From the NYT:
“We’re talking about rich countries committing 50 cents out of every $100 of income to help the poorest people in the world get a foothold on the ladder of development,” said Professor Sachs, who was appointed to lead the project by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2002.
Sachs no doubt understands that “countries” don’t have income. People who live in countries have incomes. So “we’re talking about” the state apparatus in charge of “rich countries” appropriating 1/2% of their citizens’ incomes, and transferring it to the UN, an institution of extremely doubtful moral legitimacy, who will then distribute the money in the form of development aid, a strategy for creating prosperity about as successful as the use of leeches for the treatment of leukemia. Great.
And this is the sort of reporting that is not quite reporting:
Britain itself has pledged to double aid by 2013 to 0.7 percent of its national income. The United States, which currently allocates less than 0.2 percent for aid, has not made a comparable pledge.
It is hard to imagine that the author does not intend us to think, “Why not?”
Why not, indeed. Well, why is the “allocation” of the United States government more significant than the money voluntarily allocated by residents of the United States through remittances and charitable giving to aid efforts? See today’s Cato Commentary by Ian Vasquez.
I’ve begun to think that in some sense the state is parasitic on the cognitive limitations of the media. It’s an old chestnut that the development of science largely involved evacuating magical intentional agents from our explanatory schemes. If something happens, the easiest explanation for humans to understand is that someone made it happen because they wanted it to happen. Explanations are like stories, and convincing stories have characters who do stuff. The media has to tell a story, and the simpler the better. Nation-states, it turns out, are like giant people who can do stuff and make things happen. So if people are mired in poverty, what can be done! Have the League of Magical Giants sprinkle manna on the heads of the downtrodden! This is a story even a journalist can understand. However, the story where millions of individuals give small amounts of money to intermediary institutions, who administer funds to projects helping poor people on the ground . . . well, millions of people isn’t a good character, and all those different charities and institutions doing different things with their bits of money is hard to follow.
So journalists write about magical giants, reinforce the idea of the nation-state as magical giant in the minds of readers, and the individuals of the exploitative political class prosper.
That’s one theory. Or maybe remittances don’t count as charity in any usual sense of the term and, remittances omitted, US private giving, though larger than other countries’ private giving, is still very small relative to the size of the state aid sector. Maybe this has something to do with the utility of governments in organizing collective action.
It’s even possible that renewed levels of interest in boosting foreign aid after a period in which such endeavors had fallen into (warranted) discredit due to poor track record has something to do with more recent research which has identified several classes of aid projects that do seem to work well.
Or maybe it’s the Magic Giants!
Is it just me or has Will been spending too much time in some sort of Republican echo chamber?
I mean, I suppose it’s natural for libertarians to bash the UN and social security, but it seems like the UN plan is totally voluntary at the state level, so complaining about it is of much less utility than complaining about states that participate in it.
I also don’t see the point in libertarian complaints about bias in NYT articles. Isn’t the NYT free to print whatever it likes, and people can then choose to purchase subscriptions or not do so?
oh, and Bush’s social security plan sucks even on libertarian grounds, and Will has been pushing it pretty hard.
So, Will is parroting Republican talking points on the UN, Social Security, and liberal media bias, while not appearing recently to advance any ideas I’d consider “libertarian.”
Of course, I still read, hoping to get a few good bits here and there.
Just because the NY Times is free to do what it wants to doesn’t mean I have to like it. There are many things people do and don’t do that I don’t like, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to force them to change.
Also, Will spent very little time on the UN specifically, so complaining about his jab at it seems a little silly. But you are free to do it if you want.
Gregorus, I spent two years working on international development issues, and know how truly dismal the record of development aid is, and so there is plenty room to complain about a big push to do more of what hasn’t worked. I know libertarians disagree about social security reform. But I have said on several occasions that I consider myself an opponent of libertarian utopianism, that I am a marginalist (in several senses), and I think SS reform is a great step in the right direction.
And I wasn’t complaining about “liberal” bias. I was complaining about a cognitive bias that is just as likely to cut right as left.
Bravo Will! I’m sick and tired of other countries (often via the UN) feeling entitled to OUR wealth for eradicating their fucking problems. Let them eat cake! Their best bet would be to emulate our freedom, rule of law, and hard work and quit leeching off of us. We have no moral obligation to go along with ill-conceived schemes to solve the problem that even Jesus Christ said couldn’t be solved.
Last year foreigners loaned the United States over 500 billion dollars. Some of that went to help our countries poor, some of it went for economic development, and a large percentage went into the pockets of corrupt officials.
Will we ever be able to pay back the $1.8 trillion that foreigners have lent to us? That is uncertain. Many libertarians argue we should default on these charitable loans.
The United States is by far the largest recipient of foreign aid. Our Magical Giant would collapse if the Chinese and Japanese Magical Giants discontinued their charitable contributions.
Be careful what you wish for…
Land of magical giants. That’s good. I think there is a bias in articles to trying to identify “what should be done,” like you say. It’s hard to understand that things happen, and sometimes it’s better to “let things happen” than try to figure out a fix that is no fix at all.
As for social security, I think you’re blinded by your own cognitive bias. First, there is a moral argument for private property–it’s called capitalism. If these private accounts were really private, I could take them out, invest them where I wanted, buy bubble gum cards, etc. But that’s not what they are, and I don’t see the point in pretending they are.
Social security is old age insurance, and I’m glad it’s there because I sure don’t want mom living in the convered garage. You can complain about the moral injustice of forced savings, but that isn’t solved by “private accounts.” It works as a form of life insurance in which everyone who dies before 65 supports the superannuated. Private accounts, in which wealth is passed on and not pooled, makes sustaining the system that much more expensive. We could have a system like car insurance where individuals are forced to buy some minimum level of old age insurace. Maybe it would be cheaper, maybe it wouldn’t. But private accounts are no solution at all because they are not private and they’re not insurance.
Great post, Will.
Didn’t the U.S. income tax start out at around 1/2% as well? We all know how that turned out…
0.5% sounds okay to me, just as long as not one penny goes to build a firehouse for those bloodsucking Iraqi parasites.
I’m going to get my libertarian card taken away for this but let me offer a second to MYglesias’s most trenchant point.
It’s not helpful to lump all government development aid in one pot and then have a thumbs up/thumbs down vote on whether it’s effective or not.
We would profit from a subtler, more careful analysis. Certain types of aid could probably reap enormous benefits if calculated in “lives saved/dollars spent.” I’m thinking about the production, purchase, distribution and use of DDT to fight malaria in Africa as an example, provided that it’s done efficiently. I don’t think it would impossible or objectionable for government assistance to help achieve this goal.
Chuck, Sure. Some aid is effective. Some education and health programs have good records, as do some clean water programs, etc. But it remains that this accounts for a miniscule fraction of the money spent on development aid. And there is no evidence that the UN project plans to approach the problem in a thoughtful and effective way. It will be more of the same.
I’m going to get my libertarian card taken away for this but…I don’t think it would impossible or objectionable for government assistance to help achieve this goal.
Revoked.
The very point of this UN recommendation is that development aid ought to be a massive, unified, centrally directed effort, which invites a “thums up/thumbs down” vote on it. That’s the very trouble with Sach’s vision.
Whenever someone starts talking about a “New Marshall Plan,” it’s time to holler “check, please.”
Micha,
There’s a saying that “Hard cases make bad law.”
Since we’re talking about a case in which the lives of millions of human beings are at stake, I dare say that the question of adherence to an ideology on the size and scope of government at this point is moot. This is a situation of lifeboat ethics. If a little internal incoherence on the part of myself and other small government types would lead to saving the lives of millions, well, I say bring it.
If there are cases where government action could solve a coordination problem, wouldn’t encourage moral hazard, etc, etc. I’m ready to violate the sacred tenets of minarchism to save a few million souls.
So congratulations, Micha, you are officially more hardcore than me.
Ah, lifeboat ethics. The sacred escape hatch of all libertarians stuck in a contradiction of their own creation.
Listen, Chuck: If you think saving the lives of poor Africans is a worthy use of government coercion – that is to say, if you think it is okay to put a gun to another human’s head and say to them “give money to this poor person or I will shoot you,” then fine. That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans. At least you have that going for you.
But don’t claim that this act is unobjectionable. I can think of thousands of other worthy causes too — adequate housing, food, education, heathcare — the list goes on and on. There is already a word for people who think that it is unobjectionable for the government to try to solve these problems, and that word is not “libertarian.”
Micha,
“That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans.”
Why?
Because poor people need it more. Diminishing marginal utility, and all that.
That’s one theory. Or maybe remittances don’t count as charity in any usual sense of the term and, remittances omitted, US private giving, though larger than other countries’ private giving, is still very small relative to the size of the state aid sector. Maybe this has something to do with the utility of governments in organizing collective action.
It’s even possible that renewed levels of interest in boosting foreign aid after a period in which such endeavors had fallen into (warranted) discredit due to poor track record has something to do with more recent research which has identified several classes of aid projects that do seem to work well.
Or maybe it’s the Magic Giants!
Is it just me or has Will been spending too much time in some sort of Republican echo chamber?
I mean, I suppose it’s natural for libertarians to bash the UN and social security, but it seems like the UN plan is totally voluntary at the state level, so complaining about it is of much less utility than complaining about states that participate in it.
I also don’t see the point in libertarian complaints about bias in NYT articles. Isn’t the NYT free to print whatever it likes, and people can then choose to purchase subscriptions or not do so?
oh, and Bush’s social security plan sucks even on libertarian grounds, and Will has been pushing it pretty hard.
So, Will is parroting Republican talking points on the UN, Social Security, and liberal media bias, while not appearing recently to advance any ideas I’d consider “libertarian.”
Of course, I still read, hoping to get a few good bits here and there.
Just because the NY Times is free to do what it wants to doesn’t mean I have to like it. There are many things people do and don’t do that I don’t like, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to force them to change.
Also, Will spent very little time on the UN specifically, so complaining about his jab at it seems a little silly. But you are free to do it if you want.
