Asymmetrical Information

This is what I wrote at the time -

"Bush and Blair should trash the G8 agenda and propose a USA-GB-Democratic Africa free trade zone."

Scrappleface's entry on the matter gives us some useful perspective, also -

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002246.html

Saw Bob Geldof interview on TV during Live8. He thinks it would take (figuratively, I'm sure)
"1/2 stick of gum" from each of us every day to solve Africa's problems! How naive. Talked to
someone who attended the Phila. event: "Make the Bush-friendly rich pay for more aid," was her solution. (She of the Costa Rican and Galapagos vacations, two SUVs and kids in private school).

I wonder how any actual attempt to rectify African poverty would go over with the bleeding
hearts who have no idea that capitalism, individual liberty, and property rights are the solution to long-term prosperity anywhere. Tongue firmly in cheek, I propose:

Legalize spraying DDT to eradicate malaria. Too many birds anyway destroying the meager crops.
Re-colonize any African country that wants more aid by setting up 25 yr.protectorates of free world nations with demonstrable economic, education, and liberty progress among the natives in order to renew every fifth year. (Heck, let's
admit the handful of successes to Statehood in the
next fifty years.)Include Western military occupation to keep ethnic murderers and dictatorial gangs at bay. Ask for volunteers to serve two years on such police forces. If not enough respond, any college student taking federal education loans must serve when they graduate or drop out. Oh yeah, the annual compensation of all movie stars,
rock stars, athletes, and Fortune 500 CEOs will be capped at $5 million with overages being taxed
100% for African relief.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for life."

This saying encapsulates how we should be spending our money in Africa. Not a penny for direct aid, but millions to support job training, entrepreneurs, businesses, captialism, etc.

Absolutely agree with Rex. Didn't watch "Live 8" don't care about it. Think the G8 will make large promises and then ignore them.

"The world community has tried to tie aid to good governance committments, but these rarely pan out in practice."

Surely there's some way to make this work. I'm strongly against paying dictators based on how much poverty and disease they have produced (which was the classic aid formula - talk about bad incentives!), but there must be some way to incorporate better incentives. Free trade would help quite a bit, but that's not sufficient.

Legal, economic, financial and political systems should be viewed as technology. Countries shouldn't get aid unless they're willing to adopt modern technology in terms of human and property rights, rule of law, etc.

The problems in Africa are huge, but they're not my problems. If rich rock stars want to give till it hurts, that's just fine. But if they start digging into my pockets via the government, then they are just talented thieves.

Our best way of helping Africa would be to stop fostering in Africans the (false) belief that since we are just about to "rescue" them, there is no need for them to undergo the pain of solving their problems on their own.

The proprietor writes:

But the sad fact about aid to Africa, and many other places, is that most of it is wasted.

This is true, but it is important to realize that there is no way of assuring that aid provided to a very poor country will not be wasted or misdirected. You might as well wait around for a frictionless car.

Creech writes:

Legalize spraying DDT to eradicate malaria.

It is legal for antimalarial use.

Rex writes:

Not a penny for direct aid, but millions to support job training, entrepreneurs, businesses, captialism, etc.

Fine in theory. What do you do with a village that is starving and dying of HIV? Job training vouchers? (This is not the exception, by the way.)

Bombadil writes:

Our best way of helping Africa would be to stop fostering in Africans the (false) belief that since we are just about to "rescue" them ...

I don't think Africans are under the impression that anything good is about to happen to them.

***

This is not to say that "just giving money" is the easy answer; it's to say that there are not easy or entirely comfortable answers to these awful problems.

One of the primary causes of third world poverty and likewise the most ignored cause is farm subsidies in the first world. It's an uncomfortable truth, but subsidized food in the US has been murdering poor people the world over for nearly a hundred years now. Better throw in all our protected industry for some blame as well. I for one am tired of being preached to by those who refuse to see the consequences of their own prefered policies.

Here's one second to Sean's comment.

And separately, what good is an "aid line of credit" if the real problem is not finding "good projects" deserving of credit but keeping bad actors from confiscating donated food/money/goods?

Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day- teach a man to fish, and he'll buy enough fishing equipment from you to decimate a fishery in a decade, and still owe you more than he borrowed to buy the machinery.

Now, let's back the train up a little and try to remember that they already knew how to feed themselves before the white man came. Most African civilization was as advanced as the Europeans at the first contact, except the Europeans had guns.

Gee, if you meet someone in a dark alley and he has a gun, does that mean he's more civilized than you, and you should give him what he asks for and then try to learn his 'skills'?

I gues it's a good thing that the 'civilized' South Afrikans decided to scotch their bomb project before democracy came to South Africa. No telling just what lessons the native peoples learned from the behaviors of their 'teachers'.

I hope some of our more slogan-endowed posters above are young people, because this story will have an ending, but, at the rate we're going, possibly not in my lifetime.

Or maybe it will. Who knew the white South Africans would actually try to do the right thing? Who knew it was even possible? But there it was, just like the fall of the Soviet Union, a total surprise to evrybody who had assumed the worst.

In any case, it's a sad self-evaluation when you ask, If I had the money, could I think of anything to do that would help? and the answer is, Sadly, no. Even carrots are hard to grow when you start with that attitude.

I agree that the primary problem in supporing Africa is making sure that the "aid" is spent effectively and not misdirected. I am in favor of making sure that the funds are spent well as long as we don't use that as an excuse to perpetually delay support for the region.

I did want to comment on what one commenter said: "The problems in Africa are huge, but they're not my problems." Here are some reasons why Africa's problems are the West's problems, even if you honestly don't care about human suffering.

Most of these places were colonies of Western countries, many until quite recently. Right or wrong there is the perception that the West exploited the resources of the continent. Ok so the US never had colonies. The U.S. did participate in a system which has loaded some of these countries up with massive debts which makes some fundamental changes next to impossible. As an aside, often times the debt of these countries was run up so that the West could prop up some regimes which fostered the pervasive cult of corruption.

Don't like any of these reasons? Is it a stretch to imagine the right sociopath recruiting people from this part of the world, where the life expectancy is less than half of ours, to bcome terrorists?

Query for the learned folk here. The rest of you guys can pitch in your .02 cents as well.

Energy, it seems to me, is one of the foundations of a civilization. Given a man a garunteed energy supply at reasonable rates and - with a reasonable rule of law and property rights, you can watch them use the energy to be more productive.

The problem might be how to secure an energy supply from where the power is generated to the places that can use it. One problem is that the copper in the lines represents wealth and is stolen as fast as it can be put up.

I've seen proposals that can spot solar collectors in villages but these don't scale much past the village level.

Would beaming power from space to townships and cities work in Africa?

Two dollars a day? That's less than the going wage for producing athletic attire. The solution is obvious.

You are not the first to express this. Kim du Toit put it pretty well in his essay "Let Africa Sink":

http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/essays/let_africa_sink/

He was quite harsh. The gentler version of what he has to say is simply that aid to Africa will help when it no longer enriches the very people creating and prolonging many of their problems.

When in doubt, blame whitey, even if standards of living peaked under whitey.

Here are some reasons why Africa's problems are the West's problems, even if you honestly don't care about human suffering.

The idea that we owe Africans a debt for our past misdeeds doesn't pass muster. There are hundreds of millions more Africans alive today than would have survived to adulthood had the West not brought modern science, medicine, agriculture, and education to the continent -- and their average lifespans, health, infant mortality rates, and education levels have improved, too.

In any case, it's a sad self-evaluation when you ask, If I had the money, could I think of anything to do that would help? and the answer is, Sadly, no. Even carrots are hard to grow when you start with that attitude.

Carrots are also hard to grow when rabbits are present, because they nip the freshly-budded shoots at the base long before any usable root has formed.

The temporary solution is to fence off the carrot patch until the stalks are hardy enough that the rabbits are no longer a threat. If thou, O sloganeer decrier, have an African solution along those lines that can be bought with money, then consider me "all ears" for the hearing of it.

So, what is it?

(The long-term alternative is to hunt rabbits, regardless of which ones were actually observed operating in the carrot patch, until the population is locally erradicated and the carrots can thrive naturally without continual nannying. The widely varying popularity of the Iraq venture shows that this approach requires massive expenditure of political capital, however.)

Most African civilization was as advanced as the Europeans at the first contact, except the Europeans had guns.

I agree with Mister Sean above...farm subsidies, farm subsidies, farm subsidies! Developed countries need to scrap them and give rural Africa a chance to compete in the world market. That along with encouraging stable governments to end corruption in many African countries.

Ms. Galt: surely you mean "half the people in Africa", not in the world, live under $2/day.

Mr. Catowner: when you say that Africans "already knew how to feed themselves before the white man came," there are two immediate rejoinders. First, there were a lot fewer of them, because like everyone else in the world, they were killed early and often by disease and the occasional war or famine.

Second, and more telling: if they can no longer feed themselves, does that mean all the aid given to them has actually been harmful, as Ms. Galt and Mr. Du Toit have suggested?

"The idea that we owe Africans a debt for our past misdeeds doesn't pass muster."

I concede (particularly with regard to the U.S.) that the fact that many of these countries had been (essentially) colonies of the West should not compel us to action. I do, however, think that explains something about why the issue is so important to many Europeans including the British. I would add, as an aside, that a list of countries which have gained independence from western countries in the last century would include: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. African countries were among the last to become independent.

My point about the debt was not so much intended as looking at past actions but at the present. The debt payments make it difficult to effect real change in some places. (The fact that these are debt payments on ineptness and corruption that was supported by the West is troubling to me personally but perhaps not a reason to do anything about it.)

regards

Well, as with so many problems the size of a continent, it's hard to solve everything in a 300-word post. However, I do have one suggestion for an immediate improvement- the U.S. should join the international conventions prohibiting and preventing international money laundering that Bush rejected in the wake of 9/11. American firms doing business in Africa should be held to the highest accounting standards, for surely whatever hankey-pankey they are up to there also distorts our own economy. When aid can be provided in the form of reduced subsidies domestically and reduced trade barriers abroad, resulting in lower prices for American consumers, that should be considered.

For those interested in learning more about the world at the time of the early European voyages, I suggest Braudel's History of the World. Not really a 'history of the world', it provides a worldwide look at society, industry, trade etc circa 1500. The first volume will be of most interest to the general reader; I would (in retrospect) read the third as a library loan before purchasing it.

My favorite democracy in Africa is a great example of what the actions of the G8 will achieve. It is not the exception in Africa, but the rule. Here we have a country with an unemployment rate of 70%, a worthless currency, and a GDP that shrunk by 15% last year. Yep, its Zimbabwe! It was once the breadbasket of Africa and now is a pauper because the despotic socialism imposed by its ruler. It has been given 19 loans and 14 lines of credit to the tune of $1.6 billion. What did Zimbabwe achieve with all that aid? Well, they managed to shrink their GDP about 30% in the last 15 years. All I could think about when I read the G8 announcement was how President Mugabe would be laughing all the way to his bank – in Switzerland.

Wanniski has written many times about the crap tax rates in most African countries. They don't need aid or anything else. A simple reduction of taxes will work "miracles". I think I remember him saying that the Sudan, for example, hits nearly a 30% tax rate on income of $50. This sort of confiscatory tax policy results in lots of corruption. And let's not forget the onerous governmental regulations about doing business. Jeez, people, forget the aid. It's money down a rat hole.

The US rates number 25 out of 26 for children living below the poverty limit (Mexico #26). We should keep helping Africa but at the same time remember we have more to do here in the US.

You can download a copy of UNICEF - 2005 Child Poverty in Rich Nations Report at:

http://greedyrichpeople.com/repcard6e.pdf

I don't think that high tax rates are Africa's problem. Things like civil war, political corruption, dictatorship, drought, slavery, famine, disease and illiteracy are all bigger problems. Face it, Sudan wouldn't improve much at all if they did a supply side tax cut, assuming the existance of a supply side in Sudan.

is $50B enough to test every male on the continent and castrate the HIV positive ones?
that would probably have a long-term beneficial impact.
and it's not like HIV positive men are going to have kids anyhow, hell, it might even make their societies less violent

Let's see now, cut their taxes and castrate them all! You know, I'm beginning to think this site doesn't attract a lot of deep thinkers.....

catowner, stick around. You may be surprised. Good threads are detailed and occasionally novel.

I would add, as an aside, that a list of countries which have gained independence from western countries in the last century would include: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq. African countries were among the last to become independent.

They didn't gain their independence much later than China and India did, and those nations are, comparatively speaking, thriving. Without, I might add, significant Western aid.

The debt payments make it difficult to effect real change in some places. (The fact that these are debt payments on ineptness and corruption that was supported by the West is troubling to me personally but perhaps not a reason to do anything about it.)

Giving aid and/or loans to Africa today would also be "Western support of ineptness and corruption". You make it sound like African nations are largely ruled by competent and honest leaders saddled with crippling debts. That is not, I think, the case.

Corollary to the iron law of wages - the iron law of aid-giving: "Foreign aid allows small, poor nations to grow into larger, starving nations." Or perhaps "Foreign aid allows weak thuggish dictators to grow into strong, well-armed thuggish dictators."

What are the positive outcomes of giving money to Africa supposed to be again? There is a lot of discussion in this thread of the West's historical guilt, and the problems with Africa, etc etc etc, but what different results do advocates of giving ever more and more aid to Africa expect to achieve this time around?

