Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bill Gates Needs an Econ Course
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Dropping out of college didn't stop Bill Gates from making tons of money, but it kept him from classes where he might have learned about the beauty of spontaneous market processes.

Never mind. I forgot that he attended Harvard. He might not have learned about markets after all.

Gates spoke at Harvard recently, urging graduating students to take on the "world's deepest inequities [including] world hunger ... the scarcity of clean water ... children who die from diseases we can cure". All of us want those problems solved, and through their charitable foundation, Gates and his wife, Melinda, have certainly put their money where their mouths are. But Gates seems unaware that these problems can't be eliminated in the simplistic way he advocates.

He told the grads, "The market did not reward saving the lives of these children [in poor countries], and governments did not subsidize it. So the children died because their mothers and their fathers had no power in the market and no voice in the system."

What is Gates talking about?

Can he name one poor country that permits the free market to operate? The problem is not that the market doesn't make it profitable to save lives -- it most certainly does. The problem is that Third World countries have overbearing, corrupt governments that are obstacles to private property and freedom. That's why the children's parents have no voice or power.

Poor people in the West and in East Asia lifted themselves out of poverty by relying largely on the unplanned market process. That process -- countless individuals pursuing their own interests by trading with one another -- is, as Nobel Prize-winning economist F.A. Hayek put it, a "discovery procedure." Through the price system and free competition, it clarifies tradeoffs of scarce resources, generates the lowest-cost solutions, and provides feedback about success and failure through profit and loss.

This spontaneous order is far better at "saving the lives of these children."

Maybe the Gates Foundation's private charity will work wonders, but more government-to-government subsidies won't do the trick. The trillions spent in foreign aid have little to show for it. As William Easterly writes in "The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good," "Economic development happens, not through aid, but through the homegrown efforts of entrepreneurs and social and political reformers. While the West was agonizing over a few tens of billion dollars in aid, the citizens of India and China raised their own incomes by $715 billion by their own efforts in free markets".

At Harvard, Gates said, "We can make market forces work better for the poor if we can develop a more creative capitalism -- if we can stretch the reach of market forces so that more people can make a profit, or at least make a living, serving people who are suffering from the worst inequities."

He misses the point. Gates faults the free market for problems caused by governments. What constricts the reach of the free market is the state. Gates seems oblivious to all the ways that governments here and abroad cripple enterprise. In poor countries, corrupt bureaucracies smother entrepreneurship while enriching cronies. The lack of formal property rights and stable law keeps average people from accumulating capital. So the poor stay poor. That's what causes "scarcity of clean water" and kills "children who die from diseases we can cure."

Gates said, "We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes."

He should know that for spending to better reflect people's values, governments must butt out. Politicians are notoriously bad at improving the lot of their populations. What they are good at is confiscating money and spending it the way they want it spent. It's only when governments do less , and tax people less, that people are free to earn and keep their own money. Only then does their money really "reflect their values."

You want poor countries to get rich, Bill Gates? Work for free-market reform.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Bill Gates...
and Warren Buffett are both showing that having made BILLIONS doesn't necessarily make them any smarter about the mechanism by whic they made that money. If Gates wants to give his money away to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. then that is his business since he earned the right to do so. But, as we've all heard for a long time, give a man a fish you feed him for the day, teach him to fish and he can feed himself for the future.

However, if there is nothing done to correct the corruption of almost all of these poor countries (hence, why they are poor) then giving these folks money (or even worse, their government) will do little or nothing to improve their plight.

Tseikuru
My church has been partnering with the private community in Tseikuru, Kenya to provide many kinds of assistance, including drilling deep bore wells and installing pipes to provide easy access clean water, and AIDS prevention programs. These measures are important to relieve some of their misery now and give them a chance to live and eventually improve their country. But Mr. Stossel is right. Only a transformation of the African peoples will lift them out of poverty. The West cannot save Africa with some international socialist welfare system. All that money goes down the black hole of despotism and corruption (are you listening, Bono?). That's why it's good that my church also preaches the gospel to them and tries to "Westernize" the indigenous people by instilling other Western values in them. We bring their community and church leaders to the U.S. for education, conferences, and meetings with our church leaders. We offer their children Western educational opportunities. It is only when the people of Africa decide that they value freedom more than their lives, a la Patrick Henry, that they will lift themselves out of poverty.

Moral idiocy
I've long recognized that Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, et. al., whatever their genius, are moral idiots. Gate could better spend his billions hiring hitmen to assassinate the third world thugs that keep their people in slavery. Throwing money at the problem just enriches their Swiss bank accounts and helps to keep them in power.


Economic illiteracy
The power of free-market capitalism is one of the central pillars of what made our country great, and what keeps us great.

That our schools are failing to teach our children these things is a danger to our nation. Yet somehow we tolerate the ideological stranglehold that the left has on our school system from elementary school all the way through the end of university.

Excellent column.


Most Stupid Statement
Gates makes perhaps the most stupid statement I have heard in some time:

We also can press governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes

He thinks we need the government to spend money on the things the taxpayers want. That makes absolutely no sense.

Here is his logic in a nutshell: The government should take money from taxpayers and spend that money on things those taxpayers want.

Here is a thought: Those people know what they want, why not let them keep the money and spend it on things they want?

Unless you buy into the elitist theory that people don't "really know" what they want, or the even more elitist theory that idiot taxpayers are too stupid to know what is good for them, Gates' statement makes absolutely no sense at all.

(By the way, I have always wondered about the leftist world view. If people are too stupid to know what is good for them, requiring the government to look out for their interests, how does election to government office suddenly turn these morons into geniuses who now can divine not only their own interests but the best interests of everyone else as well?)

Hey andrews
Outstanding point. The 19th century french essayist, Frederik Bastiat wrote in his book "The Law" something very similar. Paraphrasing, 'how is it that those stupid people who need to have their lives run for them suddenly get such profound wisdom when they step into the voting booth to elect just those people who are so brilliant and wise to run their lives for them, and as soon as they leave the voting booth, return to a state of abject stupidity?'

Anyone who has not read "The Law," by Bastiat can find it online in its entirely. Makes some great reading.


Impact
I had forgotten that. I reread Economic Sophisms last about two years ago, but haven't reread the law since sometime in the 1990's.

I guess I absorbed the lessons too well, and imagine his arguments are my own.

Thanks for forcing me to properly attribute my arguments.

Excellent Comments Above
Modern liberals want to feel good, and they stand ready to achieve that by taking our money and wasting it on noble-sounding causes. Someone has to be in charge in order to ensure this process continues, so we have the elites - self-defined as those who know what is best for the masses. That this world-view is only a half-step from communism, and rejects the successful founding principles of this great nation, provides them no cause for hesitation or concern.

HR Clinton is the current leading political poster child for this group. Vote early, vote often, vote against this blatant danger to individual rights and free enterprise and the Party that supports her.

Getting something done
Look with your eyes and you will see people for whom the "free market" does not provide clean water. One person might react by reciting the gospel of capitalism. In the long run, that might be the solution of choice. But in the long run ... well ... . Instead Gates looks for a solution he can implement today, without waiting decades for the world to change. You might say that he was "first to market", not with a perfect solution, but with one that works.

Works?
What works liberalgoodman, a government clean water program? What evidence do you have of that? We have been working on clean water programs in Africa for decades and most of what we have to show is in shambles. One of the few countries that had clean water and a functioning economy was Zimbabwe, (yes, white farmers were the driver of that economy) but that aside, the country was moving in right directions of private ownership, semi-free markets and growth. Today, Zimbabwe is the basket-case of Africa thanks in much part to the liberalgoodmen who brought Mugabe to power and continue to support his regime.

lberalgoodman
Your handle says so much.....

Yes Sirree Bob! We'll just toss them poor folks a buck, or two, or two billion, or however much.

Them poor folks will then go out and buy some "clean" water and some "good" food, party hearty, go get some shots, and then sit on their collective behinds waiting for the next handout.

Bill Gates, the king of back stabbing, underhanded, corporate slash and burn, while getting obscenely rich, is now telling us how to be nice to the rest of the world.... WHAT?!?!?

You bet your bippy I'll listen to that guy telling me how to be compassionate.... NOT!!!

liberal goodman
Unfortunately, unless I am reading the article wrong, Gates is not talking about implementing a new solution, but merely renaming failed solutions of the past. More aid, more government to government aid. We've been doing that for the last 40 years, and it has been throwing money down a well. Government to government aid doesn't work well when the recipient government is corrupt and spends the money on things for which it was not intended. Aid to families or organizations doesn't work in areas where there are no private property rights, since the corrupt government comes in and takes control of the aid. As for finding a long term solution, I believe that the saying is: "Rome wasn't built in a day." Any lasting solution will not happen overnight, or even in a year or a decade. It will take decades to undo the harm already caused by despotic government, and it will take some sacrifice, which is one thing everyone loves to talk about, but no one wants to do.

LGM
If the free market doesn't work, then why do the nations in Africa, South and Central America which respect property rights consistently outperform the less capitalist nations? They have the same colonial history, the same populace, pretty much identical natural resources and environment, yet the more free market nations are always richer and better provided than the less free nations.

African nations which respected property rights, even when the government has not otherwise respected liberties. It is no accident that people perform better under regimes which respect property rights.

Think about it. Will you dig a well if the state can come and kick you off your land at a whim? Will you put up a new barn? Clear a new field?

Protecting property guarantees that each citizen will contribute to the common good by pursuing his own interests. Yes, it is for selfish motives, but they benefit all. Which would you rather have, one collective farm feeding five people for free or ten private farms feeding 20, but charging market prices? If you answer the first, then you get the job of explaining to the other 15 why they need to starve for the common good.

Bill Gates
If he is so worried about the poor people of the world he should lower the price of his software.

You're all missing the point.
Gates isn't ignorant of economics. He KNOWS full well that the BS he's spewing is just that: BS.

He is simply another one like George Soros who, know that he's filthy rich, he's turned to supporting fascist Marxism...that is only applied to OTHER people. He, like Soros, supports such a selective application of communism because he doesn't want anyone else to reach the ranks of "the rich" so that he won't have to worry about sharing the power his money has bought him.

Liberalgoodman
Isn't that an oxymoron? Gates would never consider suggesting that government get out of the way and let the people be free to work out their problems. Work out their problems. Work out. Work. Such an uncompasionate word. No. Gates is too interested in being seen as "compassionate." Oh, that Bill Gates is s-o-o-o-o compassionate. EVen if the is really, really rich, he is just so compassionate. Bill Gates has a large charitable endowment. It is puny when compared to the amount of money he would have the government extract from taxpayers to finance his compassionate ideas. And that is not compassionate.

The Vicious Cycle
I first do not want to call Mr. Gates a hypocrite. His non-profit HAS done some wonderful things. However that organization actually needs corrupt third world governments to continue. Why? As long as these people rule with an iron fist and maintain poverty in their nations, then there is a need for Mr. Gates to continue as it is. And its easier to LOOK LIKE YOU ARE DOING GOOD if you are in the public eye. But that is not the same AS KNOWING you have done good. People-I mean the media-see aid going directly to third world dictators, not when less conspicuous aid groups work directly with people themselves. This is the same vicious cycle at work with the welfare state in industrialized states. And the status quo is a way for someone like Mr. Gates to rehabilitate his public image, which brings his altruism into question. I believe that Jesus Christ said that your left hand should not know what the right is doing. When the right hand is giving aid to the Mugabes of this world (just as an example) then the left hand needs to say enough and propose a different process, even if it means you will not be praised of men. (And if your aiding dictators claiming to be helping the poor, is that praise you REALLY want or even need?)

Economic ignorance.

Clarity is power.

John Stossel gets it... Bill Gates doesn't.

The moral; you don't have to be poor to be ignorant.

scottk
Good comment. I agree with some of the other posters that Bill Gates is not that ignorant. He is simply following the leftist agenda ala John Edwards that appearing to be compassionate is what matters. That the results of such efforts is usually opposite of the intentions is inconsequential for such men as these. Memories are short and they never have to worry about being held accountable for the actual results. They always claim the same thing anyway. It is not the taxpayer financed program that failed but, rather the insufficiency of the resources allocated that is the problem. See how it feeds back to more and more government and more and more taxes. A leftist utopia.

andrews, are you that one-sided?
andrews said:
"(By the way, I have always wondered about the leftist world view. If people are too stupid to know what is good for them, requiring the government to look out for their interests, how does election to government office suddenly turn these morons into geniuses who now can divine not only their own interests but the best interests of everyone else as well?)"

Liberals are the only ones that want to have the government tell people what they can and can't do?! Can you honestly not think of one law that conservatives want passed or have passed that tells people what to do or not do?

In case Rush or Sean have brain-washed you to the point of senility, I'll give you some examples:
* Sodomy laws
* Anti-abortion: especially the laws that state a doctor has to show the fetus to a woman before she gets an abortion.
* Gay marriage: the government knows better than 2 consenting adults?
* Pledge of allegiance: don’t force this upon school kids. If they want to say it, then let them say it to themselves on the way to school.
* Flag burning: if someone wants to burn a US flag that they bought, then so be it.

I don’t have a problem with you because you different views or beliefs than me. I have a problem with you because you point the finger at the other side without admitting that the finger should also be pointed at yourself.

syler
Who passed the law that says it is a crime to steal? Who passed the law which says it is a crime to murder? Who passed the law which says it is a crime to rape? Conservatives or liberals?Conservatives, harking back to the law of Moses, enacted these laws. By the way, sodomy, the example at the top of your list of favorites, is not sexual intercourse. It is a sex act, a dirty, dangerous, degrading, and perverted sex act, but it is not sexual intercourse. By the way does the government know more than a thief or murderer? Who can say?

Meh....i guess
I remember reading that the food markets in nations with the worst starvation problems are not empty shelves, in fact they have plenty; the people literally just can't afford the food. So in that regard, it would seem Stossel's correct. The problem is a corrupt government one, as if we didn't already know that.

That being said, the millions of impoverished people in the world don't need market reform, they need dinner.

Stossel
Great column. Brings "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" to mind.

Bottom-Line
Apparently, Bill Gates was in college long enough to take Liberal Stupidity 101.

Clean Water In A Poor Country
Specifically Mexico.

In villages where the government's massive system cannot provide clean water, you can count on Coca Cola, and Pepsico and other companies, to deliver soft drinks, juice and bottled water.

The same villages that lacked phone service when it was a government monopoly, now have it since the phone companies went private.

they may still lack electricity, clean water and paved roads, all government monopilies. Do the math.

Jeffrob -- Free Markets vs. Dinner
quoth Jeffrob: "the millions of impoverished people in the world don't need market reform, they need dinner."

That's like saying your building doesn't need a ground floor and stable walls -- it needs a roof.

Well -- you need the ground floor and stable walls to *support* the roof, don't you?

Monopolists and Dictators
Bill Gates is a monopolist who got power by violating the anti-trust laws that regulate free enterprise. This has been established several times, even with his own admission, in legal cases. A commercial monopoly is the same as a dictatorial government. Just try to be creative with Microsoft products. They dictate what is user friendly. Naturally, Billy Boy likes big-government, big-spending solutions. His "charity" is all about tossing big wads of money to be spent just the way he wants it spent. Liberals have always admired big, strongman governments, just like Microsoft is a big, strongman business.

JasonAce -- on Vicious Cycles
I'd like to hope that you're wrong about charitable organizations such as the one started by Gates actually *want* people to remain impoverished under dictatorial rule in order for them to "look good" by helping out.

After all, there will always be a need for charity. No matter how much wealth is created in a Free Market economy, there will always be those who, for whatever reason, be it circumstances beyond their control (natural disasters) or their own bad decisions (too many babies), will find themselves in need of some charitable assistance.

I'd like to hope that charitable organizations are aware of this -- but -- it could just be that I'm not cynical enough!

FrmrSSGT -- Analogies
quoth FrmrSSGT: "More aid, more government to government aid. We've been doing that for the last 40 years, and it has been throwing money down a well."

Bad analogy.

Better analogy:

It's been like paying the fox to guard the hen-house -- then paying him even more money when a few hens go missing, since clearly there would be no problem if only we spent enough --

It's been like hiring Dogbert as a consultant --

It's been like connecting your fire sprinkler system to a nearby gasoline station's 89 unleaded tank -- and patting yourself on the back for saving money (cheaper than Perrier, y'see) --

LGM and sylar
The responses to LGM have been good. Of course there are NO examples of "people for whom the 'free market' does not provide clean water in the world today as nowhere on the globe where the free market has been permitted to function is a lack of clean water a problem.

sylar,

andrews's contention, that assuming that individuals in government are somehow magically more capable than individuals in the free market to address societal problems is a key component of the liberal world view, is undeniable.

It is certainly true that, with regard to certain issues, conservatives have fallen into the same trap (albeit with nowhere NEAR the same frequency). Alas, some of your examples simply do NOT support your contention.

Abortion involves the death of what is arguably a third party. Law exists primarily for the protection of individuals from the actions of others. The "gay marriage" issue, as it has been pressed, involves recognition by the state in a manner that is binding upon third parties even if their religious beliefs (protected by the First Amendment) preclude such recognition. And while I would certainly advocate getting government out of the education business, at least the teaching of culturally-significant materials is always appropriate.

It is appropriate to concede that it is not merely liberals who wish to impose things by governmental fiat. It is the height of delusion to pretend that this is not - by several orders of magnitude - a condition more emblematic of the Left in this country.

Stossel conveniently fails to mention
the fact that subsidies and tariffs which prevent third world products such as cotton and sugar from being sold in the west are a major roadblock to third world developement. Free markets? Yeah, right.

tedmug, are you OK?
I ask if you're ok, because you must have hit your head on something if you believe that liberals want to make murder or rape legal.
Go ahead, give me some of your off-the-wall, obscure examples that are meaningless and do not reflect liberals.

Any, by the way, the Bible and our government's laws got they're start from the Pagans. And by pagans, I mean Greeks, Romans, Saxons, etc.

F1etch, give conservatives more credit
"...conservatives have fallen into the same trap..."

It's as though you're saying that conservatives are so gullible and naive that the liberals have been able to trick them into writing their own laws.

"andrews's contention, that assuming that individuals in government are somehow magically more capable than individuals in the free market to address societal problems is a key component of the liberal world view, is undeniable."

WRONG! It's a key component of everybody's world view! No one wants anarchy. The only difference is what we want laws to limit. Are you actually going to tell me that you've counted all the laws passed since day one and the liberals are leading the conservatives?!

bryce, you're not being fair
There's nothing "convenient" about Stossel's "failure" to mention such subsidies. You simply cannot cover every single ancillary issue in a 700-word column column. Stossel is on record (correctly) opposing subsidies of any kind:

"Farm supports are as destructive as the old welfare payments to poor people were. Just as addictive, too. Subsidies are supposed to help farmers recover from low prices caused by overproduction, but the subsidies lead farmers to plant more crops, creating more overproduction, which lowers prices, making farmers even more dependent on handouts.

"The programs wreck the lives of farmers in poor countries because they can’t compete with subsidized American farmers (or with even more-subsidized European farmers). Hypocritical politicians blather constantly about helping the poor and demand more of your tax money for foreign aid. But they simultaneously give out farm subsidies, which rig the system so that all over the world poor farmers stay poor."

bryce, great comment.
Conservatives, and Libertarians like Mr. Stossel, forget that the US government, even with a Republican President and Congress, never wanted to get rid of the subsidies or tariffs that protect American corporations.

They don't want a free-market, they want cheap labor.

To be fair, subsidies and tariffs will not be removed even if we had a Democrat President and Congress because the lobbyists would never allow it.

Nice try
"It's as though you're saying that conservatives are so gullible and naive that the liberals have been able to trick them into writing their own laws."

Not at all. The trap is set by parties acting in their own self interest (primarily bureaucrats and politicians). Belief that people in government are any more capable than people outside of government (rather than demonstrably less so) addressing societal issues IS, however, an example of gullibility.

"WRONG! [the assumption that individuals in government are somehow magically more capable than individuals in the free market to address societal problem is] a key component of everybody's world view!"

That statement is absurd on its face.

"No one wants anarchy."

I know a number of individuals who would disagree with you - anarchism being an absence of the state rather than an example of chaos. Nevertheless, that is not at issue here. There is an enormous difference between the establishment of law - rules of conduct expressly designed to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by the actions of others (which in no way reflects a belief that individuals somehow become more capable upon entering government) and the advocacy of governmental involvement in the allocation of resources (welfare, tariff, subsidy, transfer payments, investment in alterantive fuels, minimum wage laws, price floors, price ceilings, etc.) that is at the very heart of liberal policymaking.

I am not arguing that more laws have been made by liberals than conservatives (though I believe that such is likely the case). But then I am not making the ludicrous assertion that lawmaking, in and of itself, is the same thing as the pretense under disdcussion.

Bryce - Spit out the Kool Aid - quick!
Bryce – Save yourself. Don’t swallow – spit out the Kool-Aid, and purchase a basic economics text. Subsidies and tariffs are not free-market tools. They are protectionist inventions, which are intended to prevent free markets.

F1etch, Stossel wants to be anti-liberal
"There's nothing "convenient" about Stossel's "failure" to mention such subsidies. You simply cannot cover every single ancillary issue in a 700-word column column."

That's BS. Stossel knew that if he mentioned the tariffs or subsidies that his argument against Gates would not be as strong. Stossel is a TV newsman, he likes the strong-sided arguments. He doesn't want anyone wavering from his side.


Nice try II
"Conservatives, and Libertarians like Mr. Stossel, forget that the US government, even with a Republican President and Congress, never wanted to get rid of the subsidies or tariffs that protect American corporations."

As demonstrated by the quote i already provided, Stossel, like me, is already on record opposing subsidies and tariffs (ALL OF THEM) as they are detrimental not only to foreign countries, but to the American consumer and the economy as a whole.

The absurdity is the argument taht they are passed to "protect American corporations". To the contrary, they are inevitably packaged as a means of protecting American JOBS. The steel tariffs, for example were touted as a means of preserving jobs of steelworkers even though more jobs were lost among the users of finished steel. Sugar subsidies were put in place to protect workers in the sugar industry even though they eliminated more jobs in the American candy industry. And the biggest one of all - the minimum wage - is trotted out time and time again even though it ultimately does nothing but eliminate jobs. How that one creates "cheap labor" or, for that matter, how subsidizing agriculture creates "cheap labor" is beyond me - primarily because it has never done any such thing.

"To be fair, subsidies and tariffs will not be removed even if we had a Democrat President and Congress because the lobbyists would never allow it."

To the contrary, the bulk of the subsidies and tariffs that currently exits (particularly the minimum wage) were suggested, promoted and implemented by Democrats.

Americanus
That is exactly my point bud!

f1etch
Thanks for the info.

Nice try III
"Stossel knew that if he mentioned the tariffs or subsidies that his argument against Gates would not be as strong."

The quote came from an easily located earlier column of Stossel's. The issue of agricultural subsidies is entirely ancillary (that is not immediately relevant) to the topic under discussion here. As for the argument that it is "conveniently" left out or that Stossel has somehow not objected to such subsidies that is - how shall I say it? - That's BS.

bryce
Any time. Based on your past contributions, I knew you'd appreciate any addition made civilly.

Anyone actually read Gates' speech?
I think Stossel has twisted what Gates said at Harvard.

If you read Gates' speech, and Stossel provided the link to it, you'll get the sense that Gates is not saying that we need to stifle the free market.

He says "If we can find approaches that meet the needs of the poor in ways that generate profits for business and votes for politicians, we will have found a sustainable way to reduce inequity in the world."

Maybe I missed the part where Gates raves about crushing the free market.

Stossel bashes Gates for no reason.

Bill Gates must feel very guilty.
Most people work hard to earn their money and are careful with how they spend it. Others choose to give their money away.

Maybe, those that give their money away don't feel that they deserve to have it. Or, maybe they want people to forget how they made their fortune and remember them differently.

Is there a difference between someone who uses a hundred dollar bill to light a cigar and a philanthropist?

syler...
...are you just trying to find an angle to sound relevant? Stossel cricized Gates for promoting bad and failed policies. Not for Gates alleged bashing of successful policies.

For the record, Gates does some softball criticism of free enterprise, but the position and Stossel's rebuttal are so minor it's not worth citing. I only include this because I don't want you bringing up minutia (sp?) in a hair-splitting frenzy to try to sound relevant again.

Stossel correctly chastizes Gates
...for misidentifying the problem and proposing at least one "solution" that actually makes amtters worse.

The problem is not "complexity"; it is the failure to adopt free market policies on the part of the governments in these impoverished countries that is the root CAUSE of the poverty (and the prevalence of disease). Thus, promoting as even a partial solution "press[ing] governments around the world to spend taxpayer money in ways that better reflect the values of the people who pay the taxes" is worse than no solution at all as it perpetuates the conditions (the pretense that more government is the solution rather than the problem) that cause the problem in the first place.

The offhand comment that suggests poverty exists in part due to a lack of government subsidy to prevent it is flawed for the very same reason.

IGoCommando
Darn! Why didn't you reply earlier? I could have saved my fingers a lot of pounding on the keyboard.

I just didn't like how Stossel, in true TV newsman form, only stated things that supported his side.

China and India's economies grew mostly because of their abundant cheap labor.

I got side-tracked and all worked up with F1etch and tedgum. My apologies to both.


Responding to a misconception
"China and India's economies grew mostly because of their abundant cheap labor."

To the contrary, both countries have always had an abundance of cheap labor. It wasn't until both countries began embracing freer markets and fewer trade restrictions that their economies began growing apace - and actually improving the standard of living for their people.

F1etch, you missed my point.
China and India have an abundance of cheap labor, so their markets were well sought after by the major corporations. Chad, Sudan, Somalia have paltry populations compared to China and India (about 30 Million to 2 Billion), so even if they opened up, they would not see the kinds of growths that China and India have. I believe they would still be poor and desolate.

It takes more than a free market to help out some countries. It takes... god forbid I say it... some handouts and regulations to help others.

Some people act as though people in Africa have forgotten how to farm or fish. On the contrary, they have those skills, but it's hard for a farmer in Africa to compete with some major corporation in America. NAFTA looks great to American companies, but sucks for the local people that didn't have the bargaining skills of the American government.

A free market rewards those that have something others want, like cheap labor or natural resources. What does Chad or Sudan or Somalia have?

I support "fair-trade", not necesarily "free-trade".

The Real Answer
Lestat and Impact seem to be the only ones with an inkling of how to implement a genuine free market in poor countries. All the philanthropy and lessons in economics to poor villagers are not going to solve a single thing without the freedom to act in one's best economic interest.

We wouldn't have an illegal immigrant problem if Mexico and other CA and SA countries were to grant their citizens the freedom of the market, establish individual property rights, and the impartial application of the law. Mexicans would choose to stay in their own country if that were so.

At the same time, the Mexican (and other people) are to blame for their own lack of liberty. By doing nothing to usurp their erstwhile rulers, nonfeasance by the citizens is as much to blame as the misfeasance of the rulers.

We Americans revolted against the British rule 231 years ago, and established the freedom of a free market, along with property rights and the rule of law. The people of the benighted countries can very well do the same.

If any philanthropist sincerely desired to help these people, he would, as Impact alluded to, finance revolutions in unfree countries and guide them to establish political freedom, and economic freedom will follow.

Bryce
If you've ever read anything Stossel's written, you'll know that he supports free markets. I'm sure if he had space to talk about tariffs and subsidies, it would be to oppose them. So if that's the best you have to rebutt Stossel with, it's nowhere near enough.

Free markets
As soon as John Stossel became a free market libertarian, he stopped winning Emmy awards. His explanation of and defense of free market capitalism is concise, easy to understand and so plainly true that it boggles the mind that anyone can even try to defend the discredited ideas of socialism.

Bill Gates doesn't believe that free markets would provide clean water to the poor. Why wouldn't they? Seems to me that capitalism would eagerly want to ensure that people have clean water because clean water means fewer deaths and fewer deaths means a greater number of customers to sell products to.


syler missed F1etch's point
quoth syler: "China and India have an abundance of cheap labor, so their markets were well sought after by the major corporations."

The point is, THIS IS NOT NEW. China and India have ALWAYS had cheap labor.

So why wasn't their economies enjoying explosive growth two decades ago? What changed to create this explosive growth?

I'll tell you what changed: previously they were enjoying one or another flavor of the "fair trade" policies you advocate. Now they're dropping that in favor of Free Trade.

To andrews, again
1) Individuals are sometimes very poor judges of what they need. For example, during the Katrina emergency the Bush administration gave flooded-out people credit cards with large balances, saying that people are the best judge etc.. Many people misused this bounty, as you may recall. What a surprise.

2) Some of what individuals need can be provided only on a communal basis. Should each individual drive only on his own streets? Maintain his own fire department? Would you eliminate all public transportation and restrict people to driving their private automobiles? Should we return to individual cesspools rather than stay with a shared municipal sewer system?

Why don't you take a poll: ask your townspeople whether they would rather be given a new plasma TV, one per household, or have the same amount of money go to fund a program for universal free measles shots for children and flu shots for elders in your community. My guess is that they would choose the TV, and yet controlling contagious disease would be the wiser choice in terms of the public good. Or the choice might be between a per-household cash grant vs cleaning up that swamp on the edge of town where mosquitoes breed---I say they'll choose the money. No, andrews, people cannot be trusted always to make wise decisions. That's one reason we have governments.

The important question is, "WHY"
WHY is Bill Gates reviled for his wealth, but praised for his philanthropy?

WHY do most people instinctively feel "non-profit good, profit bad", to badly paraphrase the Orwellian "four legs good, two legs bad"?

That's because self-interest has become a dirty word in our lexicon, despite the fact that it is honest AND consistent with human nature and the source of productive capitalism.

This is a philosophical dichotomy that causes us to 'feel' our way towards huge mistakes - with the noblest intentions at heart and the counterfeit currency of altruism.

As a result, we 'feel' that Public Education is the only way that we can ensure a quality education. Or, we just hate the idea that doctors, nurses, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make a profit while providing life-saving services and products.

So, we 'feel' our way towards Universal Health Care.

The result: we pretend to be altruistic, and fake our way through life. Since our affluence comes from actions taken in our self-interest, we feel guilty for our success.

Bill Gates' words at Harvard are a manifestation of this unearned guilt.

We claim altruism as a Value - but secretly value our affluence - setting ourselves up for guilt over our well-deserved high standard of living. So, the Joy of attaining our real value (earned through hard work and careful risk-taking) has to be hidden.

Perversely, we honor philanthropy over well-earned wealth. We seem to forget that the process of earning wealth is actually more difficult than the process of giving some of it away. The process of earning wealth also directly or indirectly contributes much more to 'society' than a wealthy person's philanthropy. THAT is why Bill Gates is reviled for earning billions (while revolutionizing the business world), but lauded for giving away a few millions?

What is it in human nature that sets us up for these contradictions? Why are we so susceptible to the mostly manufactured aura of selflessness? If we could answer that, we would have a good understanding of the instinctive dislike that many people have of the profit motive.

Perhaps it might also give us some insight into the phony allure of socialism.

I invite readers to read a new article titled "Slouching Leftward in America" at http://voice.townhall.com/

Unca Alby, China = fair tade? NOT!
Please, inform me of what "fair trade" policies did China ever have? Do you even know what fair trade is?

I'll state my point again, since you missed it. China and India, once they opened up a little bit, were well sought after because of their huge amounts of cheap labor. Plus, they have had a pretty stable government for quite sometime... if you want to call communism stable.

