The Jort Kelder Interview, by Rob Jansen (Tribune [Socialist Party,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands], September 2003, p. 17-21)
Rolex, Marbella, Armani, jet-set party's and yacht harbours: that's the
world which the Dutch monthly glossy Quote presents to its readers. Jort
Kelder himself calls it "a window to wealth". So what does it all mean ?
Gawking at the excesses of the rich ? Well, no, he says, it's a laugh,
because "if you start to take wealth seriously, then you are a sorry
failure". In this interview, writer/presenter/chief editor Jort Kelder talks
to Rob Jansen about decency, ambition and openness. A small sample from the
September issue of Quote magazine: an interview article about IBM director
Fehmers, an impression of the new BMW 5-series ("priced from 46,750
euro's"), a story about Marc Overmars "from small-fry pundit to
hard-bargaining real estate baron", plus a report from Naples about "spoilt
Dutch men looking for the secrets of the hand-made and smartly cut,
made-to-measure suit". And a revealing cover story about the doings of the
super-wealthy meat magnate Eddy de Kroes, who was sentenced to two years
jail, but never completed his sentence. And further, glossy advertisements
for Breitling watches, Travel Deluxe ("royally on holiday") and... the
Lamborghini Gallardo.
QUESTION: Are you yourself a rich man ?
ANSWER: No, I have just a modest journalist's income.
QUESTION: Do you get a personal kick out those ultra-expensive commodities
advertised in your magazine ?
ANSWER: "Not really. But I do like gadgets. You really ought to see it from
another angle though. It also has to do with a demographic trend, the rise
of the so-called wonderboy. His motto is: never grow up. Not growing up,
means wanting to stay a child always. It is a bit of a metropolitan
development really, maybe even typically an Amsterdam phenomenon. I see a
lot of men in my circles, who all have their toys. A Range Rover, a boat,
and so on. The boys permit themselves things like that. And if you work
hard, you are entitled to do that, I think. But let me be perfectly clear
about this: I am not a materialist myself. For example, I don't care about a
fat bank balance. Okay, I will go on holiday to a millionaire's island
resort with a private jet, or something like that, but for me that is no
more than a chapter out of a boy's story. It's all for a laugh. Because if
you are rich, and you start to take your wealth seriously, then you are a
sorry failure. You will see them sitting for instance in the lobby's of
five-star hotels, and often they won't have anything to talk about anymore,
they will only talk about the latest and most expensive car models. My
philosophy is, that you should do the luxury thing only when you almost
cannot afford it. Because only then is it really fun. Because you can still
enjoy it then. I remember how I went with a mate of mine to the Waldorf
Astoria Hotel in New York. We decided to arrive there in a limo, and fancied
ourselves rich. But - and this is very important - we did it with a big wink
to each other."
QUESTION: But is your wink really picked up by the world out there ?
ANSWER: No, not sufficiently. Many people think: Jort Kelder, what a
humourless materialist dickhead. But everybody that really knows me
personally, knows that I am not like that.
QUESTION: Does your magazine also feature that wink in its pages ?
ANSWER: Yes, absolutely. When we write about the palaces of capital (in
July, Quote published an article about the mansions of the rich - "the crazy
lifestyles of the nouveau riches") and you look at those enormous mansions,
and then you have to laugh, you know. Because you can't take it seriously at
all. Yet there are these nouveau riche magazines which do take it seriously,
and really think that it is really where it's at, they think it is really
significant. They will write about people who are worried that they only
have a 9-hole golf course in their back yard, instead of an 18-hole golf
course. That sort of thing. Yes, and if you cannot laugh about that anymore,
then you are ready for a stint in an asylum. So from my point of view,
people just laugh too little. Wealth can be very disconcerting, you know.
There are a lot of people here who are caught and trapped by their own
wealth.
QUESTION: Can you give us the rationale for Quote magazine in one sentence ?
ANSWER: Quote is a window to wealth. If you open up the magazine, you will
realise that money doesn't make you happy either. Quote talks about the
world of fast money in a journalistic way. Yep, research journalism is part
of that. Like the piece I did about Eddy de Kroes. Your Socialist Party MP
Jan de Wit has just asked a parliamentary question based on that story.