The US rates number 25 out of 26 for children living below the poverty limit (Mexico #26).

Yes, and we're #25 *because* Mexico is #26. There are something like seven million illegal immigrants in the United States -- they're almost all below the poverty line, and they get counted in our poverty statistics. Even legal immigrants are twice as likely to be poor as citizens are. It seems unreasonable say that a country has an obligation to improve the lives of immigrants; after all, if the immigrants feel they're getting a raw deal, they can leave.

And of course, our rate of true poverty (as opposed poverty relative to the national average) is essentially zero. "Poor" Americans have cars, color televisions, cable TV, reliable electricity, clean water, free education, and adequate nutrition. That's not poverty.

alkali

On your DDT comment,

It is defacto illegal, because most Western countries will not trade with countries that use DDT. We just say it's illegal because it's a lot easier than explaining how it really works.
Western countries have a list of substances that if found on products, they will not let them into the country. DDT is one of these. Therefore almost no African countries use it. The push for DDT legalization has always been directed to these countries, not African countries.

Dan,

My reference to the admittedly incomplete list of former western colonies was an obtuse response to those who say these places troubles are not our troubles. I was merely trying, not well I suppose, that many of these former colonies present security and or economic risks to us down the road. That is certainly true with regard to China on both fronts.

With respect to the point of this topic, namely aid to Africa, I do not favor indiscriminate aid. On the other hand I do not favor a "we won't help you until your governments aren't wasteful or corrupt approach". If that is what we want to say, let's be honest and say we don't intend to help.

regards.

The “survey” in question defines “poverty” as being half of the median income of that nation – a measure of income distribution rather than how deprived someone is. In other words, the purpose of the “survey” is to rail against “income inequality” rather than poverty per se.

Also if you look at page 36 of the report which provides the source data for the median income for fifteen of the European nations in the “survey” you’ll notice that while the “survey” purports to be a measurement of child poverty in the year 2005, the source data for median income is all over the map in that it uses income data from different years from different countries rather than comparing the income data from one year to compare across each of the selected nations.

In other words, it’s politically-motivated garbage that would be laughed out of any college statistics class. But hey, so long as semi-literate internet trolls can regurgitate this little factoid and most people won’t take the time to check out the source, it’s served its purpose.

* See 100,000 civilians killed in Iraq, over half of all bankruptcies are medically-related, drug companies spend more on advertising than R&D, and other whoppers that have been debunked on this and other sites.”

I do not favor a "we won't help you until your governments aren't wasteful or corrupt approach". If that is what we want to say, let's be honest and say we don't intend to help.

Is telling a homeless person "I won't help you until you stop abusing drugs and alcohol" the same as saying "I won't help you"? I don't think so. Sure, a "caring" person might just hand over a few bucks, and pat himself on the back for being so humanitarian. But at the end of the day all he's doing is helping the guy buy crack and cheap liquor. He's not helping the guy, he's hurting him, and wasting money in the process.

Aid causes corruption and destroys economies (try selling food when bleeding-heart Westerners are giving it away for free). Debt forgiveness causes reckless and irresponsible borrowing and spending (which is why debt-ridden countries always, without fail, sink hopelessly into debt again unless their governments are fixed *before* the debt is forgiven). Ok, so you say you don't favor "indiscriminate" aid -- but well-meaning aid donors have been linking aid to democratic and economic benchmarks for decades, and the end result has always been more and more corruption. You can't throw free money at people who've done nothing to earn it and except healthy habits to develop as a result.

If you care about Africa, you should NOT do anything active to help Africans. Just remove the barriers to success they currently face, like tariffs and western agricultural price supports. Then they'll sink or swim on their own, just like Western nations did.

Promote capitalism. Free trade/greatly reduced tariffs would be the best; secondly would be to attach "significant strings" to the funds to keep out the corruption.

Five says,

The US rates number 25 out of 26 for children living below the poverty limit (Mexico #26). We should keep helping Africa but at the same time remember we have more to do here in the US

The same protectionist policies which starve African children starve Western children too. Though not as many, it is no less tragic. When you say, "we have to do more here at home", what you mean is, we have to create even more neediness among the poor. Please, wake up.

Bombadil, I love the Iron Law of Aid-Giving. Let me offer a slight refinement.

"Foreign aid encourages small, poor nations to grow into larger, starving nations."

Helps keep the emphasis on outcomes.

Dan suggests,

Aid causes corruption and destroys economies (try selling food when bleeding-heart Westerners are giving it away for free).

which makes me genuinely curious as to what kind of food market exists in a truly starving community. It can't ammount to much more than trade among the despot class.

You can't throw free money at people who've done nothing to earn it and except healthy habits to develop as a result.

Hasn't The Great Society experiment confirmed this already? Such a simple and plain truth, older than your grandmother, and yet it escapes comprehension by otherwise intelligent people.

No Jane, we should not be giving more aid to Africa. All they need is an honest break. All we have to do is start rubbing the do-gooders noses in the rudiments of cause and effect.

I have to agree with the free food comment above. How can you compete with handouts?

I saw an interesting program (on PBS I think!) on how free cast-off clothing from Western nations had decimated the textile industry in certain areas of Africa. They had these huge markets where people purchased large bags of cast off clothing and then resold them. It was amazing and explained why you always see poor Africans wearing Western t-shirts in pictures etc. It would employ way more people if they were actually manufacturing their own clothes rather than reselling our old clothes.

The entire world is a former european colony. Get over it. Get over it. Get over it.

Earlier I wrote that the problems of Africa are not my problem. I got the usual responses - from, "here's why it is your problem" to "how could you be so heartless".

Let me clarify.

Africa is a problem. To some degree it is my problem. What I should have said is that the problems of Africa are not high on my list of problem priorities.

Bono et al are not asking for people to give willingly. They are asking political hacks to take money from me through taxes. They want to use force to establish my priorities, and that is just plain wrong. Doing it "in the name of love" makes it even worse.

Willie and Catowner, you are seriously lacking in common sense. If you take 30% of a very poor person's money for taxes, he will starve. If you cut his taxes, he may prosper. If no one has any money at all due to the local dictator taking it all for himself, you have a poor country that needs aid all the time. It doesn't get any more simple than that.

Here in this country we do not tax the first $15,000 of income. Why? Please apply any logic you may have on this and see if African countries could not benefit from the same logic.

I doubt that any amount of aid will make one bit of difference. I also doubt that removing barriers to the sale of food by African nations to western countries would make a difference either. The core problem of Africa is one of political culture. Most of the countries there can rightly be classified as kleptocracies. This is not a statistical fluke. According to the prevailing political culture, this is just what you DO when you gain power. This is WHY you want power. The very idea that this is bad is alien to them. Its just the way things work. If anyone outside of the ruling class prospers, they will be stamped out and the source of their prosperity will be turned over to members of the ruling class who will probably run it into the ground. Zimbabwe comes to mind. After all, economic power does roughly translate into political power, a fact which the ruling kleptocrats understand very well.

One can see a similar dynamic in Mexico. Considering the resources there, the standard of living should be comparable to that of the US or Canada, but it is a third world country. And it will remain so as long as the political culture there remains.

And so it is with Africa. I wish there was an answer to this problem, but if there is any I haven't heard it. Sending checks to Africa is just a waste of money. Sad but true.

Tcobb and others: thank (deity or whatever) that we live in a nation whose founders were men like
Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, etc. Yet, even here, we see the kleptocracy growing in influence - e.g. celebrities urging politicians to send men with guns to collect money for their personal causes.

So many subjects, so little time. Add to the list of woes tribalism, cannibalism and and a myriad of problematical cultural pathologies that we cannot ever hope to understand. I agree with those who say democracy with the rule of law and free markets is the only real chance any of those countries--or any country anywhere, for that matter--have. But there are major preconditions to a free market liberal democracy, not the least of which is a reasonably well-educated population that knows enough about free markets and the rule of law to desire them. Maybe the largest obstacle Africa has to overcome is ignorance. How do you fix that with any kind or near- or mid-term solution?

On a different but perhaps topical note, even if the US were to double its deficit in an attempt to make a real difference, prudent allocation of resources and standard of care accounting and auditing would so anger the local leadership that the cry, echoed most likely by our Left, of cultural colonialism would drown out voices of reason. We would get, as we usually do, no thanks for our efforts, only complaints that we didn't do enough, or didn't do it the right way.

Jack,
Tax cuts aren't going to help people who have little to no money anyway. Comparing African poverty to the first 15k under our tax code simply doesn't make sense. Many of the poor in Africa has no money at all. I know, I know, according Wanniski and Laffer and Friedman if we just cut these people's taxes, their revenues will explode and they will start investing in the stock market.

I'm tired of being taught that this is our problem. I wasn't even born when any of these misdeeds were committed. For the most part neither were any of the people suffering. I don't believe in original sin so why should I buy this argument. I'm all for helping, just not coerced help. We don't have a viable solution and we're going to force the people to do it? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Can we paratroop thousands of pro-market teachers to the scene to educate? At least we should start out by stopping the things that we do that hurt them (liberalise trade, stop aid to dictators). Then we can think about what to do next. Unfortunately, those options are politically unpopular, so we're back to the best thing we can do is nothing. Also that one county, America, was pretty badass when it stopped being a colony, lets look into what they did.

Tax cuts aren't going to help people who have little to no money anyway.

A person earning $700 a year and paying 30% in taxes is forced to live on a mere $490. Cutting his taxes in half leaves him with an extra $105 per year. That's enough to buy a hundred pounds of brown rice or three hundred pounds of flour at California supermarket prices, and many times that at African prices.

Obviously tax cuts don't help people with no income, but hardly anyone falls into that category. The overwhelming majority of Africans have nonzero yearly incomes that are barely above starvation level. Those people cannot afford to pay taxes.

Many of the poor in Africa has no money at all.

The only poor people in Africa with no money at all were the ones who had it all taken away by their governments and who are forcibly prevented from working. Think of it as a 100% tax rate -- that is, after all, what it is.

"Obviously tax cuts don't help people with no income, but hardly anyone falls into that category. The overwhelming majority of Africans have nonzero yearly incomes"

You haven't lived in a third world country.

Tax cuts won't work simply because the poor are never taxed. The main problem in these countries is that institutions are primitive including tax collection agencies. People on medium or low incomes (below 10,000 a year) can easily avoid paying taxes. They buy and sell in informal markets so even a VAT cannot get revenue from them. An income tax is just imposible, a VAT just destroys the formal sector and creates informality.

Goverments get revenue from taxing the small formal sector, from selling monopoly and trade rights, from import tariffs, etc. This type of "taxing" reaches the poor but you cannot pass a "tax cut" in this case without radically changing the status quo.

The worst taxes on the poor are the corruption of local goverment authorities, still you cannot pass a tax cut on these.

You haven't lived in a third world country.

It is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of Africans have assets totalling an amount greater than zero dollars and zero cents. If you claim otherwise, you're wrong, regardless of whether you've been to every Nth-world shithole on the planet.

By the way, you also overlooked the fact that, since taxes drive poor people out of the regular economy and into the black market, then tax cuts will in fact benefit the poor by returning them to the regular economy again. In the example you cite, taxes are the direct cause of widespread corruption and lawlessness; that a tax cut would improve matters is obvious.

Assuming, for a moment, that we aren't going to end our ag subsidies anytime soon, and that we are going to increase aid in some form, I suggest that we change the nature of our aid: subsidize african farmers (up to a match with our own ag subsidies) and possibly other businesses.

This has the advantages of rewarding those who work, easing up the competitive disadvantages they find themselves working against, and making us look and feel good by meeting crazy benchmarks like doubling aid money.

Of course, it doesn't solve the kleptocracy problem, but there's no "aid" policy that will, I think. That's something that's got to be solved separately.

John

Willie B. Goode. Nice stupid snarky statement. The logic of tax cutting doesn't really apply to the very poor, does it? They are just trying to stay alive and a tax cut for them would not improve the economy of a country very much. But even African countries have doctors , lawyers, businessmen who provide jobs for others. If their taxes were cut what would be the effect? (If we look at the poor only, and decided to eliminate all taxes for the poorest, is it not obvious that their life would improve tremendously? Without foreign aid.) It is directly in our power to affect tax rates in foreign countries as our stooges and Keynesian bagmen the World Bank et al demand high tax rates from the lendees. And then go crying to Bush and Blair to pony up when the countries default so the banks don't lose money.

Lastly, WBG, supply side economics (Adam Smith economics) WORKS unlike the socialistic nonsense preferred by many governments and some Jane Galt commenters.

Why not deposit the money directly in Swiss bank accounts and cut out the middleman?

How do the various countries which rate better than the US with regard to their own poverty line rate when judged against the US poverty line?

I read a pretty convincing article that the best solution to problems such as Zimbabwe's was to distribute guns to the populace. After all, that's the thinking behind the 2nd amendment: if the government gets too bad, the people should be able to change it.

I wouldn't give a dime of aid to any country. We are willing to throw Americans off Welfare and let them starve, yet we send a bunch of aid to Africans who will likely be killed in next weeks Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Dakkar, etc. We aren't responsible for Africa. If anything, Africa is a European mess, let them fix it. In my book, you take care of your own first. Its strange that some can have all this compassion for cultural strangers, yet they tell the homeless American panhandler to get a job.

The biggest problem American liberalism faces is the global liberal agenda. We will never win an election on the back of Kyoto, natural disaster relief, or backing the UN. American Liberals need to understand Americans comes first.

I wouldn't give a dime of aid to any country. We are willing to throw Americans off Welfare and let them starve.

The only people who starve in America are people with eating disorders who starve themselves to death accidentally.

I have an idea of how to help Africa that many of you might think is silly, but it's easy and might actually make a difference. Write to Oprah!

Oprah's maganzine is sold in South Africa, and she's setting up a school for girls there. If her magazine and her teaching included the problems with corruption and the advantages of capitalism, it might play at least a small part in changing the culture of South Africa, hopefully stopping it from following Zimbabwe's lead. What Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe is pure thuggery, but he's selling it through talk of helping "the people" (land reform, etc.). If the common people had some idea of what garbage communism actually is, perhaps they'd be less willing to participate in their own country's destruction. If there's one thing we should have learned from the 20th century, it's that communism does not help the poor.

I thought of this because of a presentation I once heard in Hong Kong by a member of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). Hong Kong in the 1970s was wildly corrupt (like most of the region), but then a scandal made them decide to change. The ICAC was set up, and 10 to 20 years later, Hong Kong was pretty clean by Asian standards.

They made huge changes in the cultural attitudes towards corruption, so I asked the speaker how the ICAC changed Hong Kong's culture. To my surprize, a big part of the answer was made-for-TV movies. They did advertising, plus each year they got together with a local TV station (TVB) to dramatize one of their cases. The message, which gradually got through, was that corruption was bad for everyone and could get people into a lot of trouble.

On corruption, many people of poor countries will say that there's nothing that can be done, because it's part of their culture (as if corruption wasn't part of the traditional culture of Chicago, where I think Oprah has spent much of her life). It's hard to change the culture, but it's possible, and there aren't any easy answers. I thought of Oprah when I heard she was selling a magazine in South Africe, and good government seems to fit with her emphasis on personal responsibility.

If I had a huge fortune and wanted to make a difference in Africa, I would focus on a public relations campaign explaining the fallacies of communism and the advantages of a relatively uncorrupt capitalist democracy.

Just to be clear - I'm not claiming that writing to Oprah will solve all of the region's problems. I just thought it would get your attention.

But if Geldof and the Live8 stars really want to contribute, they should work on coming up with hit African songs and movies against corruption and government incompetence. They actually have a way to help, but they prefer to ask for someone else's money (which probably makes them unfit for a public relations campaign emphasizing personal responsibility).

I can't believe the self-righteous, flippant posts I've just read. As if a problem as entrenched and pervasive as poverty in Africa is solveable by tossing a few tax cuts, etc. at the problem? And all of the sanctimonious preaching about corruption? Give me a break. It's one problem among many.

For anyone interested, Jeffrey Sachs offers an illuminating analysis of extreme poverty in his book "The End of Poverty."

Finally, for those of you posting some variation of 'not my problem,' shame on you. How can you be so casually dismissive of human suffering? How can you act so superior when the only difference between you and them is that you had the good fortune to be born here?

I don't see why it's 'sanctimonious preaching' to be concerned with corruption. It's a problem that all societies face (it's part of human nature, not something specific to only some cultures), so why not share ideas on how to control it?

And yes, corruption is only one problem among many. But as long as there is corruption, how can any other systemic changes work? A country can have great laws and regulations, and a great system on paper including checks and balances and limits on abuse of power, but none of it matters if the system is unenforceable due to corruption.

Ditto what Ann said, you cannot help someone in need, even by placing a dollar in their very hands, if a person with authority over them has systemized ways of stealing it regardless of where or how it enters the system.

One of my courses back when I did a spell of studies in the social sciences was, in fact, "Corruption and Development." There's an incredible wealth of literature on the topic and it is universally considered to be a problem (even if one of degrees, which degrees are often dependent on other variables).

Lane,

Re; "Finally, for those of you posting some variation of 'not my problem,' shame on you. How can you be so casually dismissive of human suffering? How can you act so superior when the only difference between you and them is that you had the good fortune to be born here?

How can I be so casually dismissive? There are nearly 7 billion people in this world. They've all got problems. Where should I draw the line as to those I am responsible for solving? And how did I become responsible for solving any of them? Because some yahoo with a guilty conscience decided that I am? Shame on me? Shame on you for having the audacity to lay on a guilt trip. You're not solving the worlds problems - you're adding to them. You want to help people - then help people. But I suggest that you consider that your primary responsibility to others is to leave them the hell alone.

