The anarchy website asks “does Hong Kong show the potentials of free market capitalism” and answers “no.” The myth of Hong Kong's laissez-faire regime "has been disproved in academic debates more than a decade ago." Well there you have it. Academics say the myth is disproved. End of discussion.
“Given the general lack of laissez-faire capitalism in the world, examples to show its benefits are few and far between.”
Wow. Where to start? The world is overwhelmed with examples of what people would call laissez faire capitalism. And they are all bad by any definition, since they include “capitalist” by definition. There are no net benefits to laissez faire capitalism, so few and far between is too generous. If by laissez faire one means free markets, then Hong Kong is exemplary to be sure. But exemplary of what?
Hong Kong shows -
1. Capitalism is evil.
2. Free markets work, and they are antiseptic.
3. How free markets check capitalism.
4. Communism permits freedom to a degree never matched by capitalism.
5. That which governs least governs best.
The site notes Milton Freidman praised Hong Kong. How come Milton Freidman is a judge of anything...? So what if Freidman praised Hong Kong? That doesn't mean anything. Friedman praised freedom, did he advance freedom?
Rockefeller set up the University of Chicago. At the University of Chicago, Coase and Friedman labored together, in its school of law and economics. If Milton Freidman knew anything, Chile, would be exemplary. The CIA gave the Chicago school a vicious puppet as leader and a carte blanche to set up a utopian society according to the “Chicago boys” aka the monetarist school. it worked out pretty good. For some. For those murdered, including the legally elected socialist, not so good. The Chicago crew got a whole country to test out its theories on, and we cannot know if socialism is better than capitalism in this case, cause the murdered the socialists.
The Chile experiment is what Satan calls “policy laundering.” A bad idea is taken to another country, tried out, “proven” it works, and then brought back home, ready for prime time. Since Chile has been on USA life support since 1973, we can have no objective means of judging the experiment. But “success” it was, as far as policy laundering. The Chicago boys rose to new heights.
So while Friedman may admire Hong Kong, he has no theory to replicate it, nor even understand it. The Chicago school of economics version of capitalism requires murder, overthrowing governments and subsidies. Then it works to some degree. The republicans are big believers in the Chicago school, and Obama has signed on, or at least is doing as he is told.
Now the anarchists argue the “aha” of Hong Kong is there are no property ownership (something they mostly deplore, with the exception of Spooner, who I quoted yesterday, and a few others.) referring to the fact that there was never private ownership of the real estate, per se.
And to say there is none is a tad misleading. Since 1997 handover, the Chinese Communist State owns all of Hong Kong, except for St. John's Cathedral and its lands. Well, Stalin left an Orthodox Church operating in Moscow. Communists like to hedge their bets.
Prior to 1997, the history was Hong Kong Island was ceded in perpetuity to the UK in recompense for losses endured in the Opium War, a token grant of a watering hole. It wasn’t until about 50 years later that the UK got a 99 year lease on Kowloon and the new territories, which is what we call Hong Kong today. So we are talking about an Island that the UK owned, and the mass of land that the UK leased from China. Yes, there was no ability really to “own” private real estate, although some did, because the UK auctioned off property and subleases, which in any event never amounted ot more than 5% of modern Hong Kong. Or in other words, 95% of Hong Kong is still undeveloped. And the highest concentration of people in the world. Which makes you wander about “overpopulation” talk, but that is another discussion. (Singapore is free and independent, and there too only about 5% of the land is developed and the govt owns the land. Maybe it's a Chinese thing.)
So there was never really any need or point in private ownership of land in Hong Kong, and in any case with the communist takeover it is out of the question, although China is letting Hong Kong continue its gig until 2047, when Hong Kong will take over China and Taiwan.
Britain gave up its ownership of Hong Kong Island in 1997 to China since it is rather worthless without Kowloon, except for the CofE cathedral, likely because its relations with Rome are a template the Chinese Communist leaders find admirable.
So real state ownership is sui generis, not indicative of anything. on the Kowloon peninsula, and all makes for unusual circumstances.
Any example extent has problems. To make a case about anarchy, we need to look in spite of “government ownership of the land (Hong Kong is a communist enterprise)” how does anarchy do in Hong Kong. Very well, by all measures.
Yes money is issued by private companies. And mass transit is owned by private companies. Yes, the govt is huge investor, but they have to put their fully funded pension dollar somewhere. So why not in mass transit companies, a safe bet.
There is no place on earth where free markets are extant. What is good in Hong Kong is the vast majority of human interaction is free market. What is wicked in Hong Kong is small and state provisioned.
And if you’ve never been to Hong Kong, one probably ought not try to dig it. The anarchists missed the fact that, until the Communists took over, within the relative free markets of Hong Kong, there was ALSO a 100 plus year continuous total anarchy experiment called Kowloon city. No need to guess how things would work, or surmise we need A New Man or some certain elements dead, Kowloon City was anarchy in action, no state, no defended borders, quite profitable, peaceful, and too short lived.
Like all free places, Kowloon City was accidental. When China leased Kowloon to Hong Kong, the China maintained a garrison (Kowloon City) for purposes of some security. When the Qing fell in1911, Kowloon City was abandoned, although still Qing property. It was a stateless zone. It began populating with people who preferred to live stateless. When the communists took over in 1949, Taiwan claimed it as theirs. Sticky business, what. So the british just took a hands off policy, as in “it’s not ours.” By some legal fiction is belong to Taiwan, located in Hong Kong, which had a 99 year lease payable to the Red Chinese. Accidental, in the theological sense. Unique in history and place.
Kowloon City hd a bad reputation, but that is largely because it had no PR. A blond English woman could move in free of fear, and did for 20 years.
It was totally voluntary society. Anyone could leave, and in fact many worked outside the city. But no officials from the outside were allowed in. No cops.
It was not allowed to expand out to accommodate all the people who wanted to live in anarchy, so it built up. Straight up. When I first saw Bladerunner, the city Ridley Scott portrayed looked very familiar. And it accommodated the extreme of humanity in one place. No need for a New Man, no need for enlightened child rearing procedures, just raw freedom.
This is a better thing to note about Hong Kong, and to study, with a view to what really happens when people are free. We have to rely on histories now, because before China would take over Hong Kong, it required Kowloon City be leveled. It is now a lovely park.
The century long experiment in anarchy came to and end, by state decree.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment