[renodoc]

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


'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?