NGOs hurt poor people?

Say it ain't so! Oxfam is bad for global poverty? But isn't Oxfam an organization that is fighting to "find lasting solutions to poverty, suffering and injustice?" No. The answer is simply no. The reason: they do not believe in capitalism. They view development as striving towards a world where everyone is happy and making the same amount as everyone else. They despise wealth and do not realize how wealth is the opposite of poverty and how wealth fights poverty. Today's WSJ has a great editorial about the nasty effects of NGOs on citizens in the third world.

The editorial discusses how a new mine in Guatemala will create thousands of jobs for unemployed, poverty-stricken Guatemalans:

Residents of El Estor, a small Q'eqchi community of 40,000 people located in
northeast Guatemala, cheered when they heard that Vancouver-based Skye Resources was interested in reopening a local abandoned nickel mine…It's easy to see why there was such excitement. Skye Resources estimates that it will employ 1,000 people and create four indirect jobs in the community for every new mining
job. That plus an overall investment of at least $539 million is not irrelevant for an impoverished town with one of the highest illiteracy rates in the country -- over 40% for indigenous men and 35% for indigenous women.

However, this mine almost did not get off the ground due to local protests against the mine.

But last year organized and well-funded opposition nearly squelched the deal. In a country with such dire needs for capital and technology to lessen the want of the poor, it is worth exploring whether such anti-mine activism truly expresses the will of the people. Looking behind the scenes, the funding and instigation of the activism appears heavily driven by international nongovernmental organizations that end up discouraging development while trying to fulfill their own mission.

Who were the organizations?

Boston-based Oxfam America and Toronto's Rights Action are two anti-development NGOs active in Guatemala. Oxfam has partnered with MadreSelva (Mother Jungle), a Guatemala City environmental group headed by affluent urbanites, to block mining projects.

And what do these groups do in Guatemala?

International NGOs in Guatemala train local leaders to "empower" minorities and
indigenous groups and to denounce the mines as "neo-colonial" ventures. But the reality is that the very nature of the NGO saves it from having a real stake in the communities it affects through its activism. It can blow through town like a hurricane disrupting development and then be gone.

And what does the "evil" mine do?

The mines, on the other hand, have long-term relationships to manage. Concerned
about its role in Sipacapa, for example, Glamis funded the construction of a local road that was not needed for the mine but was beneficial to the poor community. It offered to fund 32 new teaching positions to help meet the increasing demand for public education in the area. The company also took an unprecedented step by helping to launch an independent monitoring association that will provide environmental studies, while ensuring that Glamis reports back to the communities and to other stakeholders.

The mayor of the town benefiting from foreign investment and who fought off unelected, socialist NGOs put it best:

"They justify their campaigns with our poverty," he says. "That's unfair." On the day of the pro-mine rally, he declared Sept. 30 to be El Estorian Dignity and Foreign and National Investment Day.

Some quotes

William F. Buckley - I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.

David D. Boaz - The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.

The New York Times, in a 1909 editorial opposing the very first income tax - When men get in the habit of helping themselves to the property of others, they cannot easily be cured of it.

Milton Friedman - It is a mystery to me why... it is regarded as a sign of Japanese strength and American weakness that the Japanese find it more attractive to invest in the U.S. than Japan. Surely it is precisely the reverse - a sign of U.S. strength and Japanese weakness.

Ronald Reagan - Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.

And my favorite...

Ayn Rand - I am rich and proud of every penny I own. I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with — the voluntary consent of those who employed me when I started, the voluntary consent of those who work for me now, the voluntary consent of those who buy my product. I shall answer all the questions you are afraid to ask me openly. Do I wish to pay my workers more than their services are worth to me? I do not. Do I wish to sell my product for less than my customers are willing to pay me? I do not. Do I wish to sell it at a loss or give it away? I do not. If this is evil, do whatever you please about me, according to whatever standards you hold. These are mine. I am earning my own living, as every honest man must. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact of my own existence and the fact that I must work in order to support it. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it and do it well. I refuse to accept as guilt the fact that I am able to do it better than most people — the fact that my work is of greater value than the work of my neighbours and that more men are willing to pay me. I refuse to apologize for my ability — I refuse to apologize for my success — I refuse to apologize for my money.

Defending the President

I used to be quite anti-Bush. However, this was before I read anything by Milton Friedman and before my newspaper of choice became the Wall Street Journal. Now when I go out to parties or meet new people or hang out with friends, I try to tell them why outright hatred of the president is unmerited. In a bid to convince more people of this fact, I have created an easy to follow guide to why George W. Bush is not the worst president:

1) Supply-Side Economics – Conventional wisdom and many economists have scoffed at the concept of this theory. However, Art Laffer provided economics with a great theory for taxation (the Laffer curve – cutting taxes can bring in more revenue). His wisdom has found its way into the Bush administration who has lowered taxes considerably. These lower taxes have actually brought in MORE tax revenue (as the theory would predict). In fact, growth in tax revenue (11.4%) is at highest level in twenty-five years. Add a booming economy (2005 GDP growth – 4.4%) and you have a President who has helped move America more in the direction of economic freedom.

2) Israel – Unlike Clinton, he knows that you cannot negotiate with terrorists. This was a hard one to swallow for me because I believe diplomacy is essential between democracies. However, the world is facing a big threat in the Middle East. Clinton's assumption for negotiations was that Arab anger was over occupation. However, today's events where Hizbollah and Hamas have attacked from unoccupied land disproves this assumption. These groups are committed to the destruction of all Western interests. The only response should be self-defense; this is why Bush has allowed Israel to do just that.

3) War on Terror – While I believe that the invasion of Iraq was misguided, I understand why Mr. Bush went there. Iraq supported terrorism in the Middle East. My belief was that the costs outweighed the benefits of an Iraqi invasion. I think today's events are proving this. With that said, the Iraq adventure would be worth it if we continued the fight with a war against Iran and Syria. It would show the world that we are serious in our fight against terrorism. This fight would be a lot easier if Europe was behind us.

4) Stem Cell Research – The debate of stem cells has been incomplete. Most people who talk about this issue do not realize that stem cell research is legal. The only thing that Mr. Bush has made sure of is that FEDERAL money is not used for this research. I understand this especially considering, as a libertarian, the government should stay out of the business of most things. Many Americans believe stem cell research is immoral and while I disagree with them, I understand them. Furthermore, considering that government spending is the spending of every Americans' hard-earned money, Mr. Bush is telling his constituents that he will not spend their money on things that they see as immoral. So where do I believe stem cell research should go? The private sector. The Cato Institute put it best with the following: "By its very nature, government politicizes everything it touches. Science is no exception. Stem cell research needs neither government money nor politics. It is better is to get the government out and let the private sector continue its good work. Those people calling for increased funding could take out their checkbooks and support it. Those who oppose embryonic stem cell research would not be forced to pay for it."

5) Social Security – Mr. Bush is trying his best to remedy the coming doom of the Baby Boomer's retirement effect on Social Security. However, Democrats have blocked any attempt to fix Social Security. Social Security is a policy that destroys economic freedom. It forces everyone to give money to the government who will save it for them in low-yielding bonds until they are 65. It also gives politicians access to raiding social security to pay for other things. Mr. Bush proposes that workers be given the CHOICE to put money into an account that will yield returns that mirror such devices as the US stock market. For example, "For the 129-year period of 1872 through 2000, average real return on the S&P 500 was 8.8 percent per year." This means that the money you contribute to your personal retirement account (if it was linked to S&P growth), would double every eight years. Not bad!

"I believe the best way to achieve this goal (of fixing Social Security) is to give younger workers the option, the opportunity if they so choose, of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into a voluntary personal retirement account."- George Bush, April 28, 2005

6) Affirmative Action – The Bush administration is against and this is a simple issue. While, I used to support it, affirmative action is the ultimate policy that strips citizens of its freedom (to hire and admit who they want). Can we not trust people not be racist? Are we creating a racist society by telling people that they MUST hire black people? The government has done enough harm to the black community in the past, it should leave them alone from now on. Frederick Douglas put it best with: "What shall we do with the Negro? I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us! Do nothing with us...just let him alone! Your interference is doing him a positive injury!"