But, for under-developed countries, like a lot of African countries, to say that all they need is a more open market is wrong.

Free-trade with an under-developed country would be great for the US, but would be detrimental for the under-developed country. The under-developed country would not be able to compete with the US's prices unless they turn a blind eye to work safety, the environment, and education.

Until a county is stable and has enough of an economy, trying to "free-trade" with a large power like the US would be suicide.

A country with no infrastructure to actually process their goods will stay poor because they have to export their unprocessed goods (which are cheap) and then re-import the same goods once they're processed (which are more costly).


bingo!
Stossel has nailed it dead-on. (Sounds like he's also been reading Thomas Sowell.) America needs to distribute feedom and capitalim, not foreign aid, to impoverished countries.

dreed, great for the US!
"America needs to distribute feedom and capitalim..."

Well, that sure would benefit the US wouldn't it! More markets for our corporations to export their processed goods to and more markets to import unprocessed goods from. Yippee! Now that loaf of bread will cost just $1.25 instead of $1.50!

Unfotunately, the under-developed countries would remain poor under our pressure for them to export their resources as cheap as possible so that they can compete with the global prices.

If all you care about is how the US fairs in the world, then a totally free-trade market is the way to go. If you care about all humans, whether American or not, then a fair-trade market is needed.

Impoverished Africa will not stand a chance against the US in a free-trade market.

syler -- Chinese "Fair" Trade
See, syler, the problem with "Fair" trade is this --

How do you define it? How do you know when it's "fair"?

Is it "fair" that a man who works 20 hours/week gets paid more than one who works 60?

Is it "fair" for someone to start generating electricity without having all the proper permits and red tape processed?

See, the Communist Chinese government believed they were being "fair". They followed Marxism to its logical end-points -- "from each according to their abilities and to each according to their needs" -- coz, after all, that's only "fair", right?

quoth syler: "I'll state my point again, since you missed it. China and India, once they opened up a little bit, were well sought after because of their huge amounts of cheap labor."

Saying a statement over again doesn't create Truth where none existed. China and India have been a source for cheap labor for a long, long time. That's why all the cheap knick-knacks that have been perennial favorites at the 99 cent stores are always "Made in China". What "opened up a little bit" was the ability of their own people to pursue their own selfish dreams, without requiring nearly as much permission from the central authority as before.

Stossel had a documentary some years back where he actually visited India and Hong Kong as illustrations of polar opposites. He interviewed a fellow who was trying to start a company making clothing. He had already purchased the sewing machines, leased a building, and all he needed was permission from the bureaucrats -- and electricity. Then he interviewed a nearby American company that had power generators -- who was *also* still waiting for permission from the bureaucrats.

Now, the power company wanted to sell electricity to the clothing company, and the clothing company wanted to buy it -- so why not? Except that the bureaucracy was keeping them in perpetual limbo. In the meantime, 400 people had no jobs.

Now, in Hong Kong, he went to their bureaucracy -- he filled out a form consisting of one or two pages, got his business license with a promise to pay 15% tax -- went to a building manager to open a retail outlet in one of their spaces -- and had a business running in *one* *day*.

Hence, the economy in Hong Kong is strong, despite being a non-voting colony of England, and India's economy was weak, despite being a democracy.

syler -- Fruits of Labor
quoth syler: "Free-trade with an under-developed country would be great for the US, but would be detrimental for the under-developed country. The under-developed country would not be able to compete with the US's prices unless they turn a blind eye to work safety, the environment, and education."

What under-developed countries need IS Free Market. However you're correct if you say that the US doesn't enjoy as free a market as it should.

For example, many under-developed countries are priced out of selling crops which enjoy US Farm Subsidies to millionaire agribusiness.

"Until a county is stable and has enough of an economy, trying to "free-trade" with a large power like the US would be suicide."

The country will *never* become stable so long as we continue lavishing them with foreign aid welfare. All that does it prop up failing governments and dictators who, after all is said and done, end up hating us anyway.

"A country with no infrastructure to actually process their goods will stay poor because they have to export their unprocessed goods (which are cheap) and then re-import the same goods once they're processed (which are more costly)."

For example what? Why would they bother importing goods that have been processed in the US? Considering the poverty level I think we're talking about, they'll just do without the "processed" goods.

But in the meantime, with proper rule of law and both a legal and cultural respect for private property, they can sell their goods to the highest bidder. They can invest their resources into the goods that bring the best price. They can economize their processes to increase productivity. And they'll do all of this, since they'll be able to keep the fruits of their labor.

What keeps them poor is the knowledge that all of that work will be for naught when the local dictator gets wind of what's going on and decides it shouldn't be happening outside his immediate circle of cronies.

Free markets are theoretical things
Free market theorists misunderstand what they're talking about. The free market,with all those wonderful attributes celebrated in libertarian tracts and presented as if they're rocket science in the early chapters of standard microeconomics texts, is a theoretical entity. No one, not ever, anywhere, has ever operated a true free market economy. Many people on the Right suffer from the delusion that the US once had such an economy, which was taken over by nasty New Deal liberals. Not so. Not even close. If you look at the real history of the American economy you find, especially during the first few decades of the 19th century, enormous expenditures by the American states to promote infrastructure development and subsidize business. Lotteries, tax breaks, lots of cozy contracts, all at taxpayers' expense in the staetes, led to those great roads and canals and industries that made the US economically powerful. The "free market" did not do this.

Now, to the issue at hand. Some readers have noted correctly that when you read what Gats actually said, there is far less free-market bashing than Stossel claims. However, just repeating mantras to the effect that the free market will solve all problems won't help.

Third world governments really do need to clean up their acts. Nobel-winning economist Amartya Sen has shown in great detail, for instance, that there has never been a famine in modern times that was caused simply by environmental problems--no, he traces such disasters to corrupt governments (usually ones waging civil war against some despised region or ethnic group in their own country).

Maybe somebody, someday will try out the free market--and it will prove to be as magical as its advocates contend. However, in the real world we'll go on having what used to be called "mixed economies," and muddling along while free market ideologues keep telling us that the market will right every wrong and fill every belly.

To the contrary
"It takes more than a free market to help out some countries. It takes... god forbid I say it... some handouts and regulations to help others."

The relative size of China's and India's populations are completely irrelevant. The growth that they have experienced is RELATIVE to their size but has nothing to do with the relative cheapness of their labor force. China has had an abundance of cheap labor all along and yet their economy stagnated for three decades and did not begin to grow until it openned up and began adopting more capitalistic ideas beginning in the 1970s.

The handouts and regulations you endorse actually HAMPER economic growth just as the Mrashall Plan in the wake of World War II resulted in FAR more growth from those countries who received the LEAST direct aid.

"Some people act as though people in Africa have forgotten how to farm or fish. On the contrary, they have those skills, but it's hard for a farmer in Africa to compete with some major corporation in America."

That has nothing to do with it. The problem in Africa is not an inability to compete with the US, but the widespread imposition of socialist and totalitarian regimes that interfere with the efforts of the people to engage in productive behavior and - all too frequently - even feed themselves. Warlords, genocide, trampled upon property rights - THESE are the things that are preventing Africa from prospering.

"NAFTA looks great to American companies, but sucks for the local people that didn't have the bargaining skills of the American government."

NAFTA's problems (which are related to the governmental interference involved) notwithstanding, it has had little impact positive or negative on either side of the border, primarily BECAUSEthe governmental intervention prevents the benefits of simply freer trade from being realized.

"A free market rewards those that have something others want, like cheap labor or natural resources. What does Chad or Sudan or Somalia have?"

Labor, oil and agriculture, but the political situation in these countries - particularly the militant islamosocialist regime in Sudan - has made it nearly impossible for the populations to exploit these resources effectively. Government is the PROBLEM there.

FREE trade has been a boon to everyone who has ever engaged in it. "Fair trade" is just an excuse for governments to intervene and muck it up still further.

lilly
"Individuals are sometimes very poor judges of what they need. For example, during the Katrina emergency the Bush administration gave flooded-out people credit cards with large balances, saying that people are the best judge etc.. Many people misused this bounty, as you may recall. What a surprise."

