NB Blog Feed

Norberg: Sweden’s ‘Socialism,’ the Loneliness ‘Epidemic,’ Degrowth, & Other Myths

Capitalism and racism go together? I hear it all the time. “Racism is intricately linked to capitalism,” says famous Marxist Angela Davis. “It’s a mistake to assume that we can combat racism by leaving capitalism in place.” “Anti-racist” activist Ibram X. Kendi says, “In order to truly be anti-racist, you also have to truly be anti-capitalist.” This is just silly. In my new video, Swedish historian Johan Norberg explains how free markets discourage racism. Capitalists make a profit by serving their customers. The more customers they please, the more money they might make. It hurts the bottom line to exclude any groups. “Look around the world,” says Norberg, “The least racist societies with the fewest expressions of racist attitudes are the most capitalist countries.” Norberg’s new book, “The Capitalist Manifesto,” highlights a Journal of Institutional Economics study that found a correlation between economic freedom and “tolerance of ethnic groups.” “Capitalism,” he says, “Is the first economic system where you only get rich by opening up opportunities for others. It pays to be colorblind. It pays to be open to willing customers and workers who could enrich your company no matter what religion or race. ... It doesn’t mean that every person will be colorblind. There will always be idiots. But in capitalism, it’s costly to be an idiot.” He reminds us that in the Jim Crow South, businesses fought racism, because the rules denied them customers. “It’s often forgotten that owners of buses, railways, streetcars in the American South didn’t really segregate systematically until the late 19th century,” says Norberg. “It was probably not because they were less racist than others in the South, but they were capitalists. They wanted money, they wanted clients, and they didn’t want to engage in some sort of costly and brutal policing business in segregating buses.” Even when segregation was mandated, some streetcar companies refused to comply. For several years after Jim Crow laws passed, Black customers sat wherever they wanted. Norberg adds, “Those owners of public transport, they fought those discriminatory laws because they imposed a terrible cost. ... They tried to bypass them secretly and fight them in courts. They were often fined. Some were threatened with imprisonment.” The streetcar company in Mobile, Alabama, only obeyed Jim Crow laws after their conductors began to get arrested and fined. Those business owners may have been racist -- I can’t know -- but they fought segregation. “We got Jim Crow laws,” says Norberg, “Because free markets weren’t willing to discriminate.” Capitalists cared about green -- not black or white. Free markets all over the world coordinate and cooperate. Many don’t know of each other’s existence, and if they did meet, they might not get along. But they work together in search of profit. It’s odd that socialists now call capitalism racist, when the opposite is more often true. The Soviet Union invited African students to study science in major cities. But “Soviet citizens often treated the Africans in their midst with disdain and hostility,” New Lines Magazine describes. Russian children’s books portrayed Blacks in animalistic ways. Name-calling was common. Today, China and Cuba claim to have “zero-tolerance” for racism, but during the Covid pandemic, authorities forcibly tested Blacks and ordered strict isolation. Landlords evicted African tenants. Businesses often refused to serve them. In Cuba, Castro insisted he would eliminate racism. But “Racism persists,” reports France 24, saying it’s “banned by law,” but “alive on the streets ... In local jargon, a white woman with a black boyfriend is ... ‘holding back the race.’” Cuba’s government is still instituting programs to “combat racism.” It’s capitalism that makes people less racist.

NB Blog Feed

Biden’s Kill Switch: The Growing Threat of Government Control of Your Car

Soon the government might shut down your car. President Joe Biden’s new infrastructure gives bureaucrats that power. You probably didn’t hear about that because when media covered it, few mentioned the requirement that by 2026, every American car must “monitor” the driver, determine if he is impaired and, if so, “limit vehicle operation.” Rep. Thomas Massie objected, complaining that the law makes government “judge, jury and executioner on such a fundamental right!” Congress approved the law anyway. A USA Today “fact check” told readers, don’t worry, “There’s no kill switch in Biden’s bill.” “They didn’t read it, because it’s there!” says automotive engineer and former vintage race car driver Lauren Fix in my new video. The clause is buried under Section 24220 of the law. USA Today’s “fact” check didn’t lie, exactly. It acknowledged that the law requires “new cars to have technology that identifies if a driver is impaired and prevents operation.” Apparently, they just didn’t like the term “kill switch.” But it is a kill switch. Mothers Against Drunk Driving wants that. I say to Fix, “It would save lives.” “Are you willing to give up every bit of control of your life?” she asks. “Once you give that up, you have no more freedom. This computer decides you can’t drive your vehicle. Great. Unless someone’s having a heart attack and trying to get to the hospital.” The kill switch is just one of several ways the government proposes to control how we drive. California lawmakers want new cars to have a speed governor that prevents you from going more than 10 miles per hour over the speed limit. That would reduce speeding. But not being able to speed is dangerous, too, says Fix. If “something’s coming at you, you have to make an adjustment.” New cars will have a special button on the dash. If you suddenly need to speed and manage to find the button when trying to drive out of some bad situation, and it lets you speed for 15 seconds. For all these new safety devices to work, cars need to spy on drivers. Before I researched this, I didn’t realize that they already do. The Mozilla Foundation reports that car makers “Collect things like your age, gender, ethnicity, driver’s license number, your purchase history and tendencies.” Nissan and Kia “collect information about your sex life.” How? Cars aim video cameras at passengers. Other devices listen to conversations and intercept text messages. Then, says Mozilla, 76% of the car companies “sell your data.” “I just bought a new car,” I say to Fix. “Nobody told me about this.” “Oh, it’s there,” she replies. “Buy a new car, you get that really long document. ... The small print says, ‘We’re collecting your data. We know everything you’re doing in your car, and we own (the data). There’s nothing you can do about it.’” Finally, Biden’s infrastructure bill also includes a pilot program to tax you based on how far we drive. “A mileage charge seems fair,” I say to Fix. “You pay for your damage to the road.” “Correct,” she replies. “But when you start allowing them to do this, they could say, ‘We don’t want you to buy a firearm.’ ... ‘We don’t want you to go to that destination. So we’re not going to let you start your car.’ It’s about control.” I push back. “They’re not controlling me.” “They can,” she replies. “Wait until you get a bill for your carbon footprint. ‘You’re at your maximum for carbon credits. We’re not going to let you drive today! Take the train. Take the electric bus.’” “This is paranoia,” I suggest. “Maybe,” says Fix. “But so far, everything that I’ve said about these things, each step keeps coming through.”

NB Blog Feed

6 Myths About Globalization, Trade, Jobs, and ‘Buy American’

Leaders of both parties agree: We must reduce globalization. “China is ripping us on trade,” says Donald Trump. Our trade deficit is “an immorality,” says Nancy Pelosi. But it’s not. In my new video, Scott Lincicome of the Cato Institute points out, “Selling us stuff is hardly ripping us off.” He’s right. Our video debunks common misunderstandings about trade. Myth No. 1: America is “losing.” People often say that because America runs a trade deficit. But trade doesn’t need to balance. I have a trade deficit with my supermarket. They get more of my money every year. So, what? I don’t “lose.” I get food without having to grow it myself. That’s a win for me and the food producer regardless of whether the food was grown locally or came from Mexico. “Imports are great,” says Lincicome. “It means I can focus on what I want to do for a living and not go make my own food or make my own clothes. I can use those savings and buy other things that makes me better off.” As long as trade is voluntary, trade is a win for both parties. It has to be; neither side would agree to it unless they think they get something out of the deal. Myth No. 2: Imports take jobs from Americans. Globalization “moved so many jobs and so much wealth out of our country,” says Trump, “Workers have seen the jobs they love shipped thousands and thousands of miles away.” I say to Lincicome, “Some people do lose jobs.” “True,” he replies, “We lose about 5 million jobs every month.” But trade isn’t the main reason. “Jobs are lost due to ... changing consumer tastes and from innovation. We make more stuff with fewer workers. That’s productivity.” Productivity increases are good. Trade and productivity improvements are reasons why the number of Americans who do have jobs has risen. “We’re at historically high manufacturing job openings,” says Lincicome, “Manufacturers in the United States say they can’t find enough workers.” Trade lets Americans focus on what we do best. Sixty percent of America’s new jobs come from companies engaged in international trade. But Trump says, “We don’t make anything anymore!” President Joe Biden agrees, “American manufacturing, the backbone of our economy, got hollowed out!” That’s Myth No. 3. Manufacturing output in the U.S. is near its all-time high. We make more than Japan, Germany, India and South Korea combined. Fortunately, real life ignores politicians’ ignorance. Myth No. 4: Trade and open markets create “a race to the bottom.” That’s how Jon Stewart decries globalization on his show, saying, “Globalization allowed corporations to scour the planet for the cheapest labor and loosest regulations!” That is true; companies do that. But Lincicome replies, “This ‘race to the bottom’ is a myth. We Americans are spoiled. We look upon jobs in the developing world, factory jobs, and say, ‘Oh, how terrible this is that these people work for such low wages.’ But the reality is that their alternatives are far, far worse ... subsistence farming ... sex work.” Trade is what lets people in poor countries escape subsistence farming and sex work. And child labor, too. “No parent wants his kid to go into the factory or farm,” Lincicome points out. “They do it because they have no choice. As we get wealthier, child labor disappears. ... Factory owners in Vietnam now complain that kids these days ... don’t want to work in the textile factory. That’s not great for that factory owner, but it’s great for those workers!” Myth No. 5: Globalization destroys the environment. “It’s undeniably true that as a nation starts along its development path, that it’s going to pollute more,” concedes Lincicome. “But as countries get wealthy, they become better environmentally.” Only when people get wealthy enough to think beyond their next meal do we start to care about the environment. It’s why pollution is dropping in America and other capitalist countries. “The best thing that we can do for the developing world is to help countries get rich,” says Lincicome. “Globalization is part of that recipe.” Trade is a win-win. It brings us more stuff at lower prices. The more we trade, the better off we are.

NB Blog Feed

Trespassers Welcome: How the Law Protects Squatters

What if you come home and find strangers living in your house? I assumed you order the squatters out, and if they resist, call the police, and they will kick them out. Wrong. Pro-tenant laws passed by anti-capitalist politicians now protect squatters. If a squatter just lies about having a lease, the police won’t intervene. “It’s a civil matter,” they’ll say. “Sort it out in court.” Great. Court might cost $20,000. Or more. And courts are so slow, eviction might take years. In my state, New York, homeowners can’t even shut of utilities to try to get the squatter out. That’s illegal. Worse, once a squatter has been there 30 days, they are legally considered a tenant. This month, NYC police arrested a homeowner for “unlawful eviction” after she changed locks, trying to get rid a squatter. “Squatter rights,” also known as “adverse possession” laws, now exist in all 50 states. As a result, evicting a squatter legally is so expensive and cumbersome that some people simply walk away from their homes! Flash Shelton may have a better idea. His mom wanted to sell their house after his dad died. But while they were selling it, squatters moved in. Shelton did what I would have done -- called the police. But the police said there was nothing they could do. So he tried a new tactic: out-squat the squatter. “I just felt, if they can take a house, I can take a house,” Shelton says in my new video. “I could go in as the squatter myself, (and) gain possession of the property.” When the home invader left for a few hours, Shelton went in and changed the locks. Only then did the squatters leave. Now Shelton’s started a business, SquatterHunters.com, where he tries to help others get their houses back. “People think of squatters as homeless, destitute,” I say. “They are not homeless,” answers Shelton. “They’re criminals ... people taking advantage of the system. In fact, one squatter he pushed out was Adam Fleischman, who started the Umami Burger restaurant chain. Fleischman told Shelton, “I’m a victim here.” He even called the cops. “He felt that since he had possession of the house,” says Shelton, “That he had the right to call law enforcement and have me removed.” I tried to reach Fleischman to hear his side of the story. No luck. “Where does he hear that he has this right to squat?” I ask Shelton. “The city was telling him this,” says Shelton. But now Shelton was a squatter, too, so he was protected by the same pro-“tenant” law. Still, only when Shelton threatened to bring friends to the house as backup did Adam Fleischman leave. In Los Angeles, a woman claimed to be a “caretaker” for an elderly homeowner, who said she didn’t want the woman in her home. So, she gave Shelton a lease. While the squatter was out, Shelton changed the locks. “But the squatter is still there?” I ask Shelton. “Still there,” he says, “Climbing through the window because she doesn’t have access to the main house.” She’s now been there for two years! Shelton says his team will move in and get rid of the squatter. “How do you know that will work?” I ask. “Because once I take possession,” says Shelton, “Then she’ll have to fight in court to try to get back in. Most likely she won’t do that.” Why do squatters feel entitled to other people’s property? Probably because people hate landlords. They listen to silly people like Marxist New School professor Miguel Robles-Duran, who calls landlords “parasites” who “provide no social value.” Popular TikTok socialist Madeline Pendleton adds that landlords have “guaranteed forever incomes, without having to put in any labor.” No labor? Who does she think buys the land; pays lawyers to decipher the excessive regulations; hires architects, carpenters, plumbers and electricians; pays the taxes; manages the property, etc.? It’s infuriating! I’m glad people like Flash Shelton fight back.