The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#31

Post by oldmanjay » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #29

asuffield wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes working a lousy job for little money". It's not much of an aspiration, but it is, strictly speaking, an improvement. It's also not a hypothetical: supply-side economic demonstrably works, to some extent. It ju…

Two counter examples to your first statement about positive benefits of massive increases in wealth: Nigeria and Venezuela.

That's two out of how many countries where it was successful? You almost certainly live in one.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#32

Post by tim333 » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:52 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #2

Shorter version: Create corporatist deregulated cities in corrupt third world countries and assume that rather than enriching multinationals via lax oversight the project will make poor people less poor. Hard to see what could go wrong with that plan.

I'd say more, lightly regulated cities controlled by another country modeled on Britain running Hong Kong. While HK worked well, they are having problems finding countries to do the Britain role benevolently. HK was set up at gunpoint to facilitate the Brits opium pushing operation which probably wouldn't fly these days.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#33

Post by dave_sullivan » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:54 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #29

asuffield wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes working a lousy job for little money". It's not much of an aspiration, but it is, strictly speaking, an improvement. It's also not a hypothetical: supply-side economic demonstrably works, to some extent. It ju…

Two counter examples to your first statement about positive benefits of massive increases in wealth: Nigeria and Venezuela.

To be fair, the failings there had to do with the source of wealth being natural resources, rather than innovation per se. I'd also add Russia and Brazil to that list, but there are others. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

Personally, I think it's the difference in mentality between lottery winners and builders of successful products (who often work within difficult constraints and have to become very good at problem solving to succeed). There's a reason why lottery winners do not typically compound their success.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#34

Post by yummyfajitas » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:56 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #2

Shorter version: Create corporatist deregulated cities in corrupt third world countries and assume that rather than enriching multinationals via lax oversight the project will make poor people less poor. Hard to see what could go wrong with that plan.

What do you think will go wrong? Please be concrete.

If such cities suck worse than the alternatives, no one will move to them.

The real worry I think many have is that charter cities will be successful and will demonstrate (by being successful without it) that a lot of existing socially favored regulation is harmful.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#35

Post by jakub_h » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:57 PM UTC

asuffield wrote: post #5

CPLX wrote: post #2

Shorter version: Create corporatist deregulated cities in corrupt third world countries and assume that rather than enriching multinationals via lax oversight the project will make poor people less poor. Hard to see what could go wrong with that plan.

Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes working a lousy job for little money". It's not much of an aspiration, but it is, strictly speaking, an improvement. It's also not a hypothetical: supply-side economic demonstrably works, to some extent. It ju…

I guess it's all a matter of your idiolect. It works, for some values of "works". Maybe it works for the macroeconomist studying national GDP growth rates? Sadly, there are also barbers and truck drivers.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#36

Post by mc32 » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

The idea if carried out, likely would work, I think, but would be fraught with many issues centered around power and influence.

This neocolonialist idea would likely not sit well with lots of the same people who have issues with capitalism and historical colonialism. The specter of European colonialism would be hard to escape.

Then there is power and influence. These new cities would who up the host country and would be the envy of the non neocolonial zones. And further has to potential of subverting local culture for a western, Chinese or Japanese one, in a more immediate manner.

So, I feel there are too many cultural factors we would find hard to ignore, even if in practice, the result would be a net positive for the local population. In other words, politics would get in the way of practicality.

Imagine, Baja becoming a US state, in a few decades, it could be like New Mexico, not the richest state but a lot better than it is now. Now imagine how locals would take to the idea (even if individually they might like to immigrate into the US). And then how the Mexican government would take to the idea -a non starter.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#37

Post by hodgesrm » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

ForHackernews wrote: post #13

This American Life & Planet Money did a follow-up on this idea three years later: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/483/s... Against the odds, Honduras was actually willing to give the "charter city" model a go, but the project turned into a disaster before it even got started. Mostly because Paul Romer is an egotistical, antisocial control freak and nobody could work with him. There's a lesson h…

This is character assassination. I've met Paul Romer and have followed his work for decades. People ignore his ideas at their peril. You can't blame him for not being an outstanding administrator at the same time.

It does not really sound as if this project would have worked under any circumstances due to the political issues.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#38

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 5:01 PM UTC

whyenot wrote: post #29

asuffield wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it sort of works: massively increasing the wealth of any third world country will shift it from "if you're poor then you starve and die" to "if you're poor then you are begging on the street and sometimes working a lousy job for little money". It's not much of an aspiration, but it is, strictly speaking, an improvement. It's also not a hypothetical: supply-side economic demonstrably works, to some extent. It ju…

Two counter examples to your first statement about positive benefits of massive increases in wealth: Nigeria and Venezuela.

[deleted]

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#39

Post by Natanael_L » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 5:06 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #34

CPLX wrote: post #2

Shorter version: Create corporatist deregulated cities in corrupt third world countries and assume that rather than enriching multinationals via lax oversight the project will make poor people less poor. Hard to see what could go wrong with that plan.

What do you think will go wrong? Please be concrete. If such cities suck worse than the alternatives, no one will move to them. The real worry I think many have is that charter cities will be successful and will demonstrate (by being successful without it) that a lot of existing socially favored regulation is harmful.

You're forgetting inertia in multiple levels. Moving away from such a place could prove harder and costlier than moving in.

Re: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

#40

Post by tacostakohashi » Sun, Jul 17, 2016, 5:08 PM UTC

vslira wrote: post #12

The concept of smart cities just seems like an excessively convoluted way of adopting more successful countries' institutions, governance and laws. Which can be great of course, but begs the question: is the host country government (current or the set of most influential parties, assuming it's a democracy) interested in adopting this foreign system at all?

Right - it's a little bit like a design for a perpetual motion machine, using some convolution to distract from the simple reasons for it not working.

The things that make cities open and successful are fairly clear to those who study these things, it's not a secret or a mystery. The things that have prevented potential host countries from adopting those practices successfully on their own (political instability, corruption, whatever) will also prevent them from being a good place for anybody to set up a charter city there.