Look, I am not the toyboy of the rich. I am only the spectator, looking at
their antics from the sidelines.
QUESTION: I suppose you are not always appreciated for that stance ?
ANSWER: Sure thing. When we publish a list of the 500 wealthiest Dutch
people, as we do, we don't exactly ingratiate ourselves with most of them.
QUESTION: ...And Maurice de Hond even took Quote to court ?
ANSWER: Businesspeople like Maurice de Hond, Nina Brink... I have quarrelled
with a whole bunch of them.
QUESTION: Why ?
ANSWER: Well, De Hond accused me of character assassination, because we had
written some critical things about him.
QUESTION: And what happened then ?
ANSWER: I appealed twice against Maurice de Hond up to the highest level,
and won my case. But in those days, it cost me something like 10 to 15,000
euro's to do it. Even although I had won the case !!! So people who have a
lot of money can really take the mickey out of you. The legal system in
Holland is made for the really poor and the really rich people. But
everybody who is in between, gets had. Because you always have to pay for
your own solicitor's costs, and usually also the costs of the proceedings.
Let me say though, that I think that the press ought to be monitored
critically and, where necessary, should be brought to heel without
hesitation. Because journalists have a powerful weapon: they can inflict
real image damage to people. And yeah, we have often done that in a slightly
wild way. Quote is not called the "rag with teeth" among the the business
magazines for nothing. We sometimes pursue personalities in a way which
makes me think afterwards "what I said was accurate allright, but uh-oh, we
were a bit rough on so-and-so." But in fact because I am a public face
myself, I am regularly at the mercy of other columnists. Recently the Dutch
writer and comedian Youp van 't Hek took the piss out of me. He called me a
"Quote wanker".
QUESTION: You call yourself an anarcho-liberal - why is that, exactly ?
ANSWER: Well for a start I am not really an ideologue. My generation thinks
that ideologies are stuffy and dusty things. But if you were to put me in a
box, then I'd have to say I am in the liberal camp. Unfortunately, in
Holland, being a liberal is always straightaway associated with being
conservative. And with the "real estate party" which, after all, the Dutch
Liberal Party really is.
QUESTION: "Real Estate Party" - what exactly do you mean by that ?
ANSWER: Well, what I mean is, the lack of inspiration and imagination of
that party. The Dutch Liberal party is just not very intellectual, that is
all. For the Dutch Liberals, whether or not you become happy depends on the
size of petrol tax levy and house prices, that's what it looks like to me.
My own point of departure is, that you don't concern yourself too much with
government, but go for individuality. Of course, some things - like the
water supply and the army - are things which you have to do together.
Collectively, that is. And apart from that, I am very anti-authoritarian.
Hence the label "anarcho-liberal".
QUESTION: Otherwise it would sound a bit like "wild west capitalist"...
ANSWER: No. I would never want to give free reign to raw capitalism. I agree
with the building of the welfare state. And I definitely argue for helping
people collectively who really cannot make it otherwise. The social security
benefits of those people who really suffer and don't really have a future at
all should be raised, in my opinion. But let us not kid outselves into
thinking that there are a million invalids in Holland, just to take an
example. The employers - and employer organisations - have just shunted
people into an existence on the sickness benefit, because it works out
cheaper for them that way. And I am not in favour of that. If you were able
to stop the misuse of the provision by people themselves,and the
organisations that dominate it, and if employers and politicians would
assert themselves more strongly, then that would leave us with a group of
just 400,000 people or so. And I think we should look after them properly.
My next point is about wealth. Socialist party leader Jan Marijnissen said
in a recent interview with Quote that: "I am not against wealth, I am
against poverty." I can identify with that. You know, I agree for 90 percent
with the ideas of the Socialist Party. But my criticism of the Socialist
Party is, that they focus too little on the good things which people really
need, and more on seizing what other people own. And I think that is
nonsense. Make no mistake about this: where after all are the explosions of
creativity ? In the capitalist world. That is what I see in the young
companies which are being started. Think of Silicon Valley in California.
There are thousands of young and very creative businesses there.
