Defending capitalism against Lynda Newnam

Charles Murton
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 30 April 2007

The following is an email by Lynda Newnam containing criticism of capitalism.

Hi,

I read this article The Age attacks free-market economics and have some comments:

1. Why does the author suggest that ‘Buy Australian’ is racist? The notion of ‘race’ disappeared a long time ago. We are one species, and Australia is a ‘multicultural society’. The ‘Buy Australian’ sticker appeals as much to sound environmental principles as to our long-term economic security. We can’t afford to travel the goods we consume excessive distances. We should be looking to repair what we have (i.e. buying local labour) rather than buying new. The earth’s resources are not some ‘magic pudding’.

2. And as to assisting the people in poor countries of Asia, most of the people referred to are in such a position because of decades, and in some cases centuries, of exploitation by European governments, businesses supported by these government and their own corrupt leaders. The best help we can provide is not by consuming what we don’t need or can produce locally (with fewer environmental impacts) but by supporting local initiatives for sustainability, and supporting leaders who have the interests of their people at heart.

Regards,
Lynda Newnam
http://www.botanybay.info
protecting environment = protecting people

The Answer:

We can’t afford to travel the goods we consume excessive distances?

I haven’t bothered to correct the abysmal English expression, but I will answer the points raised. The notion of ‘race’ has not disappeared (just ask Al Sharpton). Human beings are one species, but a word is necessary to describe the physical differences between Caucasians, blacks, Orientals, native Americans and what-have-you. If the word ‘race’ is not to be used then we will have to create another word.

If you have access to a piece of old Australian furniture, such as a 100 year old chest of drawers, look at the back of it and you might see a stamp that reads MADE BY EUROPEAN LABOUR ONLY. This didn’t mean that the furniture was made in Europe. It was an assurance that it had been made by white Australians, and not imported from Asian or India, where workers were underpaid, unskilled, and the furniture was probably host to all kinds of strange tropical bacteria.

True, Australia does now have citizens of different races (to which I have no objection) but nevertheless what Lynda Newnam is saying is not far removed from the thinking behind that stamp. Container ships are now so large that the cost of transporting goods around the world has become economically insignificant on a unit basis. So we can forget the bit about “excessive distances”. Nor does “buying Australian” enhance our long-term economic security. If Lynda Newman believes that we are harmed by importing more and exporting less, then she is subject to an economic fallacy that was exploded more than 220 years ago.

Regarding “environmental principles”, Australia is a technologically advanced nation compared with China. It is Chinese production which is more labour-intensive, and it is the cry of environmentalists that all countries should become more labour-intensive. Lynda Newnam has it the wrong way around. As a matter of economic fact the earth’s resources are a ‘magic pudding’. The price mechanism means that they can never run out, and man’s infinite capacity for invention means that when the price of a resource rises too high then a substitute will be found.

And as to assisting the people in poor countries of Asia, most of the people referred to are in such a position because of decades, and in some cases centuries, of exploitation by European governments, businesses supported by these government and their own corrupt leaders.

Here she seems to be suggesting that the poor countries of Asia were made poor by colonialisation and capitalism. Actually the richer states of Asia, like Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong have been made rich by capitalism, and, in the cases of Singapore and Hong Kong, by being well-managed British colonies as well.

On the other hand, the poor countries of Asia, like China and Viet Nam, are poor because of years of life-destroying socialism. How could one not feel sorry for China after it had suffered under Mao Zedong for so long? And if we are free of racial prejudice, and we want to help those countries get on their feet and become prosperous, then buying their goods is not just the best way –– it is the ONLY way –– we can achieve that humane aim.

Lastly, when Lynda Newnam writes that, “The best help we can provide is not by consuming what we don’t need…” she gives the game away and exposes herself as by nature a totalitarian. What the individual ‘needs’ is up to the individual, and is not to be decided by a coercive bureaucracy. In a free country it is the people who decide what their needs are, and whether they wish to buy a Chinese-made hammer for $3 or an Australian-made hammer for $18.

Charles Murton can be reached at Diogenes Lamp

Subscribe to BrookesNews Bulletin