
The Guardian publishes a long article by George Monbiot in which he slams “neoliberalism”. He’s written a whole book about it, and yet he fails to grasp that the ideology he hates so much. Instead, it’s the usual long and tedious stream of straw-man arguments, greatly illustrated in this paragraph:
The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
In reality, however, free markets have proven more successful at combating poverty than any government enforced redistribution of wealth. It has also empowered workers by giving them more purchasing power. Ironically, capitalism has also given the worker what socialism promised but failed to deliver, namely ownership of big business. Pension funds are the big actors today. As for polluted rivers, the problem seems to be that since “everyone” owns them, no one cares about them. Water privatisation means someone does care and would fight to keep the rivers clean.
You don’t have to love “neoliberalism” and capitalism, but if you write a whole book about its evils, take some time to reflect on what it is you hate instead of making things up.
Personally, I think the world needs more economic freedom, not less. Redistribution of wealth through government bureaucracy in prosperous countries only results in protectivism and the prolonged poverty of many in less developed parts of the world. People need more freedom—to move about and own property.
Image: Atlas by Lee Lawrie (1877–1963), photographed by Another Believer (Wikimedia Commons).