Until there is more control by the people, governments and culture putting more money in Africa is pounding good money down a bottomless pit.

Mark: I think you may be right with regard to some countries. What do you think we should do about them?

How do you define "good projects?" Good projects on paper normally turn bad in a second when done by corrupted governments.

If there should be aids, the money should be spent on helping people from dying, and not on some grand long turn projects like dams and hypro-power plants contracted by some French companies.

The suffering in Africa is tragic. Nearly all the money that goes to almost any nation in Africa is stolen buy the respective African governments recieving the aid. Most African nations are more corrupt then Haliburton. I think the wealth is even more concentrated at the top of most of the African states then it is here in the US. I agree with the hydro electric good works example as a better way of helping Africa, then financial aid to the African governments. I have read we dump a huge amount of grain into the ocean every year, there has to be a better use for it, some way to use it without changing the market to much. But there is still alot of poverty in the US, and that should be focused on first. The social programs left intact in the US are no solution to poverty, and to a degree I agree that they might contribute to the circular nature of poverty over generations, but they do mitigate the suffering now better then any idea Ive read of.

Lane,

I'm sorry to have to jump on the pile-on here, but someone using a line like "I can't believe the self-righteous, flippant posts I've just read. " might want to be a little more reticent in his accusations of sanctimoniousness.

Moreover, corruption is not just another problem in aid to the developing world. Its more of a metaproblem - a problem that makes other problems less tractable. Consider the following model if you will.

Lets say you have 100 units of resources to spend on alleviating 25 units of poverty. In the case of non-corruption, the cost of alleviating poverty is 4 units of resources per unit of poverty. So far so good. Unfortunately, in the case of corruption, the cost rises to 5 units of resources per unit of poverty. Uh-oh 5 units of poverty are going to be left out. Oh well, whats another 25 units? Yeah we can afford a 25% increase.

Hold your horses. In the case of a corrupt regime we don't have 25 units of poverty. We have 30. That means we have to increase aid by 50 units: a 50% increase. Now we're starting to see some giving till it hurts.

Wait a second. It gets worse. You see in the corrupt regime, additional money floating about incentivizes more corruption. So, in the corrupt regime, the first extra 25 units you spend are only going to buy you poverty alleviation at a rate of 1 unit of poverty alleviation per six units of resource. So rather than spending an additional 25 units, you had to spend another 30. For the next 5 units of poverty, well you've incentivized again, the cost goes up to 7 units of resource per unit of poverty. Whoops! That means you have to pay still another 35 units of resource.

So, your options are simple. You can move the corrupt regime to a non-corrupt one, giving them the baseline necessary for poverty alleviation. You can give them the baseline and say the additional poverty is on their heads - not ours. Or, you can increase spending by 80% over the baseline you thought necessary to reduce poverty.

Is if a problem as entrenched and pervasive as poverty in Africa is solveable by tossing a few tax cuts, etc. at the problem?

You can't "solve" poverty. You can just remove the obstacles to wealth.

And all of the sanctimonious preaching about corruption? Give me a break. It's one problem among many.

No, it is one problem that is that cause of pretty much all the other problems. Africa is resource-rich in a way that Europe and America can only dream of and black people aren't any dumber than the rest of us. It manages to be poor in spite of those facts because of corruption and lawlessness.

Finally, for those of you posting some variation of 'not my problem,' shame on you. How can you be so casually dismissive of human suffering?

Unless you live like Mohandas K. Gandhi I'm uninterested in hearing about how you care about human suffering. The simple fact of the matter is that you spend money on luxury items like cars, books, and net access while other people are going without food, medicine, shelter, and education. That is objective proof that you consider your personal enjoyment of life to be more important than the lives of third-worlders you don't know, and it is fundamentally dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

But in any case you've missed the point. Every dollar of aid you send to Africa *causes* more corruption, starvation, disease, and lawlessness. If you hate Africans and want them to die, by all means, keep throwing money at the continent. Help prop up the thugs and line the pockets of the criminals; help wreck their economy, put their farmers out of business, and place the civilian population at the mercy of those who control the flow of aid. But don't sneer at us for being concerned about corruption, because until the corruption problem is solved, NONE of the other problems will improve at all.

The new colonialists
Bob Geldof. U2’s Bono. Good musicians perhaps. But to see them setting the agenda for so-called poverty relief in the third world is akin to David Beckham performing heart surgery on a sick man: when you are unqualified for the task at hand, more harm than good will be done...

read more, click here:
http://indcoup.blogspot.com/2005/07/new-colonialists.html

Comments are Closed.