Just recently drawing upon his Christian faith (and possibly the economics influence of Professor Ayittey?), in a speech at Georgetown University, Bono altered his economic and political views and declared that only capitalism can end poverty.
“Aid is just a stopgap,” he said. “Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid. We need Africa to become an economic powerhouse.”
C.S. Lewis well understood the fallacy and indeed evil of statism in addressing the pains and suffering of our world, and we welcome Bono’s new insights into the matter.Boy, apparently quite a change for the guy that wrote the song Silver and Gold back in the 80's.
The warden said: "The exit is sold. If you want a way out, Silver and gold."
Captain and kings In the ships hold They came to collect Silver and gold Silver and gold...Looks like he may have come around 180 degrees here and is associating with anti-statists and may be one of the few viewers of Larry Kudlow's show these days.
I agree with him here when he asserts that "aid is just a stopgap" I think this is correct thinking. Peter Buffet's recent secular NYT op-ed on charity as so-called "conscience laundering" comes to mind here.
But for him to look at so-called "Capitalism", a bygone concept germane in my view to the era of metallic monetary standards, for a solution to widespread poverty; and apparently associate with people who denounce the role of "the state" which is the only earthly human institution possessing the actual authority to enforce economic justice here on earth; makes me question his recent personal judgment here.
Well, the band has made a lot of "silver and gold" over the years...
27 comments:
Im going to give him the benefit of the doubt here and just assume that if really questioned on it he would not mean "The capitalism of 2000-2006" when he says capitalism. Capitalism is such a vague word, as is socialism of course, so one can mean a broad spectrum of things.
I dont think he advocates casino capitalism of Wall St. I dont think if he were structuring a deal with Africa to jumpstart their economy it would turn out to be in 10 years time an actual deal that stripped them of their resources, left more citizens indebted up to their eyeballs to banks and actually increased poverty. That might be the end result in 10 years but he wouldnt go in with that intent. Wall St on the other hand has shown that in fact that is how all their deals end up working, by design. You think you are getting richer but you are being stripped.
Right, it's one thing to point out the limitations of aid and the need for development of a thriving system of commerce. But how much private accumulation of concentrated wealth does Bono want to permit in Africa. Despite it's poverty, doesn't the continent already have a problem with that?
And I think "Sir Mick" is fan of the Cameron approach these days.
You have to wonder if there isn't a direct line between the youthful narcissistic self-indulgence of the "sex, drugs and rock-n-roll" lifestyle and the oldster ethos of, "I've got mine - keep the rabble and their tax men away from my booty."
Capitalism has been bery, bery good to Bono.
No
Bono has been courting right wingers and left wingers for ages since the late 1990's.
He got several right wingers on his Save Africa bandwagon.
Bono is committed to utilize all players regardless of spectrum in his push to help.
He even can be quoted back in the days when the iPod and iPhone exploded on the scene as saying that his and U2's "feeling" in the their music could or should be trademarked by them....
He's very Bono nevertheless and not a socialist by all means just for some means
“Commerce [and] entrepreneurial capitalism take more people out of poverty than aid.
He doesn't negate social justice with what he says here. I suppose if he's arguing, say, for the neoliberal economic model of capitalism then I'd say he's off his rocker. I'd don't think that's what he's after here, however. One can still auger for entrepreneurial capitalism as one tool in a societal arrangement and still call for redistributive leveling policies that benefit the whole. My guess is that where he's going with this.
Right, we have to distinguish neoliberalism from the market as an economic institution and instrument, just as money is. All tools have appropriate and inappropriate uses.
Neoliberalism is based on market fundamentalism that assumes falsely that there is no middle ground between laissez-faire and "collectivism," which is nonsense in the face of the "European model" that Eurocrats are now dismantling as socialistic, non-competitive, and "unaffordable." Then there is the Scandinavian model, which is at the of global social and economic measures, and which neoliberals there are also trying to dismantle.
" One can still auger for entrepreneurial capitalism as one tool in a societal arrangement and still call for redistributive leveling policies that benefit the whole. My guess is that where he's going with this."
Agreed. Thats pretty much where I am. Finding a way to allow people to profit from great ideas but eliminating the leeches that just suck most of the juice out of a deal when its structured is the modern challenge.
Ive said that nobody, nobody Ive talked with here nor anywhere else, who calls themselves socialist, is advocating for a system where everyone gets "the same". What we do recognize is that the setting of the floor is a choice and we just think it needs to be set higher. Theres no excuse that we dont have enough space or housing, no excuse that we dont have enough food and no excuse we have no capacity in our health system to care. Theres also no excuse that we dont have the money to run a JG or BIG. Its simple imagination and will
"One can still auger for entrepreneurial capitalism as one tool in a societal arrangement and still call for redistributive leveling policies that benefit the whole."
Merely redistributing the wealth will turn everyone into paupers. Far more desirable to have a fluid society that is expanding where the wealthy class doesn't become entrenched but always faces just as much risk of taking the escalator down as up and coming entrepreneurs have in opportunities to succeed.
BTW, Marx acknowledged that the primacy of capital over land was superior to the feudalism it replaced wrt increasing distributed prosperity through entrepreneurship and innovation. But he correctly saw what he leading to the hegemony of the haute bouregoisie instead of the feudal landowners. He also witnessed the deprivation of personal subsistence on the land to drive agricultural workers into factories. While history unfolded differently that he forecast, that doesn't negate his analysis of conditions at the time. History is also showing that this is pretty close to the scenario that development in the emerging world generally takes.
The perennial issue is distribution of power among capital, land and labor. Capitalism favors capital above the others, feudalism privileges land, and socialism favors labor. Each argues for its own primacy. A system is yet to be developed that integrates them successfully.
There are a number of mechanisms that can be built into an economic system that allow for a thriving private sector and entrepreneurialism but that prevent significant inequality and large concentrations of private capital.
RR,
I'm not advocating absolute economic parity on an individual basis. I think differences in individual economic health are likely outcomes based on various criteria, such as industriousness, frugality, talent, etc. For instance, someone who blows all their money, say, on booze, drugs, big toys or gambling has no claim to a better lifestyle than someone who is prudent in their lifestyle. Leveling does not have to imply an absolute equal standard (outcome) of living for all (a minimum standard should be ensured for all, however, but that's another story). That's been tried around the world (equal outcomes for all) and has failed abysmally. On the other hand, many start out at a huge advantage over others socioeconomically in life. Thus while someone is gifted and prudent, yet starts out at a lower rung of the socioeconomic ladder, they can be stuck in place or even fall back. As we know, the haves and the have nots can grow further apart over time because of built in advantages that accrue to the former. It is that vast growing disparity that I'd aim to ameliorate, while at the same time allowing for a certain degree of economic advancement above and beyond others for those who work fairly and honestly in accumulating x amount of wealth in excess of others. There would be no Warren Buffets in my perfect world. Not even close.
Africa is capitalisms next frontier. The US has some investments in Equatorial Guinea, and in the southern portion of Sudan.
Merely redistributing the wealth will turn everyone into paupers. RR
No. The common stock of all large corporations could be equally redistributed without affecting the assets of those corporations or even their operations necessarily.
And, of course, that redistribution should include a universal bailout with new fiat so that people won't be stock rich but money poor and have to sell to potential oligarchs.
And since restitution for theft is Biblical you should be careful to not dismiss it so casually.
Mal,
That's interesting, Rodger Mitchell seems to think you should want to hang out with Warren Buffet:
"President Obama will not come to visit your house, but he may go to Bill Gates’s or Warren Buffett’s estate. What is his motivation?
Why would he prefer to spend time with Bill and Warren than with you? Because he doesn’t want to be near you. He wants to be near them. He wants to increase the gap below him and narrow any gap that may exist above him.
Meanwhile, you too, would like to visit Bill and Warren as a gap narrowing measure, but you don’t want poor people coming to your house. You too want to widen the gap below you and narrow the gap above you."
Mal, are you saying that you would NOT like to have a lunch with Warren?
I think I would rather go pick up a couple of $5 foot-longs at Subway and a couple of 40 ozs. in brown bags and find a wino out here to have a lunch visit with for myself...
rsp,
I think I would rather go pick up a couple of $5 foot-longs at Subway and a couple of 40 ozs. in brown bags and find a wino out here to have a lunch visit with for myself... Franko
Yep. That's a better use of your time to acquire "treasure in Heaven" where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. Matthew 6:20-21
I read Rodger's piece, but I wasn't persuaded by it as it pertained to me very much. I've never spent a moment thinking about distancing myself from those below me economically, but I do desire to bring those far ahead of me closer to my level. They'd still likely be miles ahead of me at the end, however, no matter what part of the world we'd inhabit together.
As for Buffet, no, I've never desired to meet him in any capacity. I'd much rather lunch with the regular posters at MNE than I would a Buffet or someone of his ilk.
F.,
What's your take on Bono here wanting to to go to Washington DC and hang out with elite and advocate for "more Capitalism"?
Is that necessary? Isn't this as Ryan points out what can be perceived as what is already going on?
I guess he could just be trying to straddle the fence here... but there is something that doesnt make sense about this for me...
Then there is this anti-state rhetoric here...
Why is it that people just cannot get on the case of the people in govt to just simply pursue more just policies?
Say "hey! you all are really f-ing up here! Hellloooo!"
Do we have to apologize for this? We have to be all "indirect" or something?
Who else can do it?
I just dont understand a lot of what I witness...
rsp,
"There are a number of mechanisms that can be built into an economic system that allow for a thriving private sector and entrepreneurialism but that prevent significant inequality and large concentrations of private capital."
Come on Dan. The suspense is killing me. And they are?
Bono who?
In general, I despise "hippy businessmen" so I really don't care what he says or does.
That is, I don't despise hippies or businessmen necessarily but the combo seems way too much like cynical opportunism.
F.,
I have a hunch they lost their ass in the Irish crash and they had to drag out the Vertigo set for another world tour or two to make it up....
That said, it looks like they really cleaned up in the Facebook IPO...
rsp
Facebook who? :)
Here's a TED talk by George Ayittey, the economist mentioned in the link. It's interesting:
http://www.ted.com/talks/george_ayittey_on_cheetahs_vs_hippos.html
check this out:
S&P chief global economist: banks cannot and do not "lend out" reserves.
http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/upload/Ratings_US/Repeat_After_Me_8_14_13.pdf
From the endnotes in the S&P paper above:
"Although the "money multiplier" view of central banking and credit creation is the dominant one, largely I would posit because its pedagogical attractiveness makes it a "dominant meme," other schools of thought have long existed in economics and have come to the fore more recently in the guise of "modern monetary theory (MMT)." See, for instance, Wynne Godley and Marc Lavoie, 2007: Monetary Economics: An Integrated Approach to Credit, Money, Income, Production and Wealth (Palgrave Macmillan); L. Randall Wray, 1998: Understanding Modern Money: The Key to Full Employment and Price Stability (Edgar Elgar); L. Randall Wray, 2012: Modern Monetary Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems (Palgrave Macmillan)".
(p.12)
Thanks, y. Nice find. Promoted to a post.
Post a Comment