This latest contribution is an excellent case in point. The “cause” is obviously Katrina and its aftermath. I posted a comment on his blog to the effect that I would let his words speak for themselves.
What I want to tackle here is not Robert, but the propaganda that he uses is just too fascinating (as is an angry cobra) for words…
In response to one of my posts, our friend the probligo posed a question that I think deserves an answer. He wonders: ”What do [you] really believe should be done [by the Federal Government] to help those who have lost all in [Katrina]?”
I’m not naïve, despite my youth (relative to the probligo), so I’m cognizant of the fact that Mr. Bush will indeed be successful in urging Congress to liberally redistribute as many billions of public dollars as “we the people” deem necessary. I’m also well aware that the ‘new deal’ is sealed, with respect to direct cash transfers to everyone from displaced individuals to all levels of the affected local and State governments. Rather than try—in vein—to halt the inevitable spending spree, my intent is simply to show that it is immoral, improper and counterproductive.
First, a review of what has been proposed by Mr. Bush (which, I’m sure, has nothing to do with his sagging poll numbers). Let’s take a look at the dramatic speech he delivered in Jackson Square, dripping with "compassionate conservatism". From the transcript:
In the rebuilding process, there will be many important decisions and many details to resolve, yet we are moving forward according to some clear principles. The Federal government will be fully engaged in the mission, but Gov. Barbour, Gov. Blanco, Mayor Nagin, and other state and local leaders will have the primary role in planning for their own future.
Arguably, Blanco and Nagin (and their ilk) have largely contributed to the economic environment that existed prior to Katrina and certainly, beyond the personal responsibility of those able-bodies that remained, the Governor and Mayor failed to execute the very evacuation that they ordered. In light of recent history, how one can reason that those two ought to oversee the dispersal of multiplied billions of (someone else’s) dollars is a mystery to me.
Adding insult to injury, the President assented to the nonsense that is the go-to excuse for any and all adversity that befalls poor people that happen to be black. You guessed it: r a c i s m.
As all of us saw on television, there is also some deep, persistent poverty in this region as well. And that poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action.
By “bold action”, he means: more money. Is a series of hand-outs really the best way to solve the problem of poverty (putting aside the question of morality)? My answer is obvious, but there’s no need to take my word for it. I would recommend a good site called A World Connected, wherein there is a great article that addresses the relationship between aid and poverty. While it deals with poverty in Africa, as opposed to New Orleans, I contend that poverty is poverty, regardless of geography. This is equally true for poverty’s remedy.
A new study (pdf) from International Policy Network concludes that aid has failed to achieve its goals in the past 50 years. Worse, in many cases aid has been counterproductive – crowding out private sector investment, undermining democracy and perpetuating poverty.
Contrary to collectivists of all stripes, LBJ’s so-called Great Society (aka “War on Poverty”), enacted some 40 years ago, is an utter failure at best and an unjustifiable expenditure at worst. The data is clear; “free money” tends to exacerbate poverty, rather than eradicate it.
Africa received over $400 billion in aid between 1970 and 2000. Yet, the evidence presented in the study shows an inverse relationship between aid and economic growth – when aid rises, growth falls. In part this is because aid supplants private sector investment and undermines savings: there is also an inverse relationship between savings and aid -- when aid increases, saving decreases. Such is a sign of dependency on aid revenues.
(my emphasis)
Although poor governance is not the only explanation for Africa’s woes, the vast majority of countries in Africa are badly governed and bad policy is the most important factor in explaining their continuing poverty.
When will our elected representatives learn from history? Agh…who am I kidding? Those slugs in tailored suits live from election to election. The fault really lies—in my view—with their constituents, who constantly clamor for more and more government-provided solutions to personal problems. The depressing irony is that Government is the Problem. So, to answer the probligo directly: Government ought to get out of the business of pseudo-altruism and allow free individuals to engage in free enterprise.
Now I am not going to argue that all is bright and rosy in the American way, in FEMA, in the state of Louisiana, indeed recent events say quite different. There are the rumours floating about over the past few days (picked up by the more rabid right-wing “media”) about the missing funding for flood protection works which if true are going to rival Iraq Oil-for-Food. There is the “Yousaid – hesaid” screaming between Washington and virtually everybody else. As I have said so many times before, “I can wait. I am a patient man.”
