“95 percent of economics is common sense deliberately made complicated.” – Ha-Joon Chang
Thing One. There is really no such thing as a free market.
Thing Two. Companies should not be run in the interest of their owners.
Thing Three. Most people in rich countries get paid more than they should.
Thing Four. The washing machine has changed the world more than the internet.
Thing Five. Assume the worst about people, and you get the worst.
Thing Six. Greater macroeconomic stability has not made the world economy more stable.
Thing Seven. Free-market policies rarely make poor countries richer.
Thing Eight. Capital has a nationality.
Thing Nine. We do not live in a post-industrial age.
Thing Ten. The US does not have the highest living standard in the world.
Thing Eleven. Africa is not destined for under-development.
Thing Twelve. Government can pick winners.
Thing Thirteen. Making rich people richer doesn’t make the rest of us richer.
Thing Fourteen. US managers are over-priced.
Thing Fifteen. People in poor countries are more entrepreneurial than people in rich countries.
Thing Sixteen. We are not smart enough to leave things to the market.
Thing Seventeen. More education in itself is not going to make a country richer.
Thing Eighteen. What is good for the General Motors is not necessarily good for the US.
Thing Nineteen. Despite the fall of Communism, we are still living in planned economies.
Thing Twenty. Equality of opportunities is unequal.
Thing Twenty-one. Big government makes people more, not less, open to changes.
Thing Twenty-two. Financial markets need to become less, not more, efficient.
Thing Twenty-three. Good economic policy does not require good economists.
The capitalist system is not working, despite what elite opinion says. Starting with these points is a great place to look into our perceptions of what Capitalism is.
4 comments
April 24, 2011 at 5:18 pm
23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism « Once Upon a Paradigm
[…] Oxford Univ. discussing his latest book 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism. They listed them here. “95 percent of economics is common sense deliberately made complicated.” – Ha-Joon […]
LikeLike
April 25, 2011 at 6:36 pm
Alan Scott
The Arbourist ,
The French philosopher Voltaire did not share your universal contempt for Free Markets and Capitalism . While exiled in England he found much more toleration and freedom than in his native France .
His explanation for the difference was the free market . England did not have the social distaste for it’s merchant class that the French did.
http://www.troynovant.com/McElroy/Voltaire/Philosophical-Letters.html
LikeLike
May 1, 2011 at 10:36 am
The Arbourist
The French philosopher Voltaire did not share your universal contempt for Free Markets and Capitalism .
Critiquing the system does not equal contempt for said system. If we cannot dissemble and critique and honestly look at our system, it will crumble under the weight of the erroneous assumptions made on its behalf. Capitalism is far, very far from perfect, and the Corporate state capitalism model that has been adopted is ruinous for the societies that decide to adopt it. Contrarily, I would argue that a social-democratic brand of capitalism that both equality and choice is the best of the bad choices until we can deal with the very real problems of resource scarcity and environmental degradation.
Now, onto what Voltaire had to say about Free Markets and Capitalism. Firstly he does not say much about capitalism at all, but rather on the class divisions within society. I’ll be quoting from the document you provided.
“Legally and historically, England was not a bastion of religious toleration: laws against nonconformists and atheists were still in force. Yet in England, and not in France, there was an air of toleration on the street level which existed quite apart from what the law said. Moreover, even though both countries had aristocracies, England was not burdened with the unyielding class structure that crippled social and economic mobility in France. As Voltaire wrote in Letter Nine, “On the Government”, “You hear no talk in this country [England] of high, middle, and low justice, nor of the right of hunting over the property of a citizen who himself has not the liberty of firing a shot in his own field.” (p37)”
Much of the analysis of Votaire’s Philosophical letters, at least described in the article are class based analysis of the English and French Societies.
“A key to the difference between England and France lay in the English system of commerce and in the comparatively high regard in which the English held their merchants. [4] In France, aristocrats and the other elites of society regarded those in commerce, or in trade, with unalloyed contempt. In Letter Ten, “On Commerce”, Voltaire pointedly commented upon the French attitude, “The merchant himself so often hears his profession spoken of disdainfully that he is fool enough to blush.” (p40) Yet, in England, the “merchant justly proud” compares himself “not without some reason, to a Roman citizen.” Indeed, the younger sons of nobility often entered commerce or took up a profession. This difference in attitude was a large factor in explaining the extraordinary rise of the English middle class, their wealth deriving from trading endeavors.”
So, rather than capitalism or the free market being the primary cause of the difference in freedom between the two societies it was the relaxation of the class structure in England to include the bourgeois middle class.
Perhaps you zeroed in on this passage with regards to the claims you have made:
“Ironically, Voltaire singled out for praise precisely the same aspect of commerce — the London stock exchange — that the later theorist Karl Marx condemned. Both viewed the market place as impersonal or, in more negative Marxist terms, a dehumanizing factor. In the market place, people ceased to be individuals who were expressing their humanity and became interchangeable units who bought and sold. To Voltaire, the impersonal nature of trade was a good thing. It allowed people to disregard the divisive human factors that had historically disrupted society, such as differences of religion and class. The very fact that a Christian who wished to profit from a Jew, and vice versa, had to disregard the personal characteristics of the other party and deal with him on a basis of some civility was what recommended the London stock exchange to Voltaire.”
The market, as described by Voltaire was working well because people could temporarily ignore the societal factors that impeded trade and simply do business while avoiding the squabbles and conflicts that were endemic to the religious class based societies of Britain and France.
LikeLike
May 2, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Alan Scott
Arbourist ,
” So, rather than capitalism or the free market being the primary cause of the difference in freedom between the two societies it was the relaxation of the class structure in England to include the bourgeois middle class. ”
We are in a chicken or egg come first, quandary . I contend capitalism brought about relaxation of class structure . In the previous centuries France and England were joined through the English holdings in France going back to the Normans . So the countries had a similar class structure going into Voltaire’s lifetime . When they separated, the English, became more capitalistic and therefore less class stratified .
The Dutch were also a trading merchant nation and also less class aware . Capitalism rewards the talented individual . It was pretty much the only way a low born person could rise to wealth . A meritocracy .
In fact the Aristocratic system in France has much in common with Socialism . They both punish achievement . They both believe in an almighty state . They both emphasize class differences .
LikeLike