Excellent timing (at the holidays and on the heels of the wright/hitchens religion debate) for an excellent topic discussed by two experts on the topic. THANK YOU! Makes me remember that the discussion of whether religion is good or bad is the discussion of a symptom, not a cause. What it all boils down to, in the end and IMO, is whether individual people are good or bad or indifferent. Despite what too many people believe, goodness does not rub off on one via one's religion or via one's devotion to God or via one's group membership/identity. Nor does one do good by not doing bad, or by just verbally condemning bad and espousing good. Turns out, it's hard to do good. I have found that a parsimonious definition of good combined with a healthy skepticism of one's personal level of goodness is a useful working model and a strong motivator. Apparently, I am in the minority with this position. Most people I have this discussion with feel that giving $100 to juvenile diabetes research because their friend's son has diabetes is the equivalent on the goodness scale to giving that $100 to

Quoting Me&theboys: Excellent timing (at the holidays and on the heels of the wright/hitchens religion debate) for an excellent topic discussed by two experts on the topic. THANK YOU! Makes me remember that the discