar att jag var orolig över att liberaler skulle skadas av att framstå som huvudmotståndare till Sveriges mest korrumperade och impopulära monopol?

22:28 - MY MISTAKE - AND THEIRS: I made a big mistake in my last post. Systembolaget were appearently referring to John D Rockefeller Sr., not his son, John D Rockefeller Jr., whom I was thinking of. I am sorry about that. But it’s actually more interesting that they use Jr. as an authority on alcohol, since he was a strict teetotaler and Baptist who viewed alcohol as sinful, and funded many of the groups who enforced the prohibition in the US 1920. Quite an authority... (Thanks to Erik Herbertson)

By the way here is a better advert on the subject.

12:54 - ALLIES AGAINST COMPETITION: Systembolaget, the Swedish alcohol monopoly, is attacking "neo-liberals" in a bizarre advert today, saying that even John D Rockefeller, who "believed that the free market is always superior", was in favour of a monopoly on the sales of alcohol. Since when is a capitalist who doesn´t believe in capitalism an argument against capitalism? It´s especially ludicrous to use Rockefeller in this context, since he never believed in free competition. As Gary Allen has written:

"John D. Rockefeller Sr., who proclaimed that "competition is a sin," used every devious trick he could devise to create a national oil monopoly. His strategy was as ruthless as it was effective: Get control of your competitiors, and then keep control of them. Old John D. quickly learned that political power was essential to protect and advance his economic clout, so he went into the politics business. Once he controlled the purse strings of enough captive Congressmen, he could get them to pull stringsto benefit Standard Oil and the family´s other business interests. In other words, he sought national control to protect his national monopoly."

Hmmm, sounds like another monopolist I know...

12:14 - OMRUBRICERAT: Svenska Dagbladet må ha slentriansocialister som rubriksättare, men de är inte sämre än att de kan ändra sig - och hitta på nya ord - när de blir slagna på fingrarna. Gårdagens "Privatisering hotar viltstammen" har i nätupplagan nu ändrats till "Avprivatisering hotar viltstammen". När kommer rättelsen i pappersupplagan?

09:27 - HEJ SYSTEMBOLAGET!: Jag vet att det finns några frågor ni inte vill besvara med anledning av er reklam "Hej alla nyliberala!" i Dagens Nyheter, Dagens Industri, Stockholm City och många andra tidningar idag. Men de bör ändå ställas. Detta är första gången jag ser ett statligt bolag kampanja mot en politisk gruppering - tycker ni generellt att det är rimligt att statliga bolag gör detta, eller gör ni ett undantag för att ni tycker så illa om liberalism? Tycker ni inte att detta ser extra illa ut när ni har en VD som är gift med statsministern, som räknar de nyliberala som huvudfienden i det politiska landskapet? Och slutligen: Hur mycket pengar kostar er politiska kampanj för er, och därmed för oss medborgare som i någon mening äger er?

Jag kan bara tillägga att jag nu känner inför er som jag skulle göra inför vilket bolag som helst som använder sina resurser till att angripa mig och mina meningsfränder: Jag kommer inte längre att rekommendera era produkter.

(Skickat till kundtjanst@systembolaget.se)

21:47 - RÖD RUBRICERING: Behövde vi verkligen fler bevis för att folk utgår från att allt ont i världen beror på nyliberalism? Läs Svenska Dagbladet idag. På sidan 17 finns en artikel om att Mugabes planer på att förstatliga all mark i Zimbabwe hotar att tillintetgöra landets viltstam. Redigeraren läste förmodligen aldrig artikeln, utan såg väl bara att den handlade om ett hot mot djur, samt att äganderätt på något vis var inblandat, och utgick då från sina ryggmärgsreaktioner. Rubriken blev: ”Privatisering hotar viltstam”.

09:18 - WHY WE DON´T TURN OUT: When the journalist Tom Oliphant visited Timbro a month ago, he said that the election for the European Parliament was the only election over here which he could relate to as an American, because the voters did not care about it. He’s right, just look at the turnout across Europe in the BBC graph below. In a way, there is no reason to panic, as politicians and political scientists have over the last few days: The more different institutions, and the more division of power, the less reason to vote in every single election. That’s a good thing. It would be worse if everybody felt compelled to vote for the European Parliament, because it had complete power over every single individual. And the bigger the EU gets, the less influence every single voter has. And furthermore low turnout reveals a healthy dose of scepticism to EU power. Perhaps our politicians should take a moment to think about that before they sign a new constitution which gives Brussels new powers over labour markets, social policies, health, energy, investments - and sports!

11:03 - KERRY´S CHOICE: Everybody speculates on John Kerry’s choice of running mate. Only America’s finest news source knows:

"In my search for a vice-president, I considered many qualified men and women," Kerry said, announcing his decision at Boston University. "But one man stood apart from the madding crowd as brave, honest, and full of life. One man displayed a true desire to change America for the better—not through political maneuvering, but through hard work. That man was me, 35 years ago… My running mate is smart, hard-working, and, above all, unsullied by compromise," said the four-term senator from Massachusetts.

09:00 - THE ESTABLISHMENT PARTY: Now we know what the people of EU think. But what does the journalists of EU think? The Brussels correspondent for Swedish television, Erika Bjerström, happened to reveal it when she light-heartedly and without further comments about this - as if it were the most natural thing in the world - reported from the press room in the European Parliament last night:

"There were some applause here a few moments ago when the figures for the socialist group appeared, and it looked like they had gained seats."

08:32 - THE OPPOSITION PARTY: The only old Swedish party that has gained since the last time is centern. Partly I think they were rewarded for being the only party that came out strongly against the social democrats´ attempt to restrict access of Swedish labour market to new EU members. I´ve met a lot of principled liberals who weren´t willing to vote for folkpartiet and moderaterna this time because these parties were much less reliable on that issue - and many of them contemplated voting for centern.

23:43 - AND THE WINNER IS...PART II: From Sweden, we can report the worst result ever in a democratic election for the ruling social democrats (24.7%). And a stunning victory for the new EU-critical Junilistan (14.4%). A party in favour of the EU membership, but opposed to further centralisation to Brussels. It is a clear sign that a lot of Swedes want an open Europe without borders and tariffs, but without bureaucracy, subsidies and political harmonisation. Not far from my own European vision...

16:41 - AND THE WINNER IS...: I have been asked again and again on how to vote in the European Parliament election today, and a lot of people have mailed me to try and change my mind, so here is my final word on the matter, before I go out to cast my vote. I have great sympathy for a vote for folkpartiet, moderaterna or centern, especially Maria Weimer, Pia Kinhult or Fredrick Federly. Since I like the new, more EU-critical attitudes of these parties, and want to make sure that they will stay on that course, I will personally now go and vote for the EU-sceptical junilistan – not primarily because I like their politics (in some ways I don´t), but because their advance is the reason why the center-right parties are suddenly not as uncritical to Brussels-bureaucracy as they used to be. Furthermore, it´s very difficult for me to resist the temptation to upset the establishment.

15:57 - WAS REAGAN ANTI-GAY?: When I voice my opposition to Ronald Reagan’s cultural agenda, one of the things I have in mind is his conservative views on sex and his homophobia. For example it is often said that “Reagan never even mentioned the word ‘AIDS’ publicly until 1987”, and in the TV movie The Reagans, the Reagan character says “Those who live in sin will die in sin”.

Reagan certainly had many traditionalist views, but in this regard it seems I am the victim of a myth, says Deroy Murdock in a very interesting article. Reagan never said anything remotely similar to that, in fact according to his children and colleagues he had a non-judgemental attitude to homosexuals, and fought against an anti-gay ballot in California in 1978. As a journalist explained in a biography: “In the final analysis, Reagan felt that what people do in private is their own business, not the government’s” – despite the aggressive homophobia of many of his strong supporters.

When it comes to AIDS Reagan did use the word, which was created in 1982, in public before 1987. In fact, in a speech on America´s future challenges in 1986 (not a State of the Union, as Murdock writes), he mentioned AIDS five times. And a year before that, he had said publicly that fighting AIDS was a "top priority". And by that time, he had already expanded research, education and treatment on AIDS. Under Reagan the federal government spent $5.7 billion on AIDS.

14:47 - LÄSA MELLAN RADERNA: DN/Söndag publicerar idag ett helt uppslag om Rena Kläder-kampanjen mot de hemska omständigheter under vilka sportkläderna till OS produceras i u-länder. Mycket välvilligt. Helt okritiskt. Hoppsan, de glömde att nämna att kampanjen inte bara sponsras av det konkurrensaversiva facket, utan till och med har c/o-adressen LO-TCO Biståndsnämnd, Upplandsgatan 3, 111 23 Stockholm. Och hoppsan, de glömde att nämna att reportern, Jennie Dielemans, bl a är författare till boken Motstånd, en handbok i handgripliga sätt att krossa kapitalismen.

14:22 - COWBOYS VS COMMUNISTS: In a radio debate with me the environmentalist politician Lars Ångström said that he knew dissidents in Eastern Europe who saw Reagan as a dangerous cowboy (he mentioned Solidarity in Poland explicitly). I am sure that Ångström knew some strange folks there. But those who fought, and won freedom for their countries did not share that opinion. Just listen to Poland’s revolutionary hero, first democratic president, Lech Walesa, who led Solidarity

”When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can´t be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. […] Prepared for the first almost-free parliamentary elections in Poland in 1989, [our] poster shows Gary Cooper as the lonely sheriff in the American Western, "High Noon." Under the headline "At High Noon" runs the red Solidarity banner and the date--June 4, 1989--of the poll… Cowboys in Western clothes had become a powerful symbol for Poles. Cowboys fight for justice, fight against evil, and fight for freedom, both physical and spiritual. Solidarity trounced the Communists in that election, paving the way for a democratic government in Poland."

14:04 - EU MONEY FOR NOTHING: I have always thought that a political problem with governments transferring money from one place to another is that you can see the small positive results in the short run (new jobs, saved industries), whereas the bigger problems are not as easily seen (the jobs that are not created, the industries that are not developed). The European Union’s structural funds have proven me wrong: They don’t even create anything good in the short run.

The Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies, a government agency, has led a study of the 18 billion SEK (€2 bn) in EU subsidies transferred to Swedish regions 1995-99. It doesn’t find any positive correlation between the subsidies and income, job creation, business creation, population, education, flexibility or tourism. But it has found some correlations: The more subsidies a town is given, the more unemployment grows and the more income in the private sector declines! Not very surprising really, if someone gives me money for nothing, it doesn’t make me want to work harder and find new business opportunities.

These subsidies make up about 34 percent of the EU budget. No matter how you vote today at the election to the European Parliament, make sure your candidate wants to abolish them.

14:17 - ANOTHER FREE TRADER THIS YEAR?: But the fact that the only free trader leaves the European Parliament does not mean that she cannot be replaced by another. Here is another brave Spanish free trader, intent on fighting tariffs and farming subsidies as MEP.

10:40 - SUPERSIZE ME: I couldn’t resist the temptation to tell The Economist how taxes created broadsheets. They publish my letter today.

10:31 - MISSA INTE: Ikväll i SVT2/K Special kl 20.00 visas en dokumentär om vår tids störste musiker, Nick Cave. Missa inte heller Jasenko Selimovics tuffa intervju med Janne Josefsson i SVT2/Allvarligt talat. Äntligen bra journalistik som granskar verkliga makthavare. Repris 12/6 14.45 och 14/6 00.20.

10:13 - NO FREE TRADER THIS YEAR: When I discussed how MEPs have voted on trade and subsidies, I wrote it was a pity that I couldn’t vote for the only consistent free trader, Spain’s Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (EPP). A Spanish contact tells me no one else can either. She is not on the list of her party this year. Of course. One free trader in the European Parliament sounded too good to be true…

22:23 - HOW THE COLD WAR WAS WON: Yesterday I debated Reagan´s legacy on Swedish radio. Did he really end the Cold War? My take on the subject was a bit different than the normal discussion of armaments. The battle of ideas was just as important. Reagan made the US strong again after the 70s, by controlling inflation and laying the ground for high growth. This showed the Soviet leaders that they couldn’t compete with America if they didn’t reform, and pick a young, dynamic leader like Gorbachev).

And Reagan’s condemnation of communism gave moral support to dissidents. When Natan Sharansky was freed after nine years in the gulag, he told Reagan that word of his speeches was passed from prisoner to prisoner in the forced-labor camps. Reagan’s speeches showed them that they weren’t forgotten by the world, and that resistance against totalitarianism was possible.

14:26 - CLOSE TO CONSENSUS: The Copenhagen Consensus has been a very interesting project with great people involved. This is a pioneering work by Bjorn Lomborg and several high-ranking economists, and sponsored by The Economist, to get some cost/benefit-analysis into the development debate. Considering that resources are limited, how can we make best use of them? This kind of thinking is desperately needed in international organisations and development institutions – where demands from corrupt rulers and pressure groups are often more important for the outcome than rationality.

Now the Copenhagen Consensus has published its results. They find that the best projects are those trying to control HIV/AIDS and malaria, fight malnutrition with micronutritients, and implement trade liberalisation. The worst projects, those giving the least bang for the buck are attempts to stop climate change – including Kyoto.

The papers and the debates are very interesting, and I think the world would be a better place if they are listened to (at least the world should find the time to watch the multimedia presentation). But I have one strong reservation. Why is trade liberalisation on the list at all? Free trade is not an aid project, with economic costs. On the contrary, according to the Copenhagen paper by Kym Anderson, complete free trade would add about $23 trillion to the world economy over the next 50 years (poor countries would get half of that). It doesn’t have any costs that must be weighed against what we could do with that money otherwise. On the contrary it finances itself and creates more resources, and could make other projects possible. Therefore its inclusion (on third place) misses the whole point of the Copenhagen project.

Trade liberalisation should be number one, far ahead of the others, or not on the list at all.

11:30 - BUSH VS REAGAN II: What would the more combative, less embracing and less eloquent president Bush have said where Ronald Reagan said "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"? Frederick Kempe tells us that an official who has served on both administrations has a suggestion:

”Mr Gorbachev, tear down this walll, or we’ll tear it down for you!”

09:28 - SLIPPERY SLOPE: A classical argument against torture is that even if you can find a theoretical case where you have to torture a terrorist to stop a nuclear device from killing thousands, we enter a slippery slope if we give such an authority to the government. How true. Officially sanctioned sleep-deprivation of al Qaeda suspects, quickly turned into sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners on the battleground.

In recent days we have learned that the American Justice Department advised the White House in 2002 that torture of al Qaeda terrorist suspects might be legally defensible. The White House has said that this was merely a background paper, and that president Bush never approved of torture. But even if this is true, it misses the point, that Bush and Rumsfeld should have done everything – with rhetoric and control mechanisms – to make sure that torture is never used by American soldiers and interrogators. That was their responsibility, especially in a war of ideas, where any information that could be extracted by force is pathetic compared to the damage inflicted on the reputation of the US, the West and democracy around the world.

(Other posts on this topic here and here.)

17:02 - A PROTECTIONIST PARLIAMENT: How do MEPs vote on trade and subsidies? The wrong way. That’s the conclusion of a new Timbro study in English and Swedish, by Fredrik Erixon and Niklas H Rossbach. Their study of the voting record of the MEPs reveal that there are six times more protectionists than free traders in the European Parliament. The worst group is the green group. Only one member of the entire parliament, Spain´s Cristina García-Orcoyen Tormo (EPP), has voted as a consistent free trader on every issue. It’s a pity I can’t vote for her. Sweden has most free traders, and France (suprise!) the fewest. But on the whole the results from the Swedes are also disappointing, I am especially disappointed by folkpartiet and moderaterna – who oppose tariffs, but vote in favour of subsidies for farmers. The strongest Swedish free trader is the moderate Charlotte Cederschiöld. But on average, the Swedish social democrats vote in a better way, and it is actually the best party on trade/subsidies in the European Parliament.

08:00 - VENUS: At last, it is here, the Venus transit. It has been 122 years since the last time, so we will be the first living humans to see it. And if you miss it you have another chance in 8 years, and then in 113 years. Unfortunately, the Stockholm skies are very cloudy, but one of the most positive changes in the last 122 years has been the invention of the internet. Watch the transit here, here or here.

22:19 - HOW TO VOTE: On Sunday we have the election to the European Parliament. And I have no idea how to vote. I am serious. The only thing I know is that I am definitely going to vote. Not voting would be to hand the election over to socialists and possibly small racist parties. When there is such a low voter-turnout there is a bigger chance to influence the outcome than ever. But I can’t make up my mind between these four possible alternatives:

Folkpartiet – social-liberals. On paper a good choice, internationalist, free traders. Belongs to the ELDR group, and has the most radical agenda to dismantle the common agricultural policy. But their unprincipled friendly advances towards the social democrats’ restrictions on workers from new EU countries a couple of months ago makes it very difficult for me to vote for them this time. I don’t want a good result for them that could be interpreted as a triumph of populism. That´s sad, I would have wanted to vote for Maria Weimer.

Moderaterna – liberal-conservatives. Another good choice on paper, anti-bureaucracy, free traders. I am concerned that the party is more soft on the CAP than folkpartiet, but on the other hand they are very reliable when it comes to opposing taxes, tariffs and regulations. Belongs to the EPP, and that might actually be a good reason to vote for them, since EPP would need some good individualist influences. I am sure Gunnar Hökmark will be a very positive influence there. Pia Kinhult is my personal favourite.

Centerpartiet – rural social-liberals. I am tempted to vote for centern – especially Fredrick Federly – since it has voiced the strongest opposition against the social democrats suggested restrictions on workers from Eastern Europe. Their new policies should be encouraged. They also have a fairly constructive EU agenda, very much in favour of opening the service market, and opposing centralisation to Brussels. But on the other hand, they are the most CAP positive party in Sweden, and such an opinion almost rules you out even if you had the opinions of Hayek or Rand on all other issues.

Junilistan – EU-skeptical, but in favour of EU membership. I like the fact that this new party wants to do what the others are just talking about – reduce centralisation. They really want to abolish CAP, the structural funds, the fishing subsidies, the foreign aid and the EU intervention in labour and social policies. My only problem with them is that there is a risk that their scepticism towards Brussels might stifle their free trade agenda. For example, they have voiced concerns against the suggested service directive, and has suggested that countries should be able to impose barriers against alcohol imports. But a good result for them would send a well-deserved shock to the political establishment, and I would love to see the eloquent market-liberal economist Nils Lundgren in parliament.

In the end it’s not the precise policies that are most important, since the candidates will have extremely limited influence in a not very powerful parliament. Most important is therefore what kind of influence the election results as such will have, how it is interpreted by the public and the politicians. After having written down these pros and cons, I think I am leaning towards Junilistan. But things may change in a week…

11:28 - BUSH VS REAGAN: No doubt, president Bush will use the memory of Reagan to boost his own image. But it is by no means certain that it will be positive for Bush that Americans suddenly remember what a great president looks like. I am not merely thinking of the difference in eloquence. I am thinking about convictions. Now and then, Bush tries to imitate Reagan’s small-government rhetoric, but in fact Bush is a big government conservative who has increased federal spending more than Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton did. And war accounts for only half of the increase. One problem is that Bush introduces new government programs for all problems he identifies: Education reform, the prescription-drug benefit, marriage-skills training, etc. Another problem is that Bush is veto averse, and never opposes Congress when it spends like drunken sailors on farm bills and corporate welfare. Reagan, a man willing to fight for his principles, vetoed 22 spending bills in his first three years in office. During his eight years in office, Reagan vetoed in total 78 bills.

09:25 - REAGANISMS: CNN.com gives us some examples of Ronald Reagan’s wit:

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement"

"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I´m in a cabinet meeting."

"The difference between them (Democrats) and us (Republicans) is that we want to check government spending and they want to spend government checks."

But they forgot some of his best ones:

"Recession is when your neighbour loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his."

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

“Communism works only in heaven, where they don´t need it, and in hell, where they´ve already got it.”

”Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.”

"The best view of government is seen on a rear view mirror as one is driving away from it."

09:05 - NYLIBERALEN CARL SCHLYTER: Miljöpartiet framhärdar i sitt nej till EU. Men vad är deras alternativ? Toppkandidaten Carl Schlyter ger ett oväntat svar:

”Visionen jag ser som EU borde fungera efter är den nordiska modellen, där vi hade frihandel och fri rörlighet utan en massa byråkrati.”

Med andra ord: fri handel och fri rörlighet, men inget politiskt samarbete, inga regleringar och ingen miljöpolitik? Ryktena om miljöpartiets vänsterhemvist är uppenbarligen överdrivna.

15:19 - THE RECORD OF REAGANOMICS: Swedish commentators now claim that Reagan’s tax cuts created the huge American budget deficit of the 1980s. They are wrong. US revenues from individual income taxes climbed from $244 billion in 1980 to almost $467 billion in 1990. In inflation-adjusted dollars, a 25 percent increase. Total federal revenues doubled from $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, a 28 percent increase in revenue. In other words, supply-side economics worked, and the tax cuts financed themselves.

So why the deficit? Because federal spending more than doubled, growing from almost $591 billion to $1.25 trillion in the 1980s. Partly because of the cold war, partly because Congress voted for increases everywhere, which Reagan opposed.

12:17 - NÄSA FÖR OMVÄRLDEN: Intervju med min favorittänkare i Svenskan idag.

12:04 - REAGAN HIMSELF: A lot of things will be said about Ronald Reagan in the next few days, but it is impossible to understand him right, without seeing and listening to him. Look at his 1964 speech for Barry Goldwater as president, or his Tear down this wall-speech in Berlin 1987, or his farewell adress to the nation 1989.

00:38 - AN AMERICAN HERO (1911-2004): I just heard that Ronald Reagan has died, 93 years old. He will be sadly missed. Reagan was the first American president I could listen to on the news, and I don’t think I will ever have the opportunity to experience such a great president again. Reagan’s economic liberal reforms made America great again, and his uncompromising fight against the evil empire of communism liberated millions. Two things I admire about him set him apart from most politicians of our era: Reagan had moral convictions, which were more important to him than focus groups. And his vision was one of optimism: He appealed to people´s best hopes, not their worst fears. Despite his problematic moral traditionalism and relationship with the Christian Right, his conservatism was more optimistic, individualistic and…Californian, than that of other conservatives. As Ronald Reagan said in a Reason interview in July 1975:

"I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals – if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”

23:42 - SENSELESS JOBLESS GROWTH THEORY: Some hobby economists and one Nobel laureate (Stiglitz) persist in their claim that outsourcing and higher productivity has doomed America to jobless growth. The US job statistics for May just gave us 248,000 new arguments against that hypothesis. And the last three months has given us almost one million arguments against it.

18:44 - DOING MY BEST TO STIMULATE: The new Swedish foundation Nytt Europa has been founded to stimulate a critical yet constructive debate on the EU institutions. Now it has published the anthology Vägval för Europa, with perspectives from both market liberals and socialists. I contribute with a chapter (only in Swedish) arguing against the proposal for a constitution, and in favour of a liberal version of federalism, with strong constraints on Brussels power, making subsidiarity more than a catch phrase.

16:20 - SAD ANNIVERSARY: Today it is 15 years since hundreds, maybe thousands of Chinese students were murdered on Tiananmen Square, because they demanded freedom and democracy. Perhaps we will never know how many were massacred, despite brave efforts from Chinese citizens to find the facts. And today, China´s government censors are repeatedly blacking out coverage of the anniversary by CNN and others. But the world will never forget.

15:46 - MODUS VIVENDI: Twice the last week, I have criticized the Swedish radio show Konflikt for incorrect reporting on the 9/11 Commission (here and here). I won´t complain about tomorrow´s show, though. Why not? Because they have asked me to participate (on a completely different subject). If they think that will make me more positive to the show...they´re right. =)

09:08 - NO MOORE?: 

18 May I published an article in Swedish criticising the lies and distortions of Michael Moore (with a follow-up 28 May). Since then, it seems like it has become acceptable for Swedish journalists, even from the left, to attack Moore. Often they complain that his systematic distortions make it too easy for his critics to attack left-wing views. Just look here, here, here and here. Apparently, Mr Moore has peaked.

10:37 - RICHARD COBDEN AT 200: As we are reminded by Per Ericson, today it is 200 years since the "manchester liberal" thinker, politician and industrialist Richard Cobden was born. I would rank Cobden not merely as one of my favourite liberals, but also as one of the most important individuals in the world in the last two centuries. He forced the British government to abolish the corn laws in 1846, which marked the end of hunger and the start of unilateral free trade. And he was the man behind the free trade treaty between UK and France 1860, which expanded to the rest of Europe, and got industrialisation going all over the continent. If you appreciate the fact that we have abolished hunger and misery in the Western world, you owe a big debt of gratitude to the heroic Richard Cobden. Read Erik Herbertson´s portrait in Swedish, Gregory Bresiger´s introduction to the Manchester school, or read Cobden´s speeches - they are just as devastating to the case of the anti-globalists of today as they were to the aristocratic protectionists of the 19th century.

09:06 - SMITH EXPLAINS THE NORWEGIANS: In a new survey, 17 percent of all Norwegians say they smuggle goods across the border every time they are abroad, and 46 percent does it now and then. As usual this is because of high prices caused by monopolies and protectionism (alcohol and tobacco in Norway´s case). Adam Smith explained this Norwegian mentality already in 1776:

"To pretend to have any scruple about buying smuggled goods, though a manifest encouragement to the violation of the revenue laws, and to the perjury which almost always attends it, would in most countries be regarded as one of those pedantic pieces of hypocrisy which, instead of gaining credit with anybody, serve only to expose the person who affects to practise them to the suspicion of being a greater knave than most of his neighbours."

15:36 - EUROPEANS POORER THAN POOR AMERICANS: Is it just my imagination, or does the anti-Americanism in the EU have something to do with envy? We sure have something to be envious of. If the European Union were a state in the US it would belong to the poorest group of states. France, Italy, Great Britain and Germany have lower GDP per capita than all but four of the states in the United States. Only Luxembourg has higher per capita GDP than the average state in the US. That is shown in the fascinating new Timbro study EU versus USA, by Fredrik Bergström and Robert Gidehag, published today.

07:34 - BRADBURY ON MOORE: One of my favourite books is Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. So what does Bradbury think about Michael Moore’s use of the title? Mårten Blomkvist asks him today in Dagens Nyheter:

”– Michael Moore is a stupid son of a Bitch, that’s what I think of him. He stole my title and changed the numbers without asking me for permission.
Have you spoken to him?
– He is a terrible person. A terrible person. …
–I called his company. They promised that he would call me the same afternoon, but he never did.
When was this?
– A couple of months ago, when his plans for the movie became known. …
– Just write that Michael Moore is dishonest and that I don’t want to be associated with him in any way whatsoever.”
(Mårten Blomkvist: "Moore är en korkad skitstövel", Dagens Nyheter, 2 June 2004)

In a way you could say that Bradbury is a bit too sensitive. Many others would be flattered that they have written such a classic that other works allude to its title. On the other hand, it is easy to understand that you don’t want to be used by a notorious distorter of truth, like Moore. And isn´t it ironic that Moore – who has made a career of hunting powerful people with a camera when they are not willing to comment – don’t return calls?

09:26 - I STÄLLET FÖR FRI FORSKNING: Såg ni att statsrådet som gav politisk korrekthet ett ansikte, Mona Sahlin, erkänner att kritiken mot henne var riktig? Ropa inte hej. Det enda hon erkänner är att hon ännu tidigare borde ha gjort som hon nu gör. Denna dimridå ska skymma hur hon på egen hand håller på att montera ned det fristående svenska utredningsväsendet. Det handlar om den integrationspolitiska utredningen som tillsattes i september 2000, där den särskilde utredaren, statsvetaren Anders Westholm, enligt direktiven skulle ägna sig åt empiriskt och förutsättningslöst kunskapssökande. Då gick ett par ledamöter i taket och skällde ut honom på DN Debatt för att han inte hade bestämt i förväg att det finns strukturell diskriminering. Här såg Sahlin chansen att undvika ett oförutsägbart och möjligen obekvämt slutbetänkande och i stället beställa fram politiskt korrekta forskningsresultat. Då beslöt hon helt sonika att avveckla utredningen och i stället starta en ny, ledd av en av kritikerna, sociologen Masoud Kamali. Läs Shirin Ahlbäck Öbergs initierade artikel om turerna i Axess.

Ett 70-tal namnkunniga forskare har protesterat mot denna typ av politiska intervention och beställningsforskning. Så här kommenterar Mona Sahlin det i Dagens Nyheter idag:

”Men hon säger också att reaktionerna på att hon bad Masoud Kamali bli utredare har stärkt hennes övertygelse om att det var riktigt att avveckla Anders Westholms utredning och låta Masoud Kamali starta en ny.
- Många av protestmejlen som kom hade en rasistisk underton, där man i stort sett negligerade att Masoud Kamali faktiskt är professor i Sverige och dessutom en av de bästa vi har.”

Antingen är detta ett osmakligt försök att kleta rasistanklagelser på kritiker som Bo Rothstein och Olof Peterson, alternativt syftar Sahlin på de vanliga rättshaveristerna som man hittar i sin inkorg vad man än gör – och det har naturligtvis inget att göra med sakfrågan. Det är talande att den maktfullkomliga ministern tar till sådana lumpenheter för att undvika en debatt i sak, som hon aldrig kan vinna.