What do you think?
Rate this book
The Capitalist Manifesto: Why the Global Free Market Will Save the World
A vital exploration of capitalism and the benefits it brings to global society.
Marx and Engels were right when they observed in The Communist Manifesto that free markets had in a short time created greater prosperity and more technological innovation than all previous generations combined. A century and a half later, all the evidence shows that capitalism has lifted millions from hunger and poverty.
Nonetheless, today's story about global capitalism, shared by right-wing and left-wing populists - and by large sections of the political and economic establishment - accepts that prosperity has been created, but says it ended up in far too few hands. This in turn has made it popular to talk about the global economy as a geopolitical zero-sum game, where we must fight to control new innovations, introduce trade barriers and renationalize supply chains. More generally, capitalism is also accused of fuelling glaring inequality, populist revolts, climate change and China's global conquest.
In this incisive and passionate investigation, Johan Norberg instead restates the case for capitalism and the vital role played by the free market in today's uncertain world. Ultimately, he argues that a move away from global capitalism would not only squeeze the growth out of the economy but also deepen an already large social exclusion for the vulnerable - for the world's poor, it would be a killing blow.
Marx and Engels were right when they observed in The Communist Manifesto that free markets had in a short time created greater prosperity and more technological innovation than all previous generations combined. A century and a half later, all the evidence shows that capitalism has lifted millions from hunger and poverty.
Nonetheless, today's story about global capitalism, shared by right-wing and left-wing populists - and by large sections of the political and economic establishment - accepts that prosperity has been created, but says it ended up in far too few hands. This in turn has made it popular to talk about the global economy as a geopolitical zero-sum game, where we must fight to control new innovations, introduce trade barriers and renationalize supply chains. More generally, capitalism is also accused of fuelling glaring inequality, populist revolts, climate change and China's global conquest.
In this incisive and passionate investigation, Johan Norberg instead restates the case for capitalism and the vital role played by the free market in today's uncertain world. Ultimately, he argues that a move away from global capitalism would not only squeeze the growth out of the economy but also deepen an already large social exclusion for the vulnerable - for the world's poor, it would be a killing blow.
331 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 15, 2023
166 people are currently reading
2,402 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews
September 3, 2023
Norberg writes a good polemic in favour of capitalism, articulating that free markets deliver better results than a planned economy. This is an up-to-date and easy-to-follow survey of world economics showing the great international economic growth and reduction of poverty over the last thirty years and post-covid, and also warning against protectionism, following the recent path of state-control and isolationism that China and others seem to have set for themselves. Norberg ends by commenting that many historical golden ages of openness and progress have been laid in ruins by authoritarian revolts and notes that capitalism needs friends and advocates.
Read
September 25, 2022Tar tillbaka min pessimism, allt kommer ju gå toppen hörni!! Länge leve marknaden och alla rikingar.
August 29, 2023
A searing critique of those on the right and the left seeking to restrict competition and freedom. Filled with data driven examples of the benefits of individual creativity and effort versus a top down centralised system. Negates the anti growth thesis by asking which parts of recent advances you’d happily give up. Comes down hard on the bad parts of the top 1% (crony capitalists and crooks) as well as encouraging taxation of externalities such as carbon emissions. Briskly written, an easy read, but intellectually rigorous.
April 3, 2024
This is a really fantastic book - well-argued, engaging, and data-driven. Moreover, despite its rather strident title, the book is admirably judicious in its defense of markets. I plan to use excerpts from this book in my courses in the future!
November 26, 2024
I agree with the book but its evidence is basically just some figures showing rich capitalist countries are better in X, Y, Z. No attempt at causal analysis, no analysts of taxes etc.
December 18, 2024
I am giving this 4 stars for now though I do have to sit with it for a while.
I read this as a skeptic. I try to read things I don’t necessarily agree with and I expected this to be a long form apologetic book on laissez-faire capitalism. So I was pleasantly surprised by just how good it was.
There are problems with capitalism. But the author rightly points out that the term capitalism doesn’t get used correctly most of the times. I found this to be similar to how the term “liberalism” gets misused.
I think this book provides a balanced view on what capitalism has provided us and what some of its limitations are.
I was surprised to see just how tied economic growth is to several indexes of freedom.
I read this as a skeptic. I try to read things I don’t necessarily agree with and I expected this to be a long form apologetic book on laissez-faire capitalism. So I was pleasantly surprised by just how good it was.
There are problems with capitalism. But the author rightly points out that the term capitalism doesn’t get used correctly most of the times. I found this to be similar to how the term “liberalism” gets misused.
I think this book provides a balanced view on what capitalism has provided us and what some of its limitations are.
I was surprised to see just how tied economic growth is to several indexes of freedom.
January 6, 2025
Very impressive. The author explains the wonders of the free markets based on statistical data. The writing is smooth, easy to read, and makes references to many studies and other books for information. It's different chapters range from China, environment to the meaning of life.
A must read, I'm very impressed.
A must read, I'm very impressed.
January 6, 2024
This book probably presents the best case for free market capitalism better than previous attempts and better than internet anarcho capitalists. I'm not fully convinced that all we need is free market capitalism, I am of the social democrat type but a certain focus on free markets, liberal political systems and property rights have probably been greatest factors for progress in human societies along side trade union movements and anti racist movements for example. Some of the benefits highlighted in this book could also be attributable to union/socialist movements fight for better working conditions and pay and also government regulation, there are still a lot of problem with current day capitalism but this book probably does the best job presenting the case defending some of the elements of our current economic system.
One of the interesting points made by the book is that many of the neoliberal policies were actually started by the centre left governments of USA and UK: " It was the Carter administration that deregulated aviation, railways, trucking and energy (and craft beer! Before him you would not have been allowed to drink a Samuel Adams). It was Carter who appointed Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who declared war on inflation in October 1979. Thatcher’s fight against the unions to close 115 loss-making and environmentally damaging coal mines made her admired and hated, but did you know that the two previous Labour prime ministers, Callaghan and Harold Wilson, closed no less than 257 coal mines in total? It was not libertarian ideologues that carried out the great liberalizations of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Socialist parties began to de-socialize India, Australia and New Zealand. Protectionist parties opened the economies of Brazil and Mexico. In China, Vietnam and Chile, economic liberalization was carried out by dictators, whose hearts did not in any way beat for liberal values."
One of the interesting points made by the book is that many of the neoliberal policies were actually started by the centre left governments of USA and UK: " It was the Carter administration that deregulated aviation, railways, trucking and energy (and craft beer! Before him you would not have been allowed to drink a Samuel Adams). It was Carter who appointed Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker, who declared war on inflation in October 1979. Thatcher’s fight against the unions to close 115 loss-making and environmentally damaging coal mines made her admired and hated, but did you know that the two previous Labour prime ministers, Callaghan and Harold Wilson, closed no less than 257 coal mines in total? It was not libertarian ideologues that carried out the great liberalizations of the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Socialist parties began to de-socialize India, Australia and New Zealand. Protectionist parties opened the economies of Brazil and Mexico. In China, Vietnam and Chile, economic liberalization was carried out by dictators, whose hearts did not in any way beat for liberal values."
December 30, 2023
Hands down the best book on economics I've read, The Capitalist Manifesto is an easy read but extremely educational. With the growing socialist dream in the United States, this book should be required reading for all.
In Chapter 1, Norberg starts by explaining that the countries who have embraced capitalism are those who have succeeded in the last century and seen unprecedented growth and improvements in quality of life, while those who have closed their economies or implemented socialist policies are the ones still struggling to develop.
In the following three chapters, Norberg explains the absurdity of planned economies and global supply chains, as well as the improvement in job quality over the last century, and the value created by the 1%.
Other highlights are data showing the how the lower class has benefitted from capitalist societies, such as vast declines in global extreme poverty and increased income in free economies. Perhaps my favorite chapter tackles climate change, and Norberg shows that economic growth is not the problem, but the solution to climate change. Norberg does recognize issues with rising CO2 emssions, and masterfully suggests a carbon tax incentivized by lower tariffs, an idea that I have been pondering and was happy to see suggested by Norberg.
I unconditionally recommend this book to anyone with an interest in economics.
In Chapter 1, Norberg starts by explaining that the countries who have embraced capitalism are those who have succeeded in the last century and seen unprecedented growth and improvements in quality of life, while those who have closed their economies or implemented socialist policies are the ones still struggling to develop.
In the following three chapters, Norberg explains the absurdity of planned economies and global supply chains, as well as the improvement in job quality over the last century, and the value created by the 1%.
