| October | 25 |
| 2006 |
It's not often you read something and agree with every dot and comma. Gerard Baker's tirade against Gap (and others) for their attempts to show that it's ok, profits aren't evil, and producing and buying goods is fine, is one such piece:
My problem here is with what this does for the very idea of capitalism, for companies pursuing their real and entirely wholesome responsibility of making money. Free market capitalism, untrammelled by marketing people in alliance with special interest groups on a mission to save the world, has done more to alleviate poverty than any well-intentioned anti-poverty campaign in the history of the globe.
Indeed, as he puts it:
They are implicitly acknowledging that their main business — selling things that people want for a profit — is inherently immoral and needs to be expiated by an occasional show of real goodness. Rather than resisting it, they are nurturing and feeding an anti-business sentiment that will impoverish us all.
The Gap campaign had passed me by but, until it stops, I will not be buying any more t-shirts or chinos. Or does someone else sell them, too?

MessageSpace
"The Gap campaign had passed me by but, until it stops, I will not be buying any more t-shirts or chinos."
This threat of collective punishment against all vendors of such sartorial delights simply because of the actions of one retailer is outrageous.
"Or does someone else sell them, too?"
Skewered by a late recovery.
Tsk.
Not seeing the wood for the trees.
Product differentiation.
http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/10/gerard_baker_on.html
There's another necessary level to the argument.
"Not seeing the wood for the trees."
In Bono's case, I think we can all see the wood pretty well.
Nick Cohen writes:
"What is surprising is that the rest of the world continues to take Bono seriously. I would have thought that after the revelation that U2 moved their music publishing company to the Netherlands to cut their tax bill in half, he wouldn't have dared stepped out of his mansion for fear of being laughed to scorn.
Here was a man who incited audiences to condemn Western politicians for not sending enough of their taxpayers' money to the wretched of the earth, avoiding tax himself. The Edge, U2's guitarist, sounded as edgy as a plump accountant in the 19th hole when he explained the move offshore by saying: 'Our business is a very complex business. Of course we're trying to be tax-efficient. Who doesn't want to be tax-efficient?'
The practical consequences of being 'tax-efficient' are many. If you say you care about Africa, why are you paying fees to international money movers who encourage Africa's 'tax-efficient' kleptomaniacs to hide their loot in tax havens? You are also forcing fellow citizens, who didn't make U2's estimated $110m in 2005, to pick up the bill, not only for foreign aid, but for education, health, law and order and defence."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1928578,00.html
"There are few ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting money." It was true when Johnson said it and it's true now.
I think Tim Worstall's idea of this being capitalists' selling the anti-globos the rope with which to hang themselves is interesting, but Baker's idea that motivating people against capitalism is dangerous has a lot of merit. We spent the post-War years in a fog of Fabianism until the Reagan-Thatcher revolution, and any move back towards that is strongly to be discouraged.