Robert starts with the common dichotomy between government responsibilities and popular perception of assistance from government being seen as “redistribution of wealth” and “buying of votes”. Robert, to his credit, sticks with his “it should not be a government responsibility”. I could even agree with that, if it were possible to raise US68billion in donations. I add, not just from the US; internationally as well. I note the offer from President Chavez of Venezuela – with a quiet chortle.
So, from the beginning, let us be clear on one thing. WHY is there an expectation of government involvement in a disaster of this nature? It must be from two parts; neither to do directly with funding.
First part is the matter of scale. In the wake of Katrina is the ruination of a measurable slice of the US. This is not a localised disaster. It covers three or more states. It has displaced a measurable proportion of the total population of the nation. This factor of scale will limit the ability of the “private sector” to provide a timely response. One should realise this if a little objective thought is applied.
First of many reasons – how many private organisations will be prepared to hold resources available without immediate financial return for that day when they are required. OK, so that is where (for example) the army comes in… at a cost to the government. But if we rule out government response, the private sector might still be able to provide the resources needed… at a cost.
Second of many reasons – do we expect those private organisations to forego their contractual obligations, their normal business, to provide services without return? NO of course we do not. They should be paid. By whom and from what funds? Remember that the government is no longer part of the exercise… Who is going to provide the central agency for the several hundred charities that are providing funds? Who is going to be responsible for the contractual arrangements between rescue/aid organisations and service providers. Most important, how much might that overhead cost?
The second part is the need to control on-going disruption to community, to State, and even to the national economy. That disruption would include the effect of “refugees” on property markets and employment in other states; the effect of resources (particularly civil engineering) being used in relief and rebuilding phases.
What I have in mind is the coordination between states to cater for housing displaced people either temporarily or permanently, to provide long term employment opportunities without disrupting current employment, to provide social services (from health and education to law enforcement) in those new communities… But of course, government has no part to play in such consequences either. Well not according to the propaganda. It is all a matter of “market forces”.
The next thing to be clear on – this is not a debate about the personalities involved. I am basing my position on the event and the principles – both of which should be constants. That leaves out any petty political point scoring. It is an objective view (as objective as I can be given my reliance upon sources rather than direct experience). So the castigation of this side or that is a red herring and not substantive. Even the rumours I mentioned at the start are evidence of systemic failings as much as personal or political.
One of the biggest surprises for me was the vehemenance with which Robert pulled the race card.
IT HAPPENS that the Louisiana to Mississippi region has both a high proportion of poor and coloured people. That can only be accepted as an artefact of history well passed. It should not matter whether the area is poor, or rich as Croesus. Irrespective of any other consideration we are dealing with havoc and chaos on an unprecedented scale. One can justifiably argue that the rich are more able to respond in these circumstances especially when warning can be given. But if the San Andreas were to let rip, the rich would be in as much need of help as the poor.
Of course, as soon as we pull in the race factor it opens another door wide – that of comparison between the assistance and rebuilding required in Louisiana and the provision of aid in Africa.
That has to be about as specious an argument that can possibly be presented.
Now Robert can pull as many magic rabbits out of his hat as he likes. All of the criticism of African (and presumably other) aid programmes can be justified at one level or another. There are dishonest people involved. There are dishonest governments involved. There is effective aid delivered in the right places at the right time; we very rarely hear about those programmes. There are the many instances of pleas for assistance being ignored until the problem – whether famine or flood – is so bad that it is essentially irretrievable.
The point here is that trying to justify a political point within a disaster on the magnitude of Katrina (or the Boxing Day tsunami) is quite, quite wrong. Comparison of past “internal aid” programmes as Robert outlined with African aid programmes is just a matter of political point scoring; there is little validity in the argument given the scale of the destruction in the South.
I know that Robert’s point is the futility of government involvement in any activity. He calls me “the collectivist” because I disagree.
Well, Robert, we had a “Libertarian” party raise its head here in NZ in the mid to late 90’s. Prime mover a newsman by the name of Lindsay Perigo if I remember.
TO the uninitiated, this is how Libertarians think…
As Robert pointed out in one of his earlier posts, if a person is poor it is the result of wrong decision making. I have asked the question whether “wrong decision” includes choice of parents or place of birth. I have had (to my knowledge) no response to the question.
No comments:
Post a Comment