10 ms·

The Politically Incorrect Guide To Ending Poverty

67 points by nochiel 16y ago

marcusbooster 16y ago
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1426429 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1426429
- MichaelApproved 16y ago
  Looks like 3 segments of the URL can be changed without causing a redirect. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/MichaelApproved/Is/Great/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/MichaelApproved/... The page canonical meta tag shows the current article url http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-poli... The previous article shows /2010/06 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/the-poli... Maybe HN should use canonical meta tag instead of just url to check for duplicates?
  - 10ren 16y ago
    This is a feature, not a bug. There are many great articles that 1. are very helpful to read again; 2. you missed the first time; 3. newcomers haven't even had a chance to miss yet. Especially for newcomers, considering the rate that HN grows (an endless summer). But even more importantly, there are some articles that represent what HN is all about. There's a limited supply of great articles. If they cannot be reposted, how can newcomers ever learn what great articles are? Therefore, I suggest the opposite: automatic reposting - but only for those "great" articles, in the "HN library" (membership being defined by a special-case vote - i.e. vote for this article to be in the library). These would be reposted on a 6 month cycle, and include the old comments. Biannual resurrection. And to be marked as "library", so you can skip if you want. But this won't happen, because the existing "bug" already does it (if people vote it up, it was a reasonable repost; the present repost checker act as a low barrier). And pg advocates iteration only for things needed.
    - MichaelApproved 16y ago
      You should visit a hacker news twitter feed: http://twitter.com/newsycombinator http://twitter.com/newsycombinator It posts articles that make it into the top 5 of the site. Scroll through the past tweets to see what you've missed.
    - PidGin128 16y ago
      I dug through the guidelines and associated texts and couldn't find it, but I see it stated often enough that I don't mind sharing it: _Resubmissions are allowed after a year or so._ [beyond paraphrasing, completely reconstituting the thought, still meaningful however.] This solves all the problems in your first paragraph. Automatic re-posting is almost a guarantee if it's that good, so that's paragraph two handled.
hristov 16y ago
This has been posted before. And no it wont end poverty, it is essentially a plan to sell licenses for private dictatorships.
- drewcrawford 16y ago
  Why not? GB's empire seems like mostly the same thing, and it arguably [1] resulted in a reduction of poverty. [1] I'm not making a claim of fact here, just saying that there's an intelligent debate about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Economic_impact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Economic_impact
  - hristov 16y ago
    I don't agree. There will always be debate, as there will always be some historian out protecting British Imperialism but I think and honest examination does not show that GB improved the lot of their imperial subjects except in some very specific and limited circumstances.
    - cavedave 16y ago
      "The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France.* Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese." http://www.slate.com/id/2151852 http://www.slate.com/id/2151852
      - gamble 16y ago
        In essence, it doesn't matter who colonized you. The states that were colonized the longest did the worst, in direct proportion to how long they were colonies.
DaniFong 16y ago
As an immigrant here in the United States, I feel like I must be totally out of touch. How is this politically incorrect?
- patrickk 16y ago
  I think the reason it's supposedly controversial is because it implies some sort of inferiority on the part of the government of the poor nation, that they're not "good enough" to manage their own affairs. Judging by the reception Romer is getting from some 3rd world country leaders, at least some don't see it this way.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Romer is pushing colonialism (minus the militarism and racism), but giving it a new name for the purpose of marketing. That's hardly a popular position.
- ddustin 16y ago
  America's has decided on a solution that is politically correct. After this decision was made, all other ideas are considered null, void and being preached by idiots. The solution it has decided is: Stop buying products from sweat shops and fly to poor countries and have 10 college students build a house. Generally the politically correct solutions are ones that provide no solution but make people "feel good." Also discussing why it is politically correct is not politically correct (so you'll have a hard time finding people willing to explain this to you). This is all part of a larger movement that (here is where the facts stop and my analysis starts) seems to be a rebound from the industrial revolution.
joe_the_user 16y ago
OK, We have many countries already competing on the world market by trying to offer little regulation and lots of flexibility for investors. How's that been working? Are Chinese workers going up towards American standards? Or are Americans moving towards Chinese standards? If Africa could also compete here, would living standards going further down or further up? What do you think?