This is a mischaracterization. It isn't that "individuals are poor judges of what they need". People used those credit cards to buy EXACTLY what they felt they needed. The issue was that they didn't restrain themselves to buying what the hand out program was meant for - as is to be expected from any governement handouts.

"Some of what individuals need can be provided only on a communal basis. Should each individual drive only on his own streets? Maintain his own fire department? Would you eliminate all public transportation and restrict people to driving their private automobiles? Should we return to individual cesspools rather than stay with a shared municipal sewer system?"

Actually, the building of roads began as a private enterprise. The term "turnpike" originally meant a pike across the roadway that could be turned out of the way once a toll was paid. Fire departments also began as a private enterprise. Private bus service is EASILY provided by the private sector (AND MORE EFFICIENTLY). Government is NOT the only means of pooling resources (and it is typically the least efficient). This is not an attack upon road building or sewer systems provided by municipalities, but the premise of your statement is completely inaccurate.

"Why don't you take a poll: ask your townspeople whether they would rather be given a new plasma TV, one per household, or have the same amount of money go to fund a program for universal free measles shots for children and flu shots for elders in your community. My guess is that they would choose the TV, and yet controlling contagious disease would be the wiser choice in terms of the public good."

Not necessarily. In fact, it is entirely possible for the private sector to collect funds for and disseminate vaccines in sufficient quantities to fight contagious diseases (in the absence of government interference) while still leaving more resources to individuals (who can decide for themselves whether or not to buy a plasma TV).

"Or the choice might be between a per-household cash grant vs cleaning up that swamp on the edge of town where mosquitoes breed---I say they'll choose the money. No, andrews, people cannot be trusted always to make wise decisions. That's one reason we have governments."

Actually, the economic incentive to turn the swamp into an economically viable piece of property is HUGE. The chief barrier to the elimination of the mosquito problem is environmental protections for wetlands.

Again, the premise is wrong
"China and India, once they opened up a little bit, were well sought after because of their huge amounts of cheap labor. Plus, they have had a pretty stable government for quite sometime... if you want to call communism stable."

You make my point for me. The issue is not the size of the population but the actions of GOVERNMENT.

"But, for under-developed countries, like a lot of African countries, to say that all they need is a more open market is wrong."

The statement is absurd on its face.

"Free-trade with an under-developed country would be great for the US, but would be detrimental for the under-developed country. The under-developed country would not be able to compete with the US's prices unless they turn a blind eye to work safety, the environment, and education."

Wrong. It is not merely trade policies that are at issue. The poverty in these countries stems from the governmental interference with their DOMESTIC economy - which is far larger than any international activity. Further, the process of comparative advantage allocates resources in such a way so that in a free market countries specialize in what they do most efficiently completely eliminating the "problem" of being "unable to compete" with anyone - let alone the US. The "problem" doesn't exist.

"Until a county is stable and has enough of an economy, trying to 'free-trade' with a large power like the US would be suicide."

As explained previously, there is absolutely no basis for that statement, whatsoever.

"A country with no infrastructure to actually process their goods will stay poor because they have to export their unprocessed goods (which are cheap) and then re-import the same goods once they're processed (which are more costly)."

The only thing preventing the development of the infrastructure to exploit the resources in those countries is the governmental interference in the domestic economy (including restrictions on free trade) that you apparently endorse.

It's still silly
"Unfotunately, the under-developed countries would remain poor under our pressure for them to export their resources as cheap as possible so that they can compete with the global prices."

The statement demonstrates an ignorance of the most basic economic principles that is all-too-familiar from the left. No such "pressure" exists. In fact, the only "pressure" that comes into play is the economic incentive for the people of these countries to make THEMSELVES, individually, better off. Free (not, forgive the oxynmoron "fair") trade benefits EVERYONE...

...when it is allowed to actually take place.

Gestell
The distinction is a false one. No one is claiming that any country in the world is, or, except for the very briefest of times, has been wholly a free market. Nevertheless, those places where the market is MOST free experience the greatest prosperity, so it is entirely appropriate to promote freer markets and oppose those foolhardy ideas - like "fair" (sic) trade and the "contributions" of New Deal liberals - that undermine them, particularly when each step away from freer markets has demonstrably been detrimental to economic prosperity (i.e., the New Deal).

"Third world governments really do need to clean up their acts. Nobel-winning economist Amartya Sen has shown in great detail, for instance, that there has never been a famine in modern times that was caused simply by environmental problems--no, he traces such disasters to corrupt governments (usually ones waging civil war against some despised region or ethnic group in their own country)."

Bing!

"Maybe somebody, someday will try out the free market--and it will prove to be as magical as its advocates contend. However, in the real world we'll go on having what used to be called 'mixed economies,' and muddling along while free market ideologues keep telling us that the market will right every wrong and fill every belly."

But the assumption that the advocacy of freer markets collapses unless the advocacy leads to a completely free market is a false one. The "issue at hand" is the promotion of steps AWAY from free (or merely freer) markets - which is simply imbecilic.

F1etch, you refute without reason
Yes, I totally agree that a country's first problem is that it must get rid of its dictators and oppressors.

But, once the dictator is miraculously overthrown and a stable, peaceful government is in its place, the country is not necessarily ready to move full steam ahead into the free market and compete with major players, like the US.

F1etch, your ideals of free trade for everyone is great for countries that can compete with each other.

"...an industrialized product-exporting/commodity-importing country is wealthy and an undeveloped product-importing/commodity-exporting country is poor"
— J.W. Smith, The World’s Wasted Wealth 2

"At first glance it may seem that the growth in development of export goods such as coffee, cotton, sugar, and lumber, would be beneficial to the exporting country, since it brings in revenue. In fact, it represents a type of exploitation called unequal exchange. A country that exports raw or unprocessed materials may gain currency for their sale, but they lose it if they import processed goods. The reason is that processed goods—goods that require additional labor—are more costly. Thus a country that exports lumber but does not have the capacity to process it must then re-import it in the form of finished lumber products, at a cost that is greater than the price it received for the raw product. The country that processes the materials gets the added revenue contributed by its laborers."
— Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism

Unca Alby, see above quote for an example of a processed good that a country probably can't do without. Another processed good would be medicines.

F1etch, your "one-size-fits-all" economy talk is way off. Not every country will benefit from a truly open and free market until they have the infrastructure to compete on a level playing field.


Reagan: biggest "New Deal Liberal"
..."contributions" of New Deal liberals..."

F1etch, in case you forgot, President Reagan was extremely in favor of foreign aid, so please do not make the mistake of saying foreign aid is a "liberal" idea.

F1etch, handout doesn't mean food
The US hurts poor countries more than it helps when it gives them "free" food. I'm not in favor of throwing free food at poor countries, except in the case of extreme droughts or natural disasters.

What Gates is doing is providing medicines to poor countries. He's not advocating sending massive amounts of free food so that we saturate their markets with our US food and suppress their native farmers.

Now, I see the problem
Rather than choosing to learn about the subject, you have self-selected liberal, anti-capitalist (and economically ignorant) authors with a specific agenda to substitute for economic learning. I suggest instead reading textbooks on basic economics or the works of Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Hazlitt or, in this case as it is particularly relevant, “The Wealth of Nations” by Adam Smith which refuted the nonsense that “the growth in development of export goods … represents a type of exploitation called unequal exchange.” If you’d rather not go through that tome, simply do a search on the concept of “comparative advantage”. Here let me help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

http://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/Details/comparativeadvantage.html

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1421

The last is particularly relevant to the fallacy that comparative advantage (which assures that free trade is ALWAYS beneficial to both the exporting and importing countries) somehow “doesn’t hold” under certain conditions, such as, for example, a “lack of infrastructure” or a lack of economic power sufficient to compete with the US.

It is the notion (completely refuted by actual economic history), that “not every country will benefit from a truly open and free market until they have the infrastructure to compete on a level playing field” that is “way off”.

