Capitalism Rocks.... Yeah Yeah Yeah

[bfp]

What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 05/07/2005)


[Link]

'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8, "demeans the generosity which they embody".

Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.

Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".

Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.

That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.

For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.

Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.

I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.

And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500 million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.

And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.

Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."

No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.

Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.

There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation. Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?

Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid". The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its repertoire.

Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.

Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.

The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of those models makes more sense?

what is your issue with this?

Live 8 is a brilliant idea.... he is right that we all don't need to give him our money.... we just need to persuade our leaders that they need to give Africa our money

we can all give them a few dollars here and there... or a hundred dollars.. or a thousand dollars... but that is nothing compared to the 70 cents for every hundred dollars that they are asking for from each of the 8 richest countries...

[PETA]

Originally Posted by stargazer

what is your issue with this?

Live 8 is a brilliant idea.... he is right that we all don't need to give him our money.... we just need to persuade our leaders that they need to give Africa our money

we can all give them a few dollars here and there... or a hundred dollars.. or a thousand dollars... but that is nothing compared to the 70 cents for every hundred dollars that they are asking for from each of the 8 richest countries...

SG - who's going to get the money?

Think they are using it to help the need the needy now?



And... geldof wasn't asking for money as i understood it

Originally Posted by xian

And... geldof wasn't asking for money as i understood it

he is asking money from the countries, not individual people

[PETA]

Originally Posted by stargazer

he is asking money from the countries, not individual people

And how do this nations get the money that geldof would have these nations give to Africa? Taxes perhaps? So, rather than ask for charitable donations he's suggesting that the $$ be compelled from the tax payer.... I'm liking him less and less.

[Big Andy]

Originally Posted by xian

And how do this nations get the money that geldof would have these nations give to Africa? Taxes perhaps? So, rather than ask for charitable donations he's suggesting that the $$ be compelled from the tax payer.... I'm liking him less and less.

I think you're giving him more credit than he deserves.


Sounds more like an immature, "the government has too m uch "fokkin" money!" attitude to me.


I doubt he feels it should be "compelled" from tax payers, just that tax money should be put to good use. A flawed but valid argument. Lots of politics embedded in it. e.g. if you disagree with the war in Iraq, perhaps you may think the billions of dollars being spent there would be better spent helping thrid world countries in africa. I'm not trying to make that argument, merely hypothetically for clarification.


I could be completely wrong.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Big Andy

I think you're giving him more credit than he deserves.


Sounds more like an immature, "the government has too m uch "fokkin" money!" attitude to me.


I doubt he feels it should be "compelled" from tax payers, just that tax money should be put to good use. A flawed but valid argument. Lots of politics embedded in it. e.g. if you disagree with the war in Iraq, perhaps you may think the billions of dollars being spent there would be better spent helping thrid world countries in africa. I'm not trying to make that argument, merely hypothetically for clarification.


I could be completely wrong.

quite rather I suspect you're 100% balls on accurate there

why would that bother you? the government does a ton of stuff with my tax money that i'd disagree with if i knew what it was... i'd rather them use it to solve actual problems rather than wage war

[PETA]

Originally Posted by stargazer

why would that bother you? the government does a ton of stuff with my tax money that i'd disagree with if i knew what it was... i'd rather them use it to solve actual problems rather than wage war

Because, as I noted above, I don't think that foreign aid is the thing that will help raise Africa out of poverty.

Originally Posted by bfp

Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.

and to do what with, exactly?
the poor people of africa won't see a nickel of it.

a small example of what the G8 leaders cannot control.