Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Ending Poverty (2010)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

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

#41

Post by tacostakohashi »

hodgesrm wrote: post #37
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.

It's basically a political project, so political issues seem like a fundamental problem, rather than some external factor to blame.

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

#42

Post by cynicalkane »

jakub_h wrote: post #35
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…

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.

In the countries under discussion, there aren't very many barbers and truck drivers. There are, however, a lot of starving people.

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

#43

Post by tim333 »

api wrote: post #27
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.

Why third world? We have tons of ailing dying rust belt and Midwestern cities. Welcome to the St. Louis Free Economic Zone. My politics are weird though. I would combine it with a basic income and single payer health care. I think the best current system we could create would be a strong but non invasive social safety net combined with total at will employment and business deregulation.

I think your St. Louis Free Economic Zone might get too many people coming for the free money and health care and not enough coming to pay tax for the books to balance.

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

#44

Post by yummyfajitas »

Natanael_L wrote: post #39
yummyfajitas wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The same is true of the surrounding dysfunctional country (e.g. Honduras). Charter cities add more options, and generally make exit easier.

I.e. exiting Honduras is easier if a charter city is right next door.

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

#45

Post by poof131 »

Seems like we’ve entered some sort of post-modern neocolonialism. How do we “fix” the broken countries of the world. The neocons under Bush tried to remake the middle east by invading Iraq.[1] Debated with someone here who felt we just needed more time in Afghanistan so a generation could understand good governance.[2] In this article, the thrust seems to be benevolent foreign powers and businesses will lead the way to prosperity. All seem like colonialism without the name and all seem to totally disregard secondary effects.

Read a great article awhile back on HN that talked about the impulse to fix other people’s problems far away from your own.[3] Seems that SV and Stanford could do a lot more to fix the issues closer at hand in the Bay Area (homelessness, unaffordable living, rising inequality) and the US in general before solving all the worlds problems. Lead by example sort of stuff. Instead my main takeaway from the article is get rich in the startup lottery then proselytize your grand vision and plans from your bubble of prosperity. Sell the dream but don’t look in the mirror.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Life_in_the_Emerald_C...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11412172

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10884840

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

#46

Post by Trundle »

douche wrote: post #4

Assuming this ever worked, and produced good results, what happens when ten or fifteen years later, the corrupt local dictator takes over, all of the administrators flee before the mobs take their lives or nationalize all of their property, and all of the expertise and institutions that kept things going evaporate. Because we have a lot of examples of that happening.

Is giving up sovereignty of a city not the politic speak way to say that a foreign government will rule it with military might? Seems like a toothless leasing of brand name if not. Being able to say "a corrupt dictator won't steal your factory if you build it here" and have it believed is half the point, no? Can't do that without military presence.

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

#47

Post by andrepd »

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.

That thinking works in a perfect world with perfect information, 100% rational agents, and frictionless movement. It doesn't work for impoverished, illiterate, uneducated people with the weight of poverty, culture and a myriad of other practical considerations from food to roads to family preventing them from take the 100% rational actions that you expect them to take.

The problem with you libertarians is that everything you say works with spherical objects in a frictionless vacuum, so to speak. But the real world isn't such a place. Outside your idealistic worldview everything collapses.

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

#48

Post by SmallBets »

milesskorpen wrote: post #21

This is particularly relevant because it appears Romer will be the chief economist at the World Bank soon: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2016/07/it-... [edit for a better link]

Yes I wonder if taking the World Bank job indicates an end of this effort, or a platform to push it harder?

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

#49

Post by CPLX »

hodgesrm wrote: post #37
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.

Indeed, if you remove the governing-related problems from his government recommendations they are pretty much flawless.

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

#50

Post by CPLX »

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.

This already went wrong. We are commenting on an older article. He actually got a chance to try this project and it failed pretty resoundingly.

I eagerly await your "no true Scotsman" response.

Post reply on HN