There are definitely things I do not like about the president but there are also many places where we agree. I think the American public would do a great service to the country by looking at all the issues and not just say, "Bush is a terrorist!"

America stands with Israel

I went on my lunch break to Freedom Plaza. At the plaza, DC's Jewish community was holding a rally supporting Israel. It was great to see so many people supporting such a great cause. Governor Ehrlich (Maryland), Ambassador Ayalon (Israel), Congressman Ben Cardin (MD), Congressman Wexler (Florida), Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Florida), and Senator Sam Brownback (Nebraska) were there. There was a rabbi there who was VERY loud (somebody needed to tell him that the microphone was working). Here are some of the pictures that I took of the rally.
Approaching the rally - a good size crowd!
A little Yentaing before the speeches (Notice the sign thanking President Bush. No matter our party affiliation, I think we should all THANK the president for being the only leader to fully support the Israeli operation. This is in stark contrast to the unfortunate response from Europe.)
Exactly!
A good crowd (there are a lot more people behind me) settles into the 100 degree heat for the speeches to start.
The first politician (Ehrlich) takes the stage to tell the audience that America is behind Israel 100%. This is a nice picture with the Capital in the background and a great sign to the right. Amen my Jewish brother!
The crowd gets bigger!
Ambassador Ayalon with his bodyguard (who I met a couple months ago at the embassy - ONE SCARY DUDE!)
Am Yisrael Chai!
Senator Brownback
Congressman Wexler
Congressman Cardin
A random Rabbi from the back of the crowd!
Big Blue!
Quite a crowd!!!!

Some closing remarks: Alan Dershowitz put it best when he said the following: If a bank robber uses somebody else as a human shield to escape a bank robbery and the human shield is killed, the criminal is morally and legally responsible for that person's death. Not the police. The same applies to the civilians that Hizbollah hides behind when shooting their Katushyas from Lebanon. Hizbollah is responsible for every civilian death in this war so far. The world must stop condemning Israel and get behind Israel in their fight against the fascist Muslims of Hizbollah!

Also, I was pleased to see that many of the Congressmen today stated that this is not just Israel's fight, but it is America's as well. Hizbollah killed 249 US servicemen in Beirut in 1982. Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria are all enemies of the United States AND Israel. While it is completely infeasible to do it now (due to the Iraq situation) but the US should form a coalition to take out Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria once and for all.

Krugman is an economist?

Paul Krugman does it again. He knocks the "greatest story never told" regarding the amazing US economy. In today's column he starts with the following, belittling mock conversation:

Bush supporter: ''Why doesn't President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.''
Informed economist: ''But it's not a great economy for most Americans. Many families are actually losing ground, and only a very few affluent people are doing really well.''
Bush supporter: ''Why doesn't President Bush get credit for a great economy? I blame liberal media bias.''

This is a typical problem for liberal economists to swallow. When those at the top are doing well, when companies are doing even better, the public benefits, how? Companies don't lay off people, companies HIRE more people, and companies can give raises and bonues. This is in stark contrast to what happens during a recession (and can be much worse in a prolonged recession).

Krugman is convinced that the bottom 99% are not benefiting and views inequality as rising. I agree that inequality is rising but how. Well, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting richer (but not on the same scale as rich people). This is good. I highly doubt poor people should get raises to the level that rich people do. Does the secretary deserve a raise as big as a CEO does? No, because the CEO provides more of a benefit to more people, making them all richer. The secretary can't say the same thing.

Krugman ends with:

Can anything be done to spread the benefits of a growing economy more widely? Of
course. A good start would be to increase the minimum wage, which in real terms
is at its lowest level in half a century.