Other highlights are data showing the how the lower class has benefitted from capitalist societies, such as vast declines in global extreme poverty and increased income in free economies. Perhaps my favorite chapter tackles climate change, and Norberg shows that economic growth is not the problem, but the solution to climate change. Norberg does recognize issues with rising CO2 emssions, and masterfully suggests a carbon tax incentivized by lower tariffs, an idea that I have been pondering and was happy to see suggested by Norberg.
I unconditionally recommend this book to anyone with an interest in economics.
January 8, 2024
Norberg presenterar en konkret Nozickiansk utopi och friska framtidspositiva vindar. Den här boken förefaller både logisk och empatisk, kan rekommendera! En rolig faktabok helt enkelt som belyser strukturer av människans natur.
November 23, 2023
Brain worms
December 26, 2023
Excellent primer on why free markets both produce better outcomes and are morally superior to the alternatives
December 7, 2024
A well written and justified argument in favor of capitalism. I initially entered in skeptical. I'm not a big fan of ideological framing. Often, the evidence can be selective, the arguments narrow, and ignores or poorly takes on the primary counter arguments.
For the most part, I found the claims well cited and thorough. About half the chapters were quite good. The other half less so.
Norberg has the advantage of writing today. In the past 20 years, especially ,global capitalism has increased standards of living. The 1980's were a difficult decade in Africa and Latin America, where market reforms were not yielding good results. The 2008 Financial Crisis left a deep mark across the developed world. But now over a decade since, the rich world has healed and the lower income countries are genuinely catching up. Global inequality is in decline for the first time in 400 years.
The primary weakness comes from the string underlying bias against governments. While I appreciated Norberg's libertarian with a small "el", he would acknowledge the need for welfare states, government provision of public goods, and occasional necessary regulations, he rarely advocated for any government increase. The argument was always for decrease.
The one exception was the final chapter on environment. Global warming has yet to be solved, and Norberg advocates for greenhouse gas corrective taxes, but also acknowledges there are times for out right bans of pollutants and other methods to hold polluters accountable.
For the most part, I found the claims well cited and thorough. About half the chapters were quite good. The other half less so.
Norberg has the advantage of writing today. In the past 20 years, especially ,global capitalism has increased standards of living. The 1980's were a difficult decade in Africa and Latin America, where market reforms were not yielding good results. The 2008 Financial Crisis left a deep mark across the developed world. But now over a decade since, the rich world has healed and the lower income countries are genuinely catching up. Global inequality is in decline for the first time in 400 years.
The primary weakness comes from the string underlying bias against governments. While I appreciated Norberg's libertarian with a small "el", he would acknowledge the need for welfare states, government provision of public goods, and occasional necessary regulations, he rarely advocated for any government increase. The argument was always for decrease.
The one exception was the final chapter on environment. Global warming has yet to be solved, and Norberg advocates for greenhouse gas corrective taxes, but also acknowledges there are times for out right bans of pollutants and other methods to hold polluters accountable.
October 13, 2023
Nordberg provides us with a provocative argument in favour of capitalism and the free market. However, the book seems to dance on a difficult cord between being an “easy” read and being a scientific body. Intending to lean towards the former, the book does not really put a clear definition forward of capitalism and the free market, nor does it provide a clear problem statement. The result is an eclectic defence that feels convincing, but convincing for what? The free market? Capitalism? Democracy? Liberalism? Progress?
While these concepts are inherently tied in some way the book does not really offer a clear notion that separates any. Many of the arguments therefore suffer from some sort of causality problem. While intuitively the arguments seem to make sense; a critical reader might ask whether the statistics presented are really the result of the free market or of a small set of scientific breakthroughs that might have happened either way.
Moreover, the book sometimes seem to suffer be trying to be too provoking. It presents capitalism as being only good. Whereas, some critical notes could have deepened the analysis.
Most interesting are the final chapters where through the case study of China some arguments are made clear in a more stable and empirical fashion.
All in all still a really fun read for everyone who wants to hear a nice defence of the liberal world.
While these concepts are inherently tied in some way the book does not really offer a clear notion that separates any. Many of the arguments therefore suffer from some sort of causality problem. While intuitively the arguments seem to make sense; a critical reader might ask whether the statistics presented are really the result of the free market or of a small set of scientific breakthroughs that might have happened either way.
Moreover, the book sometimes seem to suffer be trying to be too provoking. It presents capitalism as being only good. Whereas, some critical notes could have deepened the analysis.
Most interesting are the final chapters where through the case study of China some arguments are made clear in a more stable and empirical fashion.