- fgf 16y ago
  it would not be too hard to find out for yourself; google china wages rising...
- mseebach 16y ago
  China has lifted 400 million people from poverty to lower middle class in 20-30 years. This is wealth creation on an unprecedented scale. And when I say unprecedented, I mean it in the literal, absolute sense. The fact that many of them are working in unpleasant factories completely overshadows the fact that their parents were subsidence farmers and that their kids will have access to decent/good education and healthcare. China isn't perfect, but the velocity of the development is central. Much of the western knee-jerk reaction to the conditions in China seems to work from the premise that eliminating poverty is only worthwhile if it can be done in a clean stroke with no unpleasant intermediate steps.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
varjag 16y ago
One thing tacitly not mentioned in the article is the guns and the Navy of the British Empire that made the Hong Kong deal work. If any country decides to cede sovereignty over some territory, they should agree that the guest power will asserts its sovereignty over it. And it has to be full way, without option to be undone after next coup, mood swing or populist elections. And that can be guaranteed only with implicit threat of violence from superior power. Anyway the big problem these days is actually finding a progressive nation willing to commit to such threats.
- arethuza 16y ago
  Does anyone else find it rather ironic that an American economist is citing an example where a mini-state (Honk Kong) created as the results of a war fought by the UK to support drug dealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars) is cited as a great example of how to run a country?
  - Confusion 16y ago
    I don't find that ironic, because a) We don't know this economists ideas about drug prohibition and the fact that he is American is quite irrelevant. Whoever asserts something, you can always find something to deem it 'ironic' or even 'hypocritical'. In the vast majority of cases, that does not detract in any way from their argument. That would require counterarguments. b) Different times, different customs. It's anachronistic to use todays moral standards to argue that behavior back then was considered immoral back then.
  - cwp 16y ago
    Not at all. It doesn't matter how or why Hong Kong was became what it is. What does matter is that 50 years of British rule in a small piece of China had a stunning effect on China as a whole. It's a great example, not of how to run a country, but how to transform one.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
Anyone know how the teenagers studying under streetlamps charge their mobile phones?
lkozma 16y ago
Also worth reading a rebuttal: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...
- fgf 16y ago
  The word rebuttal could be misleading, Mencius is not against romers idea. If memory serves me right he thinks he doesn't go far enough and is annoyed with the intellectual dishonesty necessary (?) to sell this idea to the media/universities etc.
lzw 16y ago
Capitalism is the antidote for poverty. This is proven by the simple example of any poor person- whether US born, india born, chinese born, etc, who starts a business-- any business-- and grows it to the point that they leave enough money for their kids to be lazy and non-productive. The kids might not be reared right, but they are no longer in poverty. The opponent of capitalism is also the cause of poverty. The opponent of capitalism is collectivism. Or put another way, government. Any entity that takes by force (eg: taxes, regulations, bribes, etc.) naturally pushes out businesses that take by free trade (eg: sales, barter, etc.) The more you have of one the less you have of the other. Notice how there were many postal services in the US and they were growing and competing and bettering themselvs until the US government decided to give itself a monopoly on first class mail delivery. As a result we no longer have a vibrant postal industry, and instead have the very poor US postal service. Why did the government give itself a monopoly? To be able to censor political tracts being sent thru the mail. How many of you knew that? I'd bet most of you believe the US government provides mail because it wouldn't be economical otherwise. Ignoring for the fact that taking money by force doesn't change whether something is "economical" or not, note that the pony express survived and thrived in a time when people were much poorer and much further apart-- transportation wise-- than they are now. So, obviously the fallacy that "without government who would deliver the mail?" is nonsense. We have an example in mail, but it applies to everything else- justice, roads, and soon, heatlthcare. Remember when you didn't have to be politically connected to get treated for cancer? Good times. Whatever method of organization, city-states, charter-cities, seasteads, a great frontier like the US was-- the essential quality is how much regulation and how much government there was, vs, how much capitalism is allowed to take hold. Russia, China and India are all examples of way too much government, and all three have resulted in a great flourishing-- not without problems or corruption, but a benefit on the balance-- with the removal of this draconian level of control.