Gregorus, I spent two years working on international development issues, and know how truly dismal the record of development aid is, and so there is plenty room to complain about a big push to do more of what hasn’t worked. I know libertarians disagree about social security reform. But I have said on several occasions that I consider myself an opponent of libertarian utopianism, that I am a marginalist (in several senses), and I think SS reform is a great step in the right direction.
And I wasn’t complaining about “liberal” bias. I was complaining about a cognitive bias that is just as likely to cut right as left.
Bravo Will! I’m sick and tired of other countries (often via the UN) feeling entitled to OUR wealth for eradicating their fucking problems. Let them eat cake! Their best bet would be to emulate our freedom, rule of law, and hard work and quit leeching off of us. We have no moral obligation to go along with ill-conceived schemes to solve the problem that even Jesus Christ said couldn’t be solved.
Last year foreigners loaned the United States over 500 billion dollars. Some of that went to help our countries poor, some of it went for economic development, and a large percentage went into the pockets of corrupt officials.
Will we ever be able to pay back the $1.8 trillion that foreigners have lent to us? That is uncertain. Many libertarians argue we should default on these charitable loans.
The United States is by far the largest recipient of foreign aid. Our Magical Giant would collapse if the Chinese and Japanese Magical Giants discontinued their charitable contributions.
Be careful what you wish for…
Land of magical giants. That’s good. I think there is a bias in articles to trying to identify “what should be done,” like you say. It’s hard to understand that things happen, and sometimes it’s better to “let things happen” than try to figure out a fix that is no fix at all.
As for social security, I think you’re blinded by your own cognitive bias. First, there is a moral argument for private property–it’s called capitalism. If these private accounts were really private, I could take them out, invest them where I wanted, buy bubble gum cards, etc. But that’s not what they are, and I don’t see the point in pretending they are.
Social security is old age insurance, and I’m glad it’s there because I sure don’t want mom living in the convered garage. You can complain about the moral injustice of forced savings, but that isn’t solved by “private accounts.” It works as a form of life insurance in which everyone who dies before 65 supports the superannuated. Private accounts, in which wealth is passed on and not pooled, makes sustaining the system that much more expensive. We could have a system like car insurance where individuals are forced to buy some minimum level of old age insurace. Maybe it would be cheaper, maybe it wouldn’t. But private accounts are no solution at all because they are not private and they’re not insurance.
Great post, Will.
Didn’t the U.S. income tax start out at around 1/2% as well? We all know how that turned out…
0.5% sounds okay to me, just as long as not one penny goes to build a firehouse for those bloodsucking Iraqi parasites.
I’m going to get my libertarian card taken away for this but let me offer a second to MYglesias’s most trenchant point.
It’s not helpful to lump all government development aid in one pot and then have a thumbs up/thumbs down vote on whether it’s effective or not.
We would profit from a subtler, more careful analysis. Certain types of aid could probably reap enormous benefits if calculated in “lives saved/dollars spent.” I’m thinking about the production, purchase, distribution and use of DDT to fight malaria in Africa as an example, provided that it’s done efficiently. I don’t think it would impossible or objectionable for government assistance to help achieve this goal.
Chuck, Sure. Some aid is effective. Some education and health programs have good records, as do some clean water programs, etc. But it remains that this accounts for a miniscule fraction of the money spent on development aid. And there is no evidence that the UN project plans to approach the problem in a thoughtful and effective way. It will be more of the same.
I’m going to get my libertarian card taken away for this but…I don’t think it would impossible or objectionable for government assistance to help achieve this goal.
Revoked.
The very point of this UN recommendation is that development aid ought to be a massive, unified, centrally directed effort, which invites a “thums up/thumbs down” vote on it. That’s the very trouble with Sach’s vision.
Whenever someone starts talking about a “New Marshall Plan,” it’s time to holler “check, please.”
Micha,
There’s a saying that “Hard cases make bad law.”
Since we’re talking about a case in which the lives of millions of human beings are at stake, I dare say that the question of adherence to an ideology on the size and scope of government at this point is moot. This is a situation of lifeboat ethics. If a little internal incoherence on the part of myself and other small government types would lead to saving the lives of millions, well, I say bring it.
If there are cases where government action could solve a coordination problem, wouldn’t encourage moral hazard, etc, etc. I’m ready to violate the sacred tenets of minarchism to save a few million souls.
So congratulations, Micha, you are officially more hardcore than me.
Ah, lifeboat ethics. The sacred escape hatch of all libertarians stuck in a contradiction of their own creation.
Listen, Chuck: If you think saving the lives of poor Africans is a worthy use of government coercion – that is to say, if you think it is okay to put a gun to another human’s head and say to them “give money to this poor person or I will shoot you,” then fine. That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans. At least you have that going for you.
But don’t claim that this act is unobjectionable. I can think of thousands of other worthy causes too — adequate housing, food, education, heathcare — the list goes on and on. There is already a word for people who think that it is unobjectionable for the government to try to solve these problems, and that word is not “libertarian.”
Micha,
“That is certainly a more worthy cause than coercing Americans into giving money to other relatively wealthy Americans.”
Why?
Because poor people need it more. Diminishing marginal utility, and all that.
Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for sharing.