Month: November 2003

In an article published on the web site of the Cato Institute, Johan Norberg makes the case that globalization is the key to reducing poverty and that rather than limit it, as anti-globalization activists would have us do, we should accelerate it and the institutions it presupposes.

As Norberg notes, in the late 19th century Sweden was actually poorer than the Congo is today — life expectancy and infant mortality were both significantly worse in Sweden then than in the Congo today. But trade with France and England led to an industrial boom in Sweden which quadrupled the size of the Swedish economy by 1950.

The evidence, Norberg writes, is that countries that are integrated into the global system of trade dramatically outperform those that are not,

But when we look at the poor countries with good institutions, and which are open to trade, we see that they are making rapid progress, much faster than the wealthy countries. A classic study by Jeffrey Sachs and Andrew Warner of 117 countries in the 1970s and 1980s showed that open-developing countries had an annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, compared with 0.7 percent in closed-developing countries and 2.3 percent in open industrialized countries. A recent World Bank report concluded that 24 developing countries with a total population of 3 billion are integrating into the global economy more quickly than ever. Their growth per capita has also increased from 1 per cent in the 1960s to 5 per cent in the 1990s (compared to a rich country growth of 1.9 per cent). At the present rate, the average citizen in these developing countries will see her income doubled in less than 15 years.

In fact, while anti-globalization activists point to the continued problems in sub-Saharan Africa, Norberg notes that Africa is the most illiberal part of the world with,

. . . the most controls and regulations, and the weakest tradition of property rights. When anti-globalists blame globalization for African misery, it rings just as bizarre as the North Korean officials who once explained to a visiting Mongolian politician that the average North Korean is unhappy and miserable because he is sad about American imperialism.

Unfortunately, the United States and Europe continue to set the wrong example — closing their markets to significant competition from the developing world and resorting to protectionist measures to shield domestic industries from competition.

Source:

How globalization conquers poverty. Johan Norberg, Cato Institute, September 2003.

The Associated Press reported back in May on technological advances in farming that would supposedly help make farming more profitable. Any and all technological advances in farming are certainly welcome, but the effect of such innovations has historically been — and will certainly continue to be — to make farming less rather than more profitable in the long term.

The technology being highlighted by the AP is precision agriculture and described the experiences of farmers using global positioning systems and computers to “evaluate the field’s fertility on an almost row-by-row basis.”

That sort of incredibly detailed information is then used to automate exactly what crops are planted, how much fertilizer they receive, etc. This sort of technology is still in the early stages, but eventually the result will be higher yields at lower costs which will be good for everyone.

Well, everyone except for farmers. If successful, the higher yields and lower costs will soon attract other farmers and pretty soon the price farm commodities will experience price pressure from competition. Consumers win, the number of hungry people in the world will decline, but farmers will be stuck in the sort of technological arms race that has been going on for literally thousands of years.

They don’t call them commodities for nothing.

Source:

Technology could make farming more profitable. Associated Press, May 12, 2003.

So McDonald’s does not want people to use the term “McJobs” to refer to low end, menial jobs that have little chance for advancement. Well, of course, what better way to make sure people don’t use the term than to issue press releases and make statements so that every news media outlet around reports on the controversy over the word.

Maybe what McDonald’s needs is a new public relations McStrategy.

Here’s an interesting weblog post by Lt. Smash criticizing a Tom Tomorrow comic about warbloggers who support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I think Tom Tomorrow’s argument is ridiculous, but not for the reason that Lt. Smash does. I think it’s pretty clear that Tom Tomorrow is making fun of what might be called armchair warriors (the left, though, seems to prefer the “chickenhawk” pejorative — more on that in a moment).

Also, it really bugs me to see how casually people will post e-mail correspondence to the web, apparently without a second thought. Lt. Smash posts e-mails responses from Tom Tomorrow, apparently without bothering to inform Tom Tomorrow that he was doing so, much less asking for permission to reproduce his responses,

(Wish “LT Smash” had been upfront enough to let me know he was posting our entire exchange as it occurred; I would have been more careful about typos.)

I guess I’m in the minority on this, but I think publicly posting a private e-mail exchange without at least notifying the sender is just plain rude.

The thing that is so noxious about Tom Tomorrow’s comic and the whole “chickenhawk” nonsense is that it is simply the Left’s version of the “love it or leave it” nonsense you sometimes hear from people on the right.

The right winger in effect says “how dare you criticize anything America does — if you don’t like this country you should shut up and leave it.” To which geniuses like Tom Tomorrow add “how dare you support any of America’s wars — if you think war is so great why don’t you shut up and enlist.’

The point of both arguments is to shut down any meaningful debate or discussion by implying that the individual in question is being hypocritical by the very act of voicing an opinion. IMO, these are the most noxious of arguments, especially since they are usually directed at non-elites. The “love it or leave it” is often used as invective against individuals who join protests against U.S. actions, and Tom Tomorrow directs his invective at individuals who in their spare time opine in favor of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And, frankly, the Left’s embracing of this sort of nonsense is more disappointing. The Right has always had a retrograde element that has no use for free speech (the folks who today imply that criticism of the president is akin to aiding the terrorists.) But the Left usually gives at least lip service to free speech and an emphasis on bottom-up democracy. But when the rabble dare offer opinions that conflict with the Left’s agenda, all of a sudden sharing your views warrants being labelled vile words like “chickenhawk.”