QUESTION: Surely you are exaggerating ! The whole of Silicon Valley is in
decline and masses of companies have gone bankrupt. And now you present it
as a shining exemplar of creativity !
ANSWER: Okay, so many businesses did go bankrupt. But the level of wealth
and welfare there is still much higher than in Wassenaar, the traditional
township of the rich bourgeois in Holland. What interests me, are the new
technologies and the new ways of relating to people which you can see in
Silicon Valley. Look, in the past you had factories and offices and that.
Symbolically, there was a fence around them, and when you had gone thorugh
the gate they would shut it after you, so that you couldn't leave until it
was five o'clock. Prisons where you could work to pay the rent, that is what
they were ! But in the last ten, twenty years young, highly educated
professional people went into those places, who did not simply preach to
people about what to do, but who introduced experience and professionalism.
And fun, because intelligent people don't feel like getting beaten up all
day long by the boss. The hierarchical enterprise has definitely become
untrendy. In Silicon Valley, they don't wear suits anymore. Yeah, okay,
there is a certain form of hierarchy, but it is based purely on real
leadership, and not on arbitrary power structures. Unfortunately, if you
look at Shell Corporation or the ABN Amro, they still stick to the old
formalistic style. But in those small fast companies that sort of thing is
long gone, a thing of the past. They are fantastic companies to work for,
because it is actually pleasant to work for them. We are talking about
people who originate from ordinary backgrounds, and who assume their own
responsibilities. When I see how well many young companies function, then I
have the nerve to say "well that is the socialist ideal".
QUESTION: So if the Socialist Party would take a peek there, we would
repent, do you think ?
ANSWER: Well, just like I have changed my ideas about the good things about
socialism.
QUESTION: Well yes, because if you publish a headline in your mag like
"Palaces of the wealthy - the crazy lifestyles of the nouveau-riches" then
you are talking socialism ! We could have placed a header like that in our
own magazine just like that !
ANSWER: Yeah, well... that's right. But I always do it with a bit of irony.
I mean: the nouveau riches have oodles of money and they build spectacular
homes with it. And I have to crack up about that, personally, it makes me
laugh. At least if they have got their money by legal means. Those people
are often so pleased with the fact that they have lots of money, that they
immediately go and spend it on the wrong things. They buy the wrong cars and
the wrong yachts, and look for the wrong women. It makes me laugh. But in
the United States you can observe, that the individual responsibility of the
rich is much greater. Every museum has incredibly high budgets, while the
Amsterdam City Museum has to beg and crawl, to be able to build a new wing
on the building, which is a shame. And why ? Because the government doesn't
give out any money, and because tax money may not be used for that. We have
made the rich afraid, and we have delegated all our sense of responsibility
to the government authorities. And I think that is really bad news.
QUESTION: We have seen Bill Gates donate a billion to welfare institutions.
Shall we philosophise a bit together about what happens when the guy
suddenly shuts off the money tap ? Then it suddenly turns out that the
pensioners' home or the infants' clinic is totally dependent on the mood of
Mr Gates.
ANSWER: Okay. So if you make the provision of medical care dependent on the
question of whether millionaire Sylvia Toth decides in her good graces to
donate a wing to a hospital, then you aren't doing it right. The authorities
should create sufficient conditions for collective provisions. That's clear.
But if you have a system of fifty, sixty, seventy percent tax, then you know
that you will make everybody back off and drive them back behind their
hedges in Brasschaat. The consequence is that they will not donate to good
causes and they will not participate in social life.
QUESTION: Is it that bad ?
ANSWER: Well, if they are people who have built big enterprises and helped
thousands of people find employment, yes. You ought to treasure and cherish
those people a bit. Even although I cannot help laughing at them as well.
Because driving around in a white Mercedes is not something you would catch
me doing.
QUESTION: Pim Fortuynist Herman Heinsbroek said once, let the rich rule the
country anyhow because at least they achieved something and they know how to
do it.
ANSWER: Well, Heinsbroek is obviously the best proof that, if you have made
a lot of money, that will still not make you a good public servant. If there
has been anybody who has behaved irresponsibly and flouted the trust placed
in him by other people, then it has got to be Herman Heinsbroek. In a
completely infantile way, he started a quarrel with his fellow Fortuynist,
the economist Eduard Bomhoff. Who has the same style, by the way. Brilliant,
but completely crazy. These people have damaged the respect for politicians
among the public greatly.
