One problem, two Floridians, three ways

A few days ago, in the wake of recent controversy over police shootings, Karl Denninger posted a piece on violence and fecklessness in the black community, for which he blames misguided welfare interventions:

"We have spent the entire time since Great Society providing incentives for this behavior and we've gotten a hell of a lot more of it. The blame for this is ours -- specifically yours and mine."

He advocates cutting benefits to make a subsidised layabout lifestyle less comfortable, and one can see a certain logic to it - this kind of argument is also aired in the UK not infrequently.

But six hours away from where Karl lives someone has tried a different approach:

Twenty years ago, the Orlando, Fla. neighborhood of Tangelo Park was a crime-infested place where people were afraid to walk down the street. The graduation rate at the local high school was 25 percent. Having amassed a fortune from his success in the hotel business, Rosen decided Tangelo Park needed some hospitality of its own.

“Hospitality really is appreciating a fellow human being,” Rosen told Gabe Gutierrez in a segment that aired on TODAY Wednesday. “I came to the realization that I really had to now say, ‘Thank you.’’’

Rosen, 73, began his philanthropic efforts by paying for day care for parents in Tangelo Park, a community of about 3,000 people. When those children reached high school, he created a scholarship program in which he offered to pay free tuition to Florida state colleges for any students in the neighborhood.

In the two decades since starting the programs, Rosen has donated nearly $10 million, and the results have been remarkable. The high school graduation rate is now nearly 100 percent, and some property values have quadrupled. The crime rate has been cut in half, according to a study by the University of Central Florida.

"We've given them hope,’’ Rosen said. “We've given these kids hope, and given the families hope. And hope is an amazing thing."

Not that day nurseries are always the answer. Today, Peter Hitchens - scarcely a left-winger - repeats his support for the right of women to stay home to raise their children:

"A significant number of homes – four per cent – lose money by having both parents at work. Many – ten per cent – gain nothing from this arrangement. Yet they still do it. Many more gain so little that it is barely worth the bother. The most amazing statistic of the past year (produced by insurance company Aviva) shows that thousands of mothers who go out to work are, in effect, working for nothing. The cost of day orphanages, travel and other work expenses cancels out everything they earn. Many more barely make a profit on the arrangement. One in four families has a parent who brings home less than £100 a month after all the costs of work have been met."

There's too much polarisation in politics. It seems that either the police are murderous racists or infallible heroes who must be supported no matter what they do; either we throw money at the poor or penny-pinch them into work, either we raise the minimum wage or abolish it (we discussed this with Don Boudreaux of George Mason University* a few years ago)... And of course, as Denninger observes, there is the politician making himself seemingly indispensable on either side.

Yet Harris Rosen doesn't fit the false dichotomies. What he did was an act of private charity, practical help instead of either blaming or faux-championing the poor. And it worked.

What a shame if politicians became redundant; if their catastrophic broad-brush solutions, infested by office boxwallahs and lawyers, were replaced by intelligently targeted initiatives; if we had a fair society instead of a Great one.
_______________________________

* A university supported by the somewhat controversial billionaire Koch Brothers.


READER: PLEASE CLICK THE REACTION BELOW - THANKS!

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Food poverty and the need for consumer education

The poorest 10% in the UK have significantly less money than they used to, but could still eat healthily. That's one message in DEFRA's 2012 Food Statistics Pocketbook:

As their income dropped, people in this group spent 26% less than before on carcase (fresh) meat, 25% less on fruit and 15% less on vegetables (p.28).

The Eatwell plate may not be right - some claim dietary starch is a factor leading to obesity and diabetes - and libertarians may object to what they see as nannying by the State. Those objections aside, surely there is room for more public education on how to use limited financial resources to best effect?

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. Unless indicated otherwise, all internet links accessed at time of writing. Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Poverty is OK

Robin Hanson looks forward to being poor. But I fear the path there won't take us to the anonymous semi-contentment of the Dark Ages, because it passes through population crash first.