67 points by nochiel 16y ago

marcusbooster 16y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1426429 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1426429

MichaelApproved 16y ago
Looks like 3 segments of the URL can be changed without causing a redirect. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/MichaelApproved/Is/Great/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/MichaelApproved/... The page canonical meta tag shows the current article url http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-poli... The previous article shows /2010/06 http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/8134/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/06/the-poli... Maybe HN should use canonical meta tag instead of just url to check for duplicates?
- 10ren 16y ago
  This is a feature, not a bug. There are many great articles that 1. are very helpful to read again; 2. you missed the first time; 3. newcomers haven't even had a chance to miss yet. Especially for newcomers, considering the rate that HN grows (an endless summer). But even more importantly, there are some articles that represent what HN is all about. There's a limited supply of great articles. If they cannot be reposted, how can newcomers ever learn what great articles are? Therefore, I suggest the opposite: automatic reposting - but only for those "great" articles, in the "HN library" (membership being defined by a special-case vote - i.e. vote for this article to be in the library). These would be reposted on a 6 month cycle, and include the old comments. Biannual resurrection. And to be marked as "library", so you can skip if you want. But this won't happen, because the existing "bug" already does it (if people vote it up, it was a reasonable repost; the present repost checker act as a low barrier). And pg advocates iteration only for things needed.
  - MichaelApproved 16y ago
    You should visit a hacker news twitter feed: http://twitter.com/newsycombinator http://twitter.com/newsycombinator It posts articles that make it into the top 5 of the site. Scroll through the past tweets to see what you've missed.
  - PidGin128 16y ago
    I dug through the guidelines and associated texts and couldn't find it, but I see it stated often enough that I don't mind sharing it: _Resubmissions are allowed after a year or so._ [beyond paraphrasing, completely reconstituting the thought, still meaningful however.] This solves all the problems in your first paragraph. Automatic re-posting is almost a guarantee if it's that good, so that's paragraph two handled.

hristov 16y ago

This has been posted before. And no it wont end poverty, it is essentially a plan to sell licenses for private dictatorships.

drewcrawford 16y ago
Why not? GB's empire seems like mostly the same thing, and it arguably [1] resulted in a reduction of poverty. [1] I'm not making a claim of fact here, just saying that there's an intelligent debate about the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Economic_impact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Raj#Economic_impact
- hristov 16y ago
  I don't agree. There will always be debate, as there will always be some historian out protecting British Imperialism but I think and honest examination does not show that GB improved the lot of their imperial subjects except in some very specific and limited circumstances.
  - cavedave 16y ago
    "The authors also compare the experiences of separate Pacific islands with eight different colonizers: the United States, Britain, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Japan, Germany, and France.* Their verdict is that the islands that are best off, in terms of income growth, are the ones that were colonized by the United States—as in Guam and Puerto Rico. Next best is time spent as a Dutch, British, or French colony. At the bottom are the countries colonized by the Spanish and especially the Portuguese." http://www.slate.com/id/2151852 http://www.slate.com/id/2151852
    - gamble 16y ago
      In essence, it doesn't matter who colonized you. The states that were colonized the longest did the worst, in direct proportion to how long they were colonies.

DaniFong 16y ago

As an immigrant here in the United States, I feel like I must be totally out of touch. How is this politically incorrect?

patrickk 16y ago
I think the reason it's supposedly controversial is because it implies some sort of inferiority on the part of the government of the poor nation, that they're not "good enough" to manage their own affairs. Judging by the reception Romer is getting from some 3rd world country leaders, at least some don't see it this way.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Romer is pushing colonialism (minus the militarism and racism), but giving it a new name for the purpose of marketing. That's hardly a popular position.
ddustin 16y ago
America's has decided on a solution that is politically correct. After this decision was made, all other ideas are considered null, void and being preached by idiots. The solution it has decided is: Stop buying products from sweat shops and fly to poor countries and have 10 college students build a house. Generally the politically correct solutions are ones that provide no solution but make people "feel good." Also discussing why it is politically correct is not politically correct (so you'll have a hard time finding people willing to explain this to you). This is all part of a larger movement that (here is where the facts stop and my analysis starts) seems to be a rebound from the industrial revolution.

joe_the_user 16y ago

OK, We have many countries already competing on the world market by trying to offer little regulation and lots of flexibility for investors. How's that been working? Are Chinese workers going up towards American standards? Or are Americans moving towards Chinese standards? If Africa could also compete here, would living standards going further down or further up? What do you think?

fgf 16y ago
it would not be too hard to find out for yourself; google china wages rising...
mseebach 16y ago
China has lifted 400 million people from poverty to lower middle class in 20-30 years. This is wealth creation on an unprecedented scale. And when I say unprecedented, I mean it in the literal, absolute sense. The fact that many of them are working in unpleasant factories completely overshadows the fact that their parents were subsidence farmers and that their kids will have access to decent/good education and healthcare. China isn't perfect, but the velocity of the development is central. Much of the western knee-jerk reaction to the conditions in China seems to work from the premise that eliminating poverty is only worthwhile if it can be done in a clean stroke with no unpleasant intermediate steps.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

varjag 16y ago

One thing tacitly not mentioned in the article is the guns and the Navy of the British Empire that made the Hong Kong deal work. If any country decides to cede sovereignty over some territory, they should agree that the guest power will asserts its sovereignty over it. And it has to be full way, without option to be undone after next coup, mood swing or populist elections. And that can be guaranteed only with implicit threat of violence from superior power. Anyway the big problem these days is actually finding a progressive nation willing to commit to such threats.

arethuza 16y ago
Does anyone else find it rather ironic that an American economist is citing an example where a mini-state (Honk Kong) created as the results of a war fought by the UK to support drug dealing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars) is cited as a great example of how to run a country?
- Confusion 16y ago
  I don't find that ironic, because a) We don't know this economists ideas about drug prohibition and the fact that he is American is quite irrelevant. Whoever asserts something, you can always find something to deem it 'ironic' or even 'hypocritical'. In the vast majority of cases, that does not detract in any way from their argument. That would require counterarguments. b) Different times, different customs. It's anachronistic to use todays moral standards to argue that behavior back then was considered immoral back then.
- cwp 16y ago
  Not at all. It doesn't matter how or why Hong Kong was became what it is. What does matter is that 50 years of British rule in a small piece of China had a stunning effect on China as a whole. It's a great example, not of how to run a country, but how to transform one.

ZeroGravitas 16y ago

Anyone know how the teenagers studying under streetlamps charge their mobile phones?

lkozma 16y ago

Also worth reading a rebuttal: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cromer-to-romer-and-back-again.html http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2009/08/from-cr...

fgf 16y ago
The word rebuttal could be misleading, Mencius is not against romers idea. If memory serves me right he thinks he doesn't go far enough and is annoyed with the intellectual dishonesty necessary (?) to sell this idea to the media/universities etc.

lzw 16y ago

Capitalism is the antidote for poverty. This is proven by the simple example of any poor person- whether US born, india born, chinese born, etc, who starts a business-- any business-- and grows it to the point that they leave enough money for their kids to be lazy and non-productive. The kids might not be reared right, but they are no longer in poverty. The opponent of capitalism is also the cause of poverty. The opponent of capitalism is collectivism. Or put another way, government. Any entity that takes by force (eg: taxes, regulations, bribes, etc.) naturally pushes out businesses that take by free trade (eg: sales, barter, etc.) The more you have of one the less you have of the other. Notice how there were many postal services in the US and they were growing and competing and bettering themselvs until the US government decided to give itself a monopoly on first class mail delivery. As a result we no longer have a vibrant postal industry, and instead have the very poor US postal service. Why did the government give itself a monopoly? To be able to censor political tracts being sent thru the mail. How many of you knew that? I'd bet most of you believe the US government provides mail because it wouldn't be economical otherwise. Ignoring for the fact that taking money by force doesn't change whether something is "economical" or not, note that the pony express survived and thrived in a time when people were much poorer and much further apart-- transportation wise-- than they are now. So, obviously the fallacy that "without government who would deliver the mail?" is nonsense. We have an example in mail, but it applies to everything else- justice, roads, and soon, heatlthcare. Remember when you didn't have to be politically connected to get treated for cancer? Good times. Whatever method of organization, city-states, charter-cities, seasteads, a great frontier like the US was-- the essential quality is how much regulation and how much government there was, vs, how much capitalism is allowed to take hold. Russia, China and India are all examples of way too much government, and all three have resulted in a great flourishing-- not without problems or corruption, but a benefit on the balance-- with the removal of this draconian level of control.