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

81–90 of 107 posts

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

#81

Post by tim333 »

auganov wrote: post #69
poof131 wrote: post #45

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…

I'm expecting a resurgence in colonialist-like approaches. Especially in the context of the Middle East. It's exactly failures like Afghanistan and Iraq that make some consider solutions involving total governance for much more than just a few years. A case can be made for the US having been morally obliged to basically colonize Iraq (and Afghanistan tho I'm less familiar with that one).

I chatted to some educated Afghanis and they thought the period of greatest peace and prosperity in their life times was the Russian occupation which the US went to some effort to end. I sometimes wonder if western policies to bring democracy to Islamic areas by bombing them really do much good. We could perhaps just bribe the dictators to up their human rights a bit.

Syria is an ongoing case where there remain options. I think our tactful new foreign secretary may have the right idea that we should hold our noses and work with "the linchpin of a vast post-Soviet gangster kleptocracy" who looks "a bit like Dobby the House Elf" and the "manipulative tyrant Assad". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/1...

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

#82

Post by Sniffnoy »

CPLX wrote: post #77
rayiner wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what he's proposing at all. There is a whole paragraph in the article about how Romer is not a libertarian and recognizes the importance of rules. But some rules are good and some are bad. The electric utility example is a good one: price controls are very popular in third world countries, but just about the worst way to meet whatever objective you want. Getting the government out of the way can also help…

> That's not what he's proposing at all. Of course. But it's almost certainly the end result.

If that's your claim, then you should say that explicitly, and make it clear what your criticism is, rather than making it look like you failed to read the article. "While the intent may be ..., the end result will almost certainly be ..."

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

#83

Post by pbreit »

poof131 wrote: post #45

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…

I got the opposite impression. My impression is that he's addressing our own problems. And that countries with less evolved rules and, yes, poor, might be the best partners.

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

#85

Post by pbreit »

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.

The short version is Hong Kong which has worked out spectacularly. So I'm not sure I understand the source of your negativity.

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

#86

Post by [deleted] »

pbreit wrote: post #85
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.

The short version is Hong Kong which has worked out spectacularly. So I'm not sure I understand the source of your negativity.

[deleted]

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

#87

Post by CPLX »

rayiner wrote: post #79
CPLX wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not what he's proposing at all. Of course. But it's almost certainly the end result.

That wasn't the end result in Hong Kong.

All we have to do is figure out how to replicate the efficiency and relative lack of corruption of the British civil service, the relative military superiority of their Navy, the untapped economic power of China, and the political ability to kick the project off with a racist narco-trafficking based trade arrangement enforced with weapons, and just sit back and watch as we yield great benefits in about 100 years.

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

#88

Post by evanpw »

safeignorance wrote: post #70
evanpw wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very similar to an argument that libertarians make about their opponents. As long as the government is made up of benevolent geniuses with perfect information about every individual citizen, then socialism is a great idea. In reality, individual preferences are unknowable, and government workers are fallible and have motivations of their own. In reality, neither utopia is particularly achievable in the world…

I'd guess very few of libertarianism's opponents believe in socialist utopias, and what the article suggests is about as far from an incremental step and one can possibly get...

> I'd guess very few of libertarianism's opponents believe in socialist utopias

Just as most libertarians are not anarcho-capitalists. My point is that you don't need to believe in the utopia (in either direction) to believe that a smaller move would be positive.

> what the article suggests is about as far from an incremental step and one can possibly get...

In terms of total impact, drastically changing the rules in a region where no one currently lives could certainly be a smaller step than slightly changing the rules for millions of people, which is what most political arguments are about.

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

#89

Post by littletimmy »

Here's a politically incorrect thought: we don't need to develop Africa.

We shouldn't assume that everyone has to be like us to be happy. We shouldn't try to "civilize the barbarians" - to use a colonial phrase. Let them live as they live and let them develop themselves at their own pace.

Over the next decade, Africa's population is poised to explode. The great wilderness of Africa will all but disappear, and Africa might become just another blob of concrete, mining, and agribusiness. Desirable? Good for the human species? I think not.

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

#90

Post by jernfrost »

Interesting to see this actually advocated as this is exactly the thing I tell my wife when we solve world problems at the kitchen table.

The Syrian refugee crisis got me thinking. Why on earth should so many people travel so far to get to European style rule and safety. If that is what they want, why could we not provided it where they already are?

The current system of dealing with refugees doesn't scale. There ought to be a way where you can allow in a lot of poor people without bringing severe economic strains on a rich country.

The problem when Syrians come to a rich country in Europe is that so many of their valuable skills can not be utilized even marginally, much due to different traditions, language requirements, procedures etc. However if there was a European enclave in Syria which they could move to, that could function using Syrian language and customs combined with European rule at the top.

Obviously Syrians would not naturally want to be ruled by Europeans but that is what they volunteer to when they move to Europe. A European enclave in Syria would be the same. You don't have to move there, but if you do, you have to accept European rule. The benefit is that, while not democracy it means freedom and rule of law.

Hong Kong was never a democracy but people there had freedom. Freedom and democracy is frequently mixed up, but they are not the same. By Freedom I mean that there is a free press, independent courts which apply the same law to all people, not just for the benefit of the rich and cronies of the rulers.

Post reply on HN