**

The statement that “President Reagan was extremely in favor of foreign aid” is incredibly disingenuous. There is a vast difference between foreign “aid” which is universally used in this context to reflect charitable financial assistance to other countries and the financial, technological and logistical support that Reagan favored for anti-communist efforts around the world. Legitimate arguments can be made against such interventionist programs, but they are NOT the same thing. Moreover, the backing of a Republican president of any given policy (as the current one clearly demonstrates) has no bearing on whether or not something is “liberal” or not. Democrat vs. republican is not the same thing as liberal vs. conservative. And charitable expenditure by the state (whether domestically or abroad) ALWAYS fits the definition of liberalism.

**

Gates’ foundation does just fine in its deliverance of aid (in the form of medicines, primarily) to third world countries. No one has argued otherwise or suggested that such activities are inappropriate or harmful. The criticism has been directed specifically to his comments endorsing activities by government, which always DOES “hurt[] poor countries more than it helps” them. Stay on topic.

BTW
J. W. Smith is an unrepentant socialist working out of the Institute for Economic (sic) Democracy whose absurd notions (completely refuted by the real world) include the belief that socilaized medicine is "successful", that insurance is wasteful, that socialism has worked better than capitalism, etc.

Robbins is an avowed anti-capitalist and relies heavily upon (debunked) Marxist and dependency theory concepts. He spends much of the work you cite harping on the rise of protestant fundamentalism ("Muslim's, what Muslims?") and misuses basic economic jargon throughout.

As much can be gleaned from relying on either author as quoting from a text on geocentric astronomy. The underlying theory is already on the ash heap of history...

...and with good reason.

glossing over my point
The articles you cited are great... in a perfect utopian world.

"the theory of comparative advantage explains why it can be beneficial for two parties (countries, regions, individuals and so on) to trade if one has a lower relative cost of producing some good"
-- wikipedia, the site you cited.

"A country should specialize in products and services in which they have a comparative advantage. They should then trade with another country that has products in which that country has a comparative advantage." -- wikipedia.

What happens in a poor and under-developed country that can not produce anything? How does that country build roads, schools, factories?

I'm sorry if the authors I quoted do not have the same political or economic beliefs as you... but that does not make them "ignorant".

Rather than holding on to your one-sided view, maybe YOU should "learn about the subject".

Is it OK if I quote Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton? Or are their credentials not good enough for you? Stiglitz won the Nobel prize in economic science in 2001. He was chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank.

In a review by ROBERT B. REICH of Stiglitz and Charlton's book "Fair Trade for All", Robert says

"Stiglitz and Charlton show that standard economic assumptions are wrong when it comes to many developing economies."

"Hence, [Stiglitz and Charlton] argue, the pace at which poorer nations open their markets to trade should coincide with the development of new institutions — roads, schools, banks and the like — that make such transitions easier and generate real opportunities. Since many poor nations can't afford the investments required to build these institutions, rich nations have a responsibility to help."

Again, like I said above... if all you care about is how the US fairs in the global market, then let's make sure EVERY country, no matter how poor or desolate they are, opens up their markets so that we can exploit them.

Again, your premise is flawed
"The articles you cited are great... in a perfect utopian world."

My point is that the theory has worked in actual practice in EVERY particular. There is no such thing as the country that "cannot produce anything". Wealth is created in the free market by the application of labor. There is no such thing as a resourceless country. If your logic held then NO country would EVER have progressed because, at one time these things did not exist anywhere.

"I'm sorry if the authors I quoted do not have the same political or economic beliefs as you... but that does not make them 'ignorant'."

Yes, actually it does. I did not dismiss them for their subjective beliefs; I reject them for their glaring ignorance of established science (economics) and real world history that completely refutes the positions they have taken. My view is not "one sided"; it is consistent with that established science. I have read the works of Marx and Keynes and Heilbroner and even some Chomsky and Stiglitz. Frankly, you'd have made a better choice by selecting Galbraith as the defender of liberal economic policies. He, too, won a Nobel (albeit before his Keynesian notions were surpassed by superior theories and scholarship).

I have spent much of my life "learning about the subject". I've been a practicing economist for more than twenty years.

"Is it OK if I quote Joseph Stiglitz and Andrew Charlton? Or are their credentials not good enough for you? Stiglitz won the Nobel prize in economic science in 2001. He was chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank."

Stiglitz shared a three-way Nobel for work on "asymmetric information". The practical contribution was valuable, but no one in the filed takes his neo-socialist comments about macroeconomics (WAY outside his expertise) at all seriously. he has spent the last few years attempting to defend the indefensible (the economic policies of the Clinton administration put forth by Reich and Rubin).

It's hardly surprising that Reich endorses such nonsense. The fact that a fellow traveller makes such an endorsement doesn't make it any less at odds with both sound economic theory and actual real world experience. Again, you have self-selected a resource not based upon its reliability, but rather based on it being what you want to hear.

And it is quite obvious that MINE is not the "one sided" viewpoint unless the "one side" that I must be relegated to is merely the "accurate" one.

F1etch, you're losing it.
"My point is that the theory has worked in actual practice in EVERY particular."

Where? What country has a truly "free-trade" practice? No one.

And, why is it that all the guys you cite are dead? ;-)

Actually, it's funny you would bring up Hayek. I assume you mean Friedrich A. Hayek, who believed in a more socialist government. One that provided welfare and paid for the arts.

I'm all for a solution that works to end poverty and suffering. But your theory does not hold water in a real world. Free-trade by itself will suppress the already suppressed countries.

Free-trade, along with fair-trade, is what's needed.

F1etch, thank you
I enjoyed our back and forth, even if I was off-topic sometimes.

I do not have an economics background (astonishing, right?), and I will never have the time to read all the economics books that you have. But, I did enjoy reading some of the articles your cited.

My goal is not to necessarily change your views, just to let other readers see both sides of an issue. Because, let's face it, most people do not take the time to hear both sides of an issue unless it's a screaming match on TV.

I'll let you rebute my last post and then that'll be it for me.

syler, you've lost it
"Where? What country has a truly 'free-trade' practice? No one."

You once again fall into the same trap. It is not necessary for "complete freedom" to be achieved. It is merely necessary to compare the more free with the less free. Again, there is no real world example where the populace of a country has EVER been harmed by embracing free (or simply freer) trade.

"And, why is it that all the guys you cite are dead?"

The concepts are still valid. If you wish to read live economists, consider James Buchanan *, Robert Coase *, Gary Becker *, Douglas C. North *, Robert Lucas *, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, William Anderson, Peter Boettke, Hans-Herman Hoppe, David Friedman (son of Milton), Richard M. Ebeling and on and on. (* - Nobel laureate)

"Actually, it's funny you would bring up Hayek. I assume you mean Friedrich A. Hayek, who believed in a more socialist government. One that provided welfare and paid for the arts."

Yes, I meant Friedrich A. von Hayek. the one you describe, however, is a figment of your imagination (or a mischaracterization of his words by some nonsensical liberal source).

"I'm all for a solution that works to end poverty and suffering. But your theory does not hold water in a real world. Free-trade by itself will suppress the already suppressed countries."

It is not my fault that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about. Free trade (or if you insist, merely trade that is MORE free) has, without exception, had exactly the OPPOSITE effect. There has never been a case where free trade has EVER "suppressed" any country.

"Fair trade" is an oxymoron. No one can rationally attempt to make assertions about what happens in the "real world" and then argue in favor of it. It means nothing more than "unfree trade" as it is all about imposing the same sort of governmental interference that keeps trade from being free in the first place.

reply to Fletch
Am I correct in thinking I see evidence that you believe in the textbook distinction between "positive" and "normative" economics? I note that you find the concept of "fair trade" unacceptable. Is that because you believe that concepts like "fair" and "just," among many others are simply subjective preferences? As you know "positive" economics depends on the premise--which is philosophical and does not belong to any sort of science--that all statements in which people make judgments of good/bad or right/wrong are expressions of subjecive biases, and have no place in thinking about economics.

Unfortunately for this particular philosophical opinion, most people don't look at either the economies in which they operate or the world at large in this way. The fact that they don't--and shouldn't-- used to be a cornerstone of conservatism.

Reply to Gestell
Yes, I accept the distinction between positive and normative economics as concepts. However, the distinction is not relevant in thsi case. Free trade is the absence of interference with the free exchange of goods and services. "Fair trade" is, by definition, UN-free trade in that it expressly embraces governmental interference in trade based upon such things as labor and envirinmental policy. From a purely economic standpoint - that is, without the influence of subjective moral judgment - free trade yields the greatest possible level of prosperity to both sides of the transaction.

Should the scope of the discussion be expanded beyond merely the trade itself to include the impacts on labor and the environment, it can, again, be asserted that (from an entirely objective economic standpoint), free trade is superior to any type of "unfree" trade (including "fair trade"). The greater economic prosperity related to free trade must, inevitably, benefit workers (and real world experience completely bears this out) and the correlation between economic prosperity and environmental improvement is such that the case for the environmental benefits of free trade outweighs the (typically unrealized) environmental benefit ostensibly demanded under related "fair trade" agreements.

The nature of liberty and justice happens to be the subject of my latest column but I expressly concede the difference between the objective economic approach and the philosophical one that it entails.

General Consensus
It seems that most here are saying Stossel, Smart. Gates, Dumb.

Let me see, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't
it Stossel who suggested we should bargain for
the cost of individual health care, sort of like the bargaining that goes on in an Indian market.


I can't imagine how anyone could give him any
credibility in the field of economics after that
ridiculous column. I'm still laughing, or would
be if I knew how I was going to pay for my
insurance policy after I retire.

viruddh
What he actually said was:

"This is not to say that we don't need insurance. We need it to protect us against financial catastrophes that could result from a stroke or heart attack. That's why Health Savings Accounts, which cover smaller out-of-pocket health expenditures, are paired with high-deductible catastrophic insurance. That's a good thing."

The argument is not only economically sound (as is this latest) but completely accurate. In fact, the whole point of insurance initially was to mitigate the risk of unforeseen catastrophic events, not foreseeable expenditures, which is why insurance did not initially cover general health expenditures. And employer provided health insurance is so inefficient overall that it wasn't until WWII when the government foolishly implemented wage and price controls (forcing employers to adopt non-wage means of attracting and retaining the best workers) that the practice really took hold.

Before "laughing" at someone you wish to criticize, it might behoove you to ensure that your criticism is at all accurate.

F1etch, look at history.
OK, I'm back from my vacation.

How did the US become so strong economically? Did the US practice a "free-trade" policy like you advocate for the developing countries?

NO! Starting in the late 1800's, the US practiced protectionism and subsidies to get where it is today. Remember, the Civil War was more about tariffs than slavery.

So, why does the US demand that developing countries adopt a free-trade policy when even the US didn't?

Even Adam Smith's country, Great Britain, used protectionism and subsidies to become an economic powerhouse. It's convenient that he would preach free-trade AFTER his country had gotten rich by NOT using free-trade.

I admit that some developing countries need to open their markets up a little more. But, to advocate free-trade without allowing them to use the same protectionist rules that the US did when it was an emerging country is hypocritical.

Name one country that practiced free-trade without protectionism and subsidies to go from a developing country to a great economic force.

syler - Free Trade is not Binary
Well, Fletch can say it better than me, but he's not up yet so I'll take a stab at it anyway.

First off, and I think this has been mentioned, "free trade" isn't a binary proposition. You don't have a situation of either having it or not having it.

What you have is some countries are free-er than others. Yes, protectionism exists, and has always existed. But everywhere it has existed, there have been consequences. We have it today, to the detriment of consumers both domestic and overseas.

quoth syler: "Name one country that practiced free-trade without protectionism and subsidies to go from a developing country to a great economic force."

Name one country that practiced *less* free-trade than a contemporary and simultaneously created *more* wealth and prosperity than said contemporary.

I'll point you to my favorite example: North and South Korea. Find any single attribute that's different between the two countries: same people, same culture, same heritage, same resources, same access to trade. Yet, despite all of these identical traits, guess which one has 20 times the per-capita GDP. Guess which one is free-er.

No, they're not 100% free. They're just a lot closer to 100% than their neighbor.

Unca Alby
Add West/East Germany and Hong Kong - Taiwan/Red China to your list of actual REAL WORLD examples where identical cultures are separated into a capitalist and socialist (Communist) system.

Great thread - Fletch folds, spindles and mutilates the socialist/liberal side again!

Unca Alby, buzzkat
Where in my posts did I say that a dictatorship, or communist regime, would do better economically than a democratically elected leader? Nowhere, so drop the comparison between North/South Korea, East/West Germany, etc.

My point is simple and factual... telling a developing country that it has to open its markets up to the global economy without allowing it to first build its infrastructure with subsidies and tariffs is hypocritical since NOT ONE MAJOR COUNTRY DID THAT TO GET TO WHERE IT IS TODAY.

And, buzzkat, even with a total conservative congress and president, the US did not remove its tariffs and subsidies... so do not pretend that my ideas are just those of liberals or socialists.

Libertarians, like Stossel, might like the idea of removing all tariffs and subsidies for all countries, but when's the last time you remember a Libertarian country?



syler -- If you're Still Here
No, syler -- it's not the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship.

It's the difference between a FREE(er) MARKET and a LESS-FREE one.

History: 10-20 years ago.
Hong Kong -- huge prosperity, huge per capita GDP, and NO DEMOCRACY. They were a colony of Great Britain, remember? Taxation without representation and all that?

India -- a STELLAR democracy. But it was ruled by the bureaucrats. The rules instituted in this democracy precluded the ability of private citizens to make an honest buck. Hence, poverty on a *massive* scale.

Democracy has very little to do with it. *Free Markets* is the key.

quoth syler: "when's the last time you remember a Libertarian country?"

You miss the point completely. It's not a situation where you can't have prosperity UNLESS you have ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FREEDOM. It's simply a matter that the MORE freedom you can achieve, the BETTER OFF everyone is going to be.

Sure we have lots of tariffs, and lots of protectionism, many put in place by so-called "conservatives." But in each and every case, we lost opportunities to create more wealth for the nation. In each and every case, we made ourselves all a little poorer for the effort. Bush's steel tariff saved a few thousand jobs in the steel industry, but cost 10's of thousands of jobs in all the other industries that *use* steel.

Sure, no country has ever achieved perfect freedom. Is that a reason not to seek it out? Is that a reason to run *away* from freedom? Is that a reason to deny it to the impoverished nations of the world that need it the most?

I know I am late posting here, but
Fletch, you rock!
It is so nice to hear your expertise again.

lilly writes: Wednesday, June, 20, 20
"Why don't you take a poll: ask your townspeople whether they would rather be given a plasma TV, or have the money go to fund measles shots for children and flu shots for elders in your community. My guess is that they would choose the TV."
I took you up on your suggestion and went to 20 of my neighbors and asked them: "If you had the choice between a free plasma tv or having the
same amount of money go to an immunization program for the children and the elderly in town which would you chose?" After they answered I
asked them to tell me why they made that choice. After the primary poll was done I also asked them if they felt they were more conservative or
more liberal. No party just their philosophy. Results were: 6 felt more liberal. 5 of those wanted the television. They reasoned the gvmnt would pay for the program. 1 chose to donate - felt it was the right thing to do. 2 wouldn't or couldn't state a philosophy (though knowing them for years I can say they tend toward social lib a little). Both chose to donate. 12 said they were conservatives of various levels, 2 chose the tv. They were resigned to the idea that the gvmnt would run the program so they might as well enjoy the tv. The other 10 would donate the money. 3 said that if the government did it they would raise our taxes but the rest said it was the right thing to do. I did this on a Saturday AM by walking around my neighborhood and asking people as I found them. You are right that people don't always make wise decisions but that is called active evolution and if the choice made is unwise enough then removal from the gene pool is a likely result.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.