In praise of celebrity economists
If "celebrity economists" have any value to the world, it's when they eject the constraints of their dismal science, clear their throats, and start influencing public opinion in ways that contribute to the common good. This is why I now love Paul Krugman, though his pro-globalism positions really used to burn me up back in the Clinton years. I've also come to love Jeffrey Sachs, whose new book The End of Poverty seems worth reading, especially now that people are paying attention to the UN Millennium Project again. In this CounterPunch interview, Sachs not only drops a handful of practical suggestions on how to start eliminating world poverty, but exorts us lazy-ass Americans to start making a difference ourselves:
Politicians in Washington think Americans don't care. I don't believe that. The Americans I know do care, but they need to tell their members of Congress that it is not a dangerous vote to support increased U.S. efforts to help the poorest of the poor in the world.
Just drop a one-sentence note to your Congressman and Senators: "This is not a dangerous vote. We want to help. It is going to make a safer world for us, and it is part of our moral and religious values. We want to be saving children if they can be saved."
The political voice is crucial because our country needs to stand up and do more than we are doing right now. Our country is not really engaged in this effort with the intensity many Americans assume we are, and certainly not at the level we have promised to be and can afford to be. Public opinion polls show Americans believe we spend 25% of our federal budget on foreign aid, when it is really less than 1%. We're providing very, very small amounts of help, much smaller than we said we would.
posted by Mark D. @ 10:40 PM |
| 
3 Comments:
Herein lies the problem.
How does the US count the cost of the aircraft carrier that provided freshwater to Tsunami victims?
What part of the cost of liberating Iraq from a brutal dictator is counted?
Is the private investment in China that is influencing the political process not an essential part of America's global effort?
How do you count? Is it only the money that passes thru a third party's (often sticky) hands that measures our contribution?
Signed,
-Censored.
And what about the cost of buying arms for our quasi-despotic allies?
Censored, you do ask some good questions, but remember we're talking about poverty alleviation here. The U.S. made some admirable efforts in tsunami relief, but that's disaster relief, not poverty alleviation. Same goes for brutally offing a brutal dictator in Iraq: I've heard very little talk about poverty relief operations anywhere in that country. In fact, I don't recall any American efforts to compensate for the abrupt departure of Doctors without Borders last November...
And I'm fairly certain that China's state-capitalist economy is perfectly suitable to American interests at present, and that private investors could give a rat's ass about Chinese poverty.
But your last point is important: throwing "foreign aid" at a situation definitely increases the chances for graft and corruption. Which is precisely why Sachs's practical suggestions seem so sensible (see the interview).
Post a Comment
<< Home