All in all still a really fun read for everyone who wants to hear a nice defence of the liberal world.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 10, 2023
Everyone should read this book. Yes, capitalism has lots of problems, but when critically assessed, there is no better system to create prosperity and happiness in the world. Should we strive for better? For sure, but all other systems so far conceived (socialism, feudalism, you name it) are not better. It's incredible that the following statement is surprising to so many people, but capitalism has made us wealthier, happier, freer, and more sustainable than anything else. There are so many bad ideas out there that have jeopardized the well-being of millions because we ignore this fact. All other systems, as just or reasonable as they might sound in principle, are simply wrong when critically assessed. Norberg shows compellingly that capitalism is the best system we have if we want to thrive in the world. Read it.
April 5, 2024
Liberal marknadsekonomi är det bästa!
…
…
February 21, 2025
While heavy in facts, data, and statistics, this book moves well in making a compelling argument about the historical and modern benefits of the free market to society and individuals.
April 12, 2024
Johan always writes well and good to get an update on the 20 year classic.
Would probably have enjoyed a bit more of reflection from what went correct or wrong in the book.
But as a proponent of free markets it’s good to get that there are still some people that scream it out even if the rest of the world currently doesn’t listen.
Would probably have enjoyed a bit more of reflection from what went correct or wrong in the book.
But as a proponent of free markets it’s good to get that there are still some people that scream it out even if the rest of the world currently doesn’t listen.
September 16, 2024
Bästa boken, jag känner faktiskt författaren! Mycket trevlig person. Har läst igenom boken och älskar den!
August 31, 2024
You should read this book. We need more capitalism in America and across the globe.
February 26, 2025
To preface, I am by no means an economist. Part of reading this book was A) it seems like something I'd inherently disagree with and B) to learn more about economics from a pro-free market perspective.
Even with my limited knowledge of free market capitalism (besides the fact that I'm in tremendous student loan debt and am immersed in the 'lived experience' that capitalism throws to the lower/middle classes every day), I find this book categorically and fundamentally misinformed.
To start, I agree that globalism rather than protectionism is okay and that it does lead to freer societies. Norberg's discussion of the way globalism and protectionism have switched political sides is interesting and I learned something new. He also had some good ideas to integrate environmentalism within the free market, though I think they could be better approached under a completely different economic system (like a socially democratic society with a protected economy - which does still spur innovation and development contrary to what Norberg thinks). For these reasons, in addition to his clear-cut writing style, I give this book 2 stars.
At the beginning, Norberg mentions that the word "capitalism" is misleading because it sounds like it prioritizes money and wealth, rather than giving people the freedom to make their own economic choices—which is what the free market is really about. Never mind that the freedom to make one's own economic choices is most enjoyed by the rich and not a possibility for the poor. It's this very same notion of misinterpreted definitions that he doesn't afford to socialism - which he is very happy to interchange with communism despite the two being very different models of freedom.
The way he defines and views socialism as something that is authoritarian and economically restrictive is the foundation of why everything Norberg tries to argue for is thrown out the window. Economic prosperity, freedom, innovation, environmentalism, and happiness are all welcome under the socially democratic 'alternative' to capitalism.
Sure, a 'free market' and a 'protected economy' are completely different. One enables people to gain unfathomable amounts of wealth that they can direct towards lobbying, evading taxes, and promoting their own interests (not unlike an oligarchy). The latter has a limit so the 'freedom' aspect gets skewed. However, it is unacceptable to argue that capitalism is better than socialism without having a thorough understanding of what socialism can be. Contrary to what Norberg believes, it does not mean closed-off protectionism, it does not make trade impossible (socialism in isolation is never possible). It gives people the opportunity to have more freedom as it allows people to have economic freedom (i.e. they can afford basic needs so that they can then spend their money more freely). In other words, socialism is exactly what Norberg is arguing for in terms of 'economic freedom': the ability to spend your money how you like. Similar to how the rich can, as never have they had to worry about paying for healthcare, food, or rent.
Norberg also cherry-picks pro-capitalist examples without any fleshed-out, nuanced arguments. He did this when discussing socialism and he certainly does this when discussing how richer countries are freer and more prosperous. If an economy is good, it means the country must be totally free. Never mind that measuring the wealth of a country is based on those who make the bulk of the wealth. Of course, an economy seems prosperous when you zoom in on the richest of the lot. One glaring example of this is how he discusses Jim Crow laws. Allegedly those most against Jim Crow laws were business owners because they would be losing paying customers by not allowing black customers. Thus, this actual quote:
“The Southern states introduced Jim Crow laws because they were outraged that greedy capitalists only thought of money and refused to discriminate against black people.”