QUESTION: So how do you think about the grab-and-run mentality in the top of
the business world ?
ANSWER: I condemn it. Absolutely. And I have always done so consistently.
And I have strong doubts whether the old boy network in some government
commission can do anything about it. My fear is that it will not make a
shred of difference. After all, in the end it is all a matter of how you
grew up. I was raised myself in a way, that I will not go and plunder the
organisation's bank account, and that I have some norms of respect and
politeness. I don't know how to express that exactly, it's in my genes if
you like. But if you were the son of a plumber and you work in a lightbulb
factory - I won't mention any names - then it appears you are unlikely to
have the civilisation or self-control to behave correctly, when you are
faced with very lucrative opportunities to make some easy money. Personally
I am very much for sharing fairly, incidentally. I think, that you should
share bonuses and suchlike fairly with the people around you, who have
helped along to achieve your own success. It is a lie, that if you are the
topdog that you are the only important guy, which means that you send your
colleagues home with just a compensation for expenses. In the paper you will
read a caption like: the ING top management takes more than sixty percent
salary increase. And then the businesspeople will justify with the aid of a
lot of foreign statistics that this is really necessary and fair. This is
nonsense I think, because there is no real demand for these guys overseas
anyhow. As such, I do not begrudge them their wealth. But why don't they
take a 30 percent hike and share the other 30 percent ? It is the motivation
behind it that matters. I honestly believe that if companies are more honest
in sharing fairly, that they will also become more successful. Because then
you have less jealousy and social envy happening.
QUESTION: But if a Government Commission does not bring them to heel, who or
what will ?
ANSWER: "What is really required in these times is decency, I believe. And I
do not mean it in the way they portray it on television. We have to get back
to having a genuine awareness for what you can do, and what you cannot do,
what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. If things are going really
well with a company, I think it is fine that everybody profits. And I agree
fully with the Socialist Party, that many people are anti-social. Just take
those golden handshakes, which just amount effectively to rewarding people
who don't do anything. That is a scandal. As company director you ought not
to make claims like that. You don't have a shred of morality, if you buy
into that sort of thing. You take on a job for a million euro, things go
wrong, and then you say: give me another three million. It's clear as day to
everybody that this just isn't fair.
QUESTION: Suppose now that you were an anarcho-liberal politician. Would you
be able to govern the country, together with the Socialist Party ?
ANSWER: We could stick it out. We could make a good deal. Okay, so I am a
rightwinger, but I am a strong supporter for a strict environmental policy
for example. Just have a look at what has already happened in the Amazon, in
Africa and in the rainforests of Borneo: we are literally scrapping the
earth ! Politicians are necessary to take responsible action in that
situation. I think that the Socialist Party and I have come very close,
which immediately shows up the absurdity of all those ideologies. Crazy as
it sounds, what is involved here is a reformist issue: are people more
inclined to good or to evil ? The Socialist Party focuses on the solidarity
idea and promotes a strongly role for the state. My contention is: give
people their own responsibility, but do intervene to correct them where
necessary. Because as I said already, if you give capitalism free reign,
then you get a wild-west situation. So it is perfectly okay to place limits
on capitalism. But there is one more thing I want to say in that context.
You should not underestimate that companies today can hardly permit
themselves to be anti-social. Just have a look at the damage that world
brands like Nike, Ikea or McDonalds have suffered because of using child
labour or engaging in dubious meat trade. There is only one interest that is
the centre of it all: openness. If you make enterprises open places, they
become more pleasant. There will be less hierarchy, less frustration and
less pent-up anger about money. You know, nobody believes me anymore, when I
say that I think that the social democratic cabinet of Den Uyl was the best
post-war cabinet. Because that was the only cabinet with ambition. Ambition
to do something in the world. I did not agree with everything they did you
know. But that cabinet had such an enormous level of ambition, with such
brilliant young ministers. Since that time we have only had a gerontocracy
in The Hague.
Translation by Jurriaan Bendien, Amsterdam.