A glimpse of the past

Out with my wife's relations on Saturday in the Black Country (the old coal-fired industrial area). One elder recalled that when they were poor, his mother would put the kettle on the stove on a Sunday, so the windows would steam up and the neighbours would think that they were cooking lunch.

The coming tide

Thanks to Tyrone for his comment directing us to a YouTube presentation by W E Pollock, someone I've viewed with interest before. The comment was in response to an FTAphaville piece that asked why the Dow was rising so strongly.

Pollock, whose presentations are useful to the layman because he is at pains to be clear and calm, notes that the volume of trade is low, which may mislead us as to the value of the market as a whole. It is as if, in a slow-moving housing market, your neighbour suddenly manages to sell his house for much more than expected, because the purchaser has certain private reasons to get in.
He also notes that the gains on the Dow are counteracted by the fall in the dollar's value, and this is a theme I've touched on many times. You have to look at real gains; and even when you think you're beating the present rate of inflation in your country, currency exchange movements may be the early indicators of higher future inflation. This is why, comparing where we are now to the period 1966 - 1982, I think we may yet see the real-terms equivalent of Dow 4,000 and FTSE 2,000.

Pollock goes on to consider gold, over which he puzzles (but then, there's a lot of dirty work and hugger-mugger in that market); and oil - if foreign economies begin to recover and industrial production rises, increasing the demand for oil, then if the dollar continues to be weak the price of energy in the USA will become so high as to damage growth prospects there.

So, where are we with all this?

Even academic economists are beginning (very belatedly) to question the validity of their models. Across the world, the games are so weighted and rigged, the rules so suddenly variable, that we are talking about how things ought to work, rather than how they really do. This is why it's now a fertile ground for conspiracy theorists: there really is a lot of conspiracy. Trouble is, we don't know all of the plots, all of the players, and all of the details.

What I think we can do, is look at the ocean tide, and not at the individual waves.

Historically, Western countries became wealthy on technological advances and were able to sell goods not just to each other, but to undeveloped countries in exchange for cheap resources. Then the latter countries began to industrialise, and goods could be carried at low unit cost in vast bulk across oceans and continents. All that remained was to break down political barriers to trade, as Nixon began to do with his visit to China in 1972.

Trouble is, controlling the rate of change. It's one thing to turn on your oil-fired central heating, another if your fuel storage tank catches fire. We want to carry on as we are (or as we used to be), but poor people are in a hurry to attain our wealthy lifestyles, and are disinclined to progress more slowly. Vast international businesses and globe-trotting billionaires stand to do very well out of facilitating this trade; national politicians are under pressure from their voters to resist it - but on a personal level, will know how rich they themselves will be when they leave office, so long as they don't try too hard for the people who elected them.

So, while I don't quite subscribe to the Dick-Dastardly-and-Mutley view of politician's summits (G-name-a-figure, Bilderberg, et al.), I can see the natural attraction for them of a world (or at least supranational) government. It means being further away from the Great Unwashed, mixing with all the Right People, fine wines and yachts etc; it means going with the flow, helping wealth and power to gather into certain centres, and organising dole handouts to regions that lose out as a result. Only the fools will try to play King Canute.

Imagine the world economies as a series of canal locks descending a steep hill. We are in the top section, the poor countries lower down. Now if all the gates are opened at once, there will be a destructive gush of water; the narrowboats in the top lock sink into the mud; the ones at the bottom float on a higher tide; a brave soul on a surfboard (the international trader) rides a thrilling wave down the hill.

Free-traders will argue that trade brings mutual benefits; but I don't think the argument works when world income disparities are so great. A Dutchman bought Manhattan from the occupying tribe for $24, but I doubt they'd get it back for that price now, not even with 400 years' interest.

It's coming, it's coming fast, it's coming destructively; and the people we pay to stop it are telling us the lies we want to hear and planning their personal advancement*. Let us return the favour.

* “It is a totally wrong notion of people to assume that the government does anything for the people; the government is there to do something for itself, and not for the people” – Marc Faber on GoldSeek, 12 September 2009

A glimpse from the rich man's coach

Here is a letter to the NYT from the insouciant Don Boudreaux. Unfortunately the comments to this piece on Cafe Hayek are closed - I wonder why? So I'll have to note here that it stirred a memory...

‘Now, you know,’ said Mr. Bounderby, taking some sherry, ‘we have never had any difficulty with you, and you have never been one of the unreasonable ones. You don’t expect to be set up in a coach and six, and to be fed on turtle soup and venison, with a gold spoon, as a good many of ’em do!’

Hard Times, by Charles Dickens

And another, from Shaw's Pygmalion:

I ask you, what am I? I'm one of the undeserving poor: that's what I am. Think of what that means to a man. It means that he's up agen middle class morality all the time. If there's anything going, and I put in for a bit of it, it's always the same story: 'You're undeserving; so you can't have it.' But my needs is as great as the most deserving widow's that ever got money out of six different charities in one week for the death of the same husband. I don't need less than a deserving man: I need more. I don't eat less hearty than him; and I drink a lot more. I want a bit of amusement, cause I'm a thinking man. I want cheerfulness and a song and a band when I feel low. Well, they charge me just the same for everything as they charge the deserving. What is middle class morality? Just an excuse for never giving me anything.

The American Declaration of Independence states "all men are created equal", and of course it was obvious even then that they are not so, whether by birth, upbringing, education or natural talent. Not, in those senses; but the bold defiance of Nature and Society represented by the libertarian revolution of America, and of revolutionary France, is that they have, they should be given, equal dignity, as of right.

And unless a tenured economics professor who boasts of not voting, in a colony that rebelled on the principle of "no taxation without representation", wishes to see the poor squashed while the rich loot the country without fear of retribution, he will need to develop his thesis somewhat.

I do not see how a country can be composed exclusively of the well-off, nor can I imagine how, given all their disadvantages, the poor may rise up as one and join the middle class. There will always be inequality, so our debate should be about setting a minimum standard for the poorest, while motivating them to better themselves if they possibly can. That's certainly a circle that will take some squaring, and a benefit-trap-riddled Britain can scarcely present itself as a model answer.

But I don't see how air conditioning and two cars (what? all poor families?) quite make up for the miseries of ill-health, disability and a shorter lifespan. And it's not entirely down to consciously-made bad choices, in quite the way Mr Boudreaux implies. The ideal-world notion of rational choice has to take into acount real-world limited intelligence, inadequate information, poorer education and in many cases disharmonious emotional constitutions produced by poor parenting, lousy neighbours, failing schools and fear of crime and destitution.

Dives should not look down upon Lazarus.

Killer greens

Stuart Staniford takes a point I've read recently in Vernon Coleman's "Oil Apocalypse", about biofuels threatening food supplies for the world's poor, and extrapolates frighteningly:

... both oil and cereals are global commodity markets. If it's profitable to make food into fuel in the US, even without a subsidy, then it's profitable elsewhere also - possibly more so given lower labor costs. So the basic growth dynamics are the same. The infection just hasn't got as strong a grip on the whole globe yet, but it's growing at similar rates.

... I expect oil prices to increase in the medium term, though certainly they could go down in the short-term if the credit crunch affects the global economy enough.

... When we have a bidding war between the gas tanks of the roughly one billion middle class people on the planet, and the dinner tables of the poor, where does that reach equilibrium?

... We noted earlier that according to the UN about 800 million people are unable to meet minimal dietary energy requirements. That is 12% of the world population. [...] we can estimate that a doubling in food prices over 2000 levels might bring 30% or so of the global population below the level of minimal dietary energy requirements, and a quadrupling of food prices over 2000 levels might bring 60% or so of the global population into that situation.