Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Testify, Tom
We haven't hit you with the cutting blade of truth that is Thomas Sowell in a while, so I thought now would be a good time. Mr. Sowell brings the heat again in this column. If you're new to hifi, just put a link to Mr. Sowell's archive (kindly provided for you here) right under your bookmark for this page. Trust me, you'll be doing yourself a favor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
sowell's assessement is an overestimation of capitalist influence. i am sure it played a role, but to totally disregard the role of the government is misleading. here is what china has done:
" The policy of development-oriented aid mainly consists of the following five aspects: First, advocating and encouraging the spirit of self-reliance and hard work, and helping poor peasant households overcome the common attitude of "waiting for, relying on and requesting" aid. Second, considering that the poor areas are weak in infrastructure and capability for defense against natural disasters, the state encourages and supports poor peasant households to put labor into the construction of infrastructure, such as farmland, irrigation works and highways, by arranging necessary work-relief funds, so as to improve the conditions for developing production. Third, the state provides concessional loans for special aid items at discounted interest, and formulates preferential policies, centering on helping the poverty-stricken areas and peasant households develop market-oriented crop cultivation, aquiculture and poultry raising and corresponding processing industries, so as to increase production and incomes. Fourth, conducting training in advanced practical agrotechiques, in order to improve poor peasant households' sci-tech and cultural levels, and strengthening their ability to develop by themselves. Fifth, combining development-oriented aid with soil and water conservation, environmental protection and ecological construction, implementing the strategy of sustainable development, and helping poor areas and peasant households enhance their ability to make further progress."
See White Paper on Rural China's Poverty Reduction.
>>useful or reliable<<
i am not sure what this means. do you mean that the government actually has done none of these things and is just making it up? or do you mean they have done these things, but they have had no impact?
>>not reliable<<
so you think they are making it up.
check out this and see if you think it is made up too.
Shanghai Case Study - World Bank
the point is simply that the government has done things in an effort to reduce poverty.
i think it is much easier for you to argue that the chinese government has done some things but that they don't accomplish anything. . . than to argue that they are just making up everything that they say they have done.
>> sowell's assessement is an overestimation of capitalist influence.<<
>>the point is simply that the government has done things in an effort to reduce poverty.<<
Acknowledging the fact that capitalism is the best policy to cure poverty does not require you to say the government did not play a role in creating wealth. Sowell never claimed the Chinese government "did nothing", and neither did the_dude.
The Chinese government had much to do to enable the Chinese to escape the hellish legacy of Mao, which was supposed to be utopia according to the leftist establishment. Namely, the government had to get out of the way.
you had me till this >>namely, the government had to get out of the way<<
it sounds like what you are saying is yes. . . the government did something. . . they got out of the way, but that's it. this is still ignoring the social programs, etc. that china et al. say they have implemented.
sowell said, "people. . . advocate all sorts of programs and policies to reduce [poverty] but they show incredibly little interest in how poverty has actually been reduced."
the implication for sowell's purposes is clearly that poverty has been reduced in china by "wealth" and not by government programs and policies. he ignores china's systemic efforts in favor of his agenda.
i am still not sure if y'all believe that china has really done nothing in the form of government programs (i.e. they are lying) or whether what they did was simply without consequence.
Your position is not strengthened by evading Sowell's point that it is wealth that cures poverty, and government programmes to create wealth are a joke compared to a free market. You have, in fact, provided evidence to this end.
>>this is still ignoring the social programs, etc. that china et al. say they have implemented.<<
>>(Sowell) ignores china's systemic efforts in favor of his agenda.<<
The World Bank, while not perfect, is definitely a step up in legitimacy from the People's Republic. Looking at the Case Study Summary from your link to the Shanggai Case Study, we find these statements:
"China’s large-scale poverty reduction has been achieved mainly through rapid economic
growth... This
increase was realized through continuous reform and structural changes that included shifts from
central planning to markets and from agriculture to manufacturing and services, and opening up to
international trade and knowledge transfer."
So, China "got out of the way" and it worked well. Then, they got cute with the "8-7 Plan". This plan did what most bureaucracies do well: spending lots of money and failing. Quoting the Case Study Summary again:
"Our analysis
indicates that special poverty reduction investments had negligible impact on the actual number of
poor in the short term..."
What's next? China will try a new programme with social security and health experiments. If they were wise, they'd learn from America's mistakes instead of repeating them.
. . . so your answer is that you do not think they are lying about the programs. . . they simply have not contributed anything more than letting the markets do their thing.
that is fine, but i disagree, and believe that the reports paint a more realistic picture of both the government and the markets creating distributed wealth.
>>believe that the reports paint a more realistic picture of both the government and the markets creating distributed wealth.<<
Presumably you are hoping that the government's programmes benefited the poor Chinese more than it cost them. This is a leap of faith unsupported by the World Bank Case Study Summary.
Post a Comment