hard heads soft hearts |
|
a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists. mobile
Archives
June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 April 2003 December 2003 June 2004 September 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 June 2005 August 2005 January 2006 February 2006 January 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 January 2013 March 2013 May 2013 June 2013 December 2013 February 2014 June 2014 November 2014 August 2015 January 2016 April 2016 April 2017 July 2018 December 2018 September 2019 December 2019 August 2020 January 2021 October 2021 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 October 2022 December 2022 January 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 September 2024 October 2024 Short List: Brad Delong Yahoo Long List: Arthur Silber The Note Arts and Letters Daily Andrew Tobias Daily Howler Talking Points Memo New Republic Armed Liberal Eschaton Eric Alterman Slate Salon TAPPED David Corn (Nation) BuzzFlash Max Sawicky Oliver Willis InstaPundit Patrick Ruffini National Review Weekly Standard Amygdala BartCop Andrew Sullivan Drudge Report Romenesko Media News Matt Yglesias Daily Kos MyDD PLA William Burton Matt Welch CalPundit ArgMax Hullabaloo Pandagon Ezra Klein Paul Krugman Dean Baker TomPaine Progressive Michael Barone James Howard Kunstler Pundits & Editorial Pages NY Times Washington Post LA Times USA Today Washington Times Boston Globe Stanley Crouch Jonah Goldberg Molly Ivins Robert Novak Joe Conason Gene Lyons WSJ Best of the Web Jim Pinkerton Matt Miller Cynthia Tucker Mike Luckovich "What's New" by Robert Park Old Official Paul Krugman New Official Paul Krugman Unofficial Paul Krugman Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Washington Monthly Atlantic Monthly |
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Comment in response to a Matthew Yglesias post on foreign aid: A quick point on Sach's proposal. I haven't read it completely, but I've read enough of it to know that many people seem to be misunderstanding what Sachs means by the "End of Poverty". It sounds utopian, but it's really not. Sach's thesis is that once you are on the ladder of economic growth & development, the capitalist system starts to work and you can trust incomes to rise and poverty to drop more or less naturally. Some countries will rise fast due to good economic leadership, some countries more slowly due to mediocre leadership, but the system will still make progress. A country that Sachs identifies as on the upward spiral, where the capitalist system is working and will produce results over time, is Bangladesh, even though Bangladesh is still a very low-income country. Sachs then states that there are countries of "Extreme Poverty" which are not even on the ladder of economic development, for a variety of reasons (malaria, lack of access to ports & cheap transportation, & AIDS among them). They need help from us just to get on the lowest rung on the ladder of development, and then we can more or less trust trade & the other engines of capitalism to take it from there. Rather than "trade, not aid", "trade & aid" is what Sachs says is necessary. 200 billion in order to End Poverty & Save the World can sound a bit Utopian and pie in the sky. 200 billion a year for 15 years in order to turn Extreme Poverty countries into Bangladesh sounds a lot more realistic and achievable. And that is in fact what Sachs is proposing. A small point: no one is talking about massive redistribution of wealth. .5-1 percent of GDP, and 5 percent of the federal budget, is all that Sachs and others like him are proposing. Also, in 20-30 years, China's economy will be as large as ours. If the Chinese, when the time comes, manage to spend 1 or 2 or 3 percent of GDP on foreign aid, while we could have but didn't, won't we be really ashamed of ourselves? This is a golden opportunity for Americans and other wealthy liberal democracies to try to win hearts and minds. We should take it. Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Three quick links, which taken together provide a good conversation between modernist & traditional views of life: 1. John Taylor Gatto, Education & The Western Spiritual Tradition 2. Richard Feynman, The Relation of Science and Religion 3. Joseph Campbell, The Impact of Science on Myth (big file, download as zip) and then a fourth, a beautiful, transcendant story by JRR Tolkien, Leaf By Niggle Not particularly relevant, but here is a collection of three quite old Prem Panicker essays which I have always really liked: The Call Of Your Roots, My Father's Son and Happily Ever After!. Happy reading! |