This is highly misleading. The only lick of evidence for this is a mention of the East Louisiana railway potentially financing the Plessy v Ferguson case because they didn't want to pay for new segregated facilities. Notably, in all that I have read regarding the possibility of this being the truth, it has told me that cases such as these, if they even did exist, were the exception, not the norm. I don't want to focus too much on this because it's not too relevant to this review, but it is an example of how Norberg speaks with authority, yet neglects to give substantial evidence of what he says.
Another thing I find frustrating is that most of Norberg's argument lies with 'people should have the freedom to be a part of the good fight' without ever questioning why one should have to put up a fight in the first place. He speaks of innovation as justification for competitiveness but neglects that innovation happens most for all when we aren't worried about how we're going to make rent. He says that upward mobility requires thousands of dollars in the US and only a few hundred in Nordic countries. Then he says that the potential for upward mobility would not happen at all if people in entry-level jobs made higher wages. For if they made high wages they would not feel the need to move up classes. This is completely ridiculous to me! If people make the amount of money they need to be comfortable, there's no need for upward mobility. That's a good thing to me. And it doesn't mean there wouldn't be productivity and economic growth that can still come without the constant need to build wealth to live.
To make sure this isn't 3000 words, I am going to end this review here. My notes have the bulk of my disagreements. I would recommend taking a look at Chapter 4: In defence of the 1% if you really want a diatribe. Most compelling is Mr Norberg's quip that conversely to popular beliefs that inequality kills, "inequality [actually] saves lives."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s...
Even with my limited knowledge of free market capitalism (besides the fact that I'm in tremendous student loan debt and am immersed in the 'lived experience' that capitalism throws to the lower/middle classes every day), I find this book categorically and fundamentally misinformed.
To start, I agree that globalism rather than protectionism is okay and that it does lead to freer societies. Norberg's discussion of the way globalism and protectionism have switched political sides is interesting and I learned something new. He also had some good ideas to integrate environmentalism within the free market, though I think they could be better approached under a completely different economic system (like a socially democratic society with a protected economy - which does still spur innovation and development contrary to what Norberg thinks). For these reasons, in addition to his clear-cut writing style, I give this book 2 stars.
At the beginning, Norberg mentions that the word "capitalism" is misleading because it sounds like it prioritizes money and wealth, rather than giving people the freedom to make their own economic choices—which is what the free market is really about. Never mind that the freedom to make one's own economic choices is most enjoyed by the rich and not a possibility for the poor. It's this very same notion of misinterpreted definitions that he doesn't afford to socialism - which he is very happy to interchange with communism despite the two being very different models of freedom.
The way he defines and views socialism as something that is authoritarian and economically restrictive is the foundation of why everything Norberg tries to argue for is thrown out the window. Economic prosperity, freedom, innovation, environmentalism, and happiness are all welcome under the socially democratic 'alternative' to capitalism.
Sure, a 'free market' and a 'protected economy' are completely different. One enables people to gain unfathomable amounts of wealth that they can direct towards lobbying, evading taxes, and promoting their own interests (not unlike an oligarchy). The latter has a limit so the 'freedom' aspect gets skewed. However, it is unacceptable to argue that capitalism is better than socialism without having a thorough understanding of what socialism can be. Contrary to what Norberg believes, it does not mean closed-off protectionism, it does not make trade impossible (socialism in isolation is never possible). It gives people the opportunity to have more freedom as it allows people to have economic freedom (i.e. they can afford basic needs so that they can then spend their money more freely). In other words, socialism is exactly what Norberg is arguing for in terms of 'economic freedom': the ability to spend your money how you like. Similar to how the rich can, as never have they had to worry about paying for healthcare, food, or rent.
Norberg also cherry-picks pro-capitalist examples without any fleshed-out, nuanced arguments. He did this when discussing socialism and he certainly does this when discussing how richer countries are freer and more prosperous. If an economy is good, it means the country must be totally free. Never mind that measuring the wealth of a country is based on those who make the bulk of the wealth. Of course, an economy seems prosperous when you zoom in on the richest of the lot. One glaring example of this is how he discusses Jim Crow laws. Allegedly those most against Jim Crow laws were business owners because they would be losing paying customers by not allowing black customers. Thus, this actual quote:
“The Southern states introduced Jim Crow laws because they were outraged that greedy capitalists only thought of money and refused to discriminate against black people.”
This is highly misleading. The only lick of evidence for this is a mention of the East Louisiana railway potentially financing the Plessy v Ferguson case because they didn't want to pay for new segregated facilities. Notably, in all that I have read regarding the possibility of this being the truth, it has told me that cases such as these, if they even did exist, were the exception, not the norm. I don't want to focus too much on this because it's not too relevant to this review, but it is an example of how Norberg speaks with authority, yet neglects to give substantial evidence of what he says.
Another thing I find frustrating is that most of Norberg's argument lies with 'people should have the freedom to be a part of the good fight' without ever questioning why one should have to put up a fight in the first place. He speaks of innovation as justification for competitiveness but neglects that innovation happens most for all when we aren't worried about how we're going to make rent. He says that upward mobility requires thousands of dollars in the US and only a few hundred in Nordic countries. Then he says that the potential for upward mobility would not happen at all if people in entry-level jobs made higher wages. For if they made high wages they would not feel the need to move up classes. This is completely ridiculous to me! If people make the amount of money they need to be comfortable, there's no need for upward mobility. That's a good thing to me. And it doesn't mean there wouldn't be productivity and economic growth that can still come without the constant need to build wealth to live.
To make sure this isn't 3000 words, I am going to end this review here. My notes have the bulk of my disagreements. I would recommend taking a look at Chapter 4: In defence of the 1% if you really want a diatribe. Most compelling is Mr Norberg's quip that conversely to popular beliefs that inequality kills, "inequality [actually] saves lives."
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1s...
August 9, 2024
An excellent book to introduce someone to capitalism. It nicely refutes the many anti-capitalism myths and talks about the many positive effects of capitalism. He even gets environmentalism right by pointing out the need for polluters to compensate those negatively affected by their pollution.
October 27, 2023
"Capitalism is merciless against capitalists who don't deliver." -Johan Norberg
Johan Norberg has done a great job. He has explained well on why capitalism is better & morally superior than it's other alternatives. Also, it gives everyone a powerful motive to constantly try to find new ways to create value for others.
Johan Norberg has done a great job. He has explained well on why capitalism is better & morally superior than it's other alternatives. Also, it gives everyone a powerful motive to constantly try to find new ways to create value for others.
July 7, 2024
Great book about capitalism, economic freedom and free markets. The book demonstrates clearly why capitalism produces better results and increases the standards of living, and it demonstrates as well why capitalism is a morally a superior system against alternatives. Highly recommended and highly needed given some policy trends around the world.
July 25, 2024
A must read
July 1, 2024
Acho que todos os socialistas deviam ler este livro.
July 16, 2024
Fucking good
July 21, 2024
Wat een drammer
June 9, 2024
I continue to keep the Interlibrary Loan staff at the University Near Here employed while other departments are ruthlessly cut. This book came up from UConn. The author, Johan Norberg, is Swedish. But he's affiliated with Cato, and his English is pretty good. This book is (more or less) a followup to his In Defense of Global Capitalism, which came out about 20 years previous.
Free-market capitalism can always use defenders, but I admit Norberg was pushing on an open door in my case. In each chapter, he takes on an anti-capitalist canard and rebuts it ably.
Has life under capitalism become "savage", as Naomi Klein claims? Is it only designed to help the "rich get richer"? No, in fact, it's been the gateway out of poverty for billions.
Well, does it (um) make rich countries like the US poorer, as politicians on all sides like to claim, and have done so for decades?
Begin aside.
And they invariably use a very tired phrase.
Ross Perot, 1992: "We've shipped millions of jobs overseas".
CongressCritters Sykes, Pascrell, and Deluzio, just last month: "For too long, American companies have shipped jobs overseas […]"
Republican Kari Lake, back in March: "When I’m in the Senate, There will be no more shipping American jobs overseas".
And if you'd like more examples, here are some I gathered in 2010, and here are some I gathered in 2012.
You'll notice that those American jobs are always "shipped" overseas. They never take planes.
End aside.
Ahem. Well, anyway, that's inaccurate as well.
Is income/wealth inequality a huge problem? No.
How about monopolies? Also not an issue.
But the wise hands of government are uniquely qualified to guide us to the future, via industrial policy, right? Nope; other than funding basic research, those hands should keep to themselves.