A minimum wage? Wow, an economist supporting a minimum wage. First of all, that limits economic freedom. If I want to offer my services for $3 an hour that is my perrogative. Second, it increases unemployment. Some people don't have skills that merit a company paying $7 an hour. Therefore, that company will simply not hire them ($5 is better than $0). There is evidence for this. Simply look at the America's declining unemployment rate. At the same time as this decline, the REAL minimum wage has declined as well (the nominal wage has remained steady). This translates to less wage controls = less unemployment.

New York Times Friday

I took a look at the NYT editorial page today to look at Tom Friedman's article regading the war in Israel. However, what I got was a barrage of articles of which I had comments for each. But let's first look at Friedman's.

Ever since my conversion to libertarianism, I have started to distance myself from Tom Friedman's economics. However, his view towards the Middle East still lies deep in my heart. Today is no different.

In his piece entitled, "The Kidnapping of Democracy," he discusses the failure of democracy in three places, Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. While he acknowledges the great strides the world has seen in Middle Eastern elections, he also looks at the problems that still exits:

But the roots of democracy are so shallow in these places and the moderate majorities so weak and intimidated that we are getting the worst of all worlds. We are getting Islamist parties who are elected to power, but who insist on maintaining their own private militias and refuse to assume all the responsibilities of a sovereign government. They refuse to let their governments have control over all weapons. They refuse to be accountable to international law (the Lebanese-Israeli border was ratified by the U.N.), and they refuse to submit to the principle that one party in the cabinet cannot drag a whole country into war.

While there are elections, there is no order and a tyranny of the minority is created AFTER the elections:

Boutros Harb, a Christian Lebanese parliamentarian, said: ''We must decide who has the right to make decisions on war and peace in Lebanon. Is that right reserved for the Lebanese people and its legal institutions, or is the choice in the hands of a small minority of Lebanese people?''

Ditto in the fledgling democracies of Palestine and Iraq. When cabinet ministers can maintain their own militias and act outside of state authority, said Mr. Ezrahi, you're left with a ''meaningless exercise'' in democracy/state building.

Friedman continues to acknowledge the fact that people within these countries don't stand up to these thugs because they will either be called "Infidel Backers" or killed.

However, this is where I start to disagree with my friend, Mr. Friedman. Personal responsibility should be brought into this discussion. We should not provide excuses for the failures of Arab countries around the Middle East. They must reign in the terrorists and thugs among them. If not, the victims of their attacks (Israelis) will be forced to (and should) attack back until these thugs are eliminated.

Tom Friedman ends with pondering whether the skeptics of democracy-promotion are correct:

It may be the skeptics are right: maybe democracy, while it is the most powerful form of legitimate government, simply can't be implemented everywhere. It certainly is never going to work in the Arab-Muslim world if the U.S. and Britain are alone in pushing it in Iraq, if Europe dithers on the fence, if the moderate Arabs cannot come together and make a fist, and if Islamist parties are allowed to sit in governments and be treated with respect -- while maintaining private armies.

The whole democracy experiment in the Arab-Muslim world is at stake here, and right now it's going up in smoke.

While I agree that democracy is at stake with these recent developments, skeptics of democracy-promotion are seriously misguided. While democracy will be hard in the Middle East, it must be promoted. Promoting dictators never worked very well for the United States anyway.

Evil

The Israeli people are being attacked by pure evil. Click here for video of Lebanese people rejoicing over the kidnapping of two 18 year old Israeli boys.

Demagoguery and Incompetence - The Democrats' Strategy

Nancy Peloci unveiled to the Journal what the Democrats would do if they took over the House...

The California Democrat anticipates some resistance from within her party, but
returned to the theme of fiscal prudence in an interview with The Wall Street
Journal. When asked to outline the Democrats’ agenda, she listed initiatives
that she said wouldn’t strain the government’s coffers: cutting interest rates
on student loans, raising the minimum wage and demanding higher royalties from
oil companies.

Add raising taxes (she would rescind the Bush Tax Cuts) to that agenda and you have every reason to vote Republican in 2006!