How about China? They're in the process of stumbling off their once promising path of free markets.
How about climate change? Don't we need government to put us on the path to net-zero carbon emissions via mandates, subsidies, etc.? Here I am a little more skeptical than Norberg about the crisis. But he firmly opposes the green de-growth advocates, who would condemn large swaths of the planet to miserable poverty, forever. Instead he favors a simple, revenue-neutral carbon tax. Arguable!
So there's nothing really surprising or new here, but there's a lot to like. Norberg digs out this bit from Aristophanes' Ecclesiazusae from 391 BC, where an early progressive says the quiet part out loud:
Proxagoras: I shall begin by making land, money, everything that is private property, common to all. Then we shall live on this common wealth.
Blepyrus: But who will till the soil?
Proxagoras: The slaves.
(I think Norberg's excerpt differs slightly from other translations)
December 19, 2024
Norberg's defence of capitalism in our contemporary world is a brilliant publication. In a time when the idea of free enterprise and free markets are being questioned, The Capitalist Manifesto makes a strong case for continued economic liberalism through its compelling examination of its effects throughout the world.
Norberg's evaluation of the argument that capitalism creates inequality in the fourth chapter of the book presents a moral case for capitalism. According to him :
With this statistic, Norberg implies that the goods and services that entrepreneurs provide primarily benefit society rather than individuals - a similar concept that Adam Smith detailed in The Wealth of Nations - that self interest contributes to the greater good. This argues that capitalism is morally justified, since it leads to the betterment of a society as a whole and thereby desirable outcomes for the greatest amount of people.
In, the eighth chapter of the book, Norberg presents his counter-argument against environmental concerns about capitalism. This seems to be a major contention that critics of capitalism bring up - how can capitalism be justified in the wake of environmental degradation? However, Norberg refutes this point in the folloing passage :
With this, he proposes that capitalism will be necessary to solve the environmental crisis, as it is economic growth and innovation that lead us towards greener production processes and technologies. Norberg constructs an optimistic point that capitalism is not truly bad for the environment - and its alternatives are clearly worse.
Going through Norberg's The Capitalist Manifesto, I discovered a plethora of creative and articulate arguments in favour of the free market and private enterprise. I recommend this book to those who wish to understand the state of capitalism in the 21st century, or wish to see practical examples of the operation of the free market.
Norberg's evaluation of the argument that capitalism creates inequality in the fourth chapter of the book presents a moral case for capitalism. According to him :
Profits are not something you take from others, but a small share you get to keep of the value you create for others. How small a share? Nobel laureate and economist William Nordhaus has studied the profits that innovators and entrepreneurs make in addition to the normal return on investment when they introduce new goods, technologies and methods into the economy. Nordhaus’s conclusion from fifty years of US statistics is that these greedy capitalists seize about 2.2 per cent of the social value of their innovations, despite patent protection and the benefits of being first to market.
With this statistic, Norberg implies that the goods and services that entrepreneurs provide primarily benefit society rather than individuals - a similar concept that Adam Smith detailed in The Wealth of Nations - that self interest contributes to the greater good. This argues that capitalism is morally justified, since it leads to the betterment of a society as a whole and thereby desirable outcomes for the greatest amount of people.
In, the eighth chapter of the book, Norberg presents his counter-argument against environmental concerns about capitalism. This seems to be a major contention that critics of capitalism bring up - how can capitalism be justified in the wake of environmental degradation? However, Norberg refutes this point in the folloing passage :
The best thing about having money is that you can think of other things than money. Prosperity changes our preferences. As individuals we begin to think about how our behaviour affects the local environment, as consumers we think about how our goods are produced and as voters we elect politicians who protect the [environment] instead of sacrificing it. In addition, richer economies can also devote more resources to research, development and consumption of greener technologies. It is richer countries who have developed new processes and technologies that enable us to produce and transport goods in a better way and to take care of and manage waste and dirty water.
With this, he proposes that capitalism will be necessary to solve the environmental crisis, as it is economic growth and innovation that lead us towards greener production processes and technologies. Norberg constructs an optimistic point that capitalism is not truly bad for the environment - and its alternatives are clearly worse.
Going through Norberg's The Capitalist Manifesto, I discovered a plethora of creative and articulate arguments in favour of the free market and private enterprise. I recommend this book to those who wish to understand the state of capitalism in the 21st century, or wish to see practical examples of the operation of the free market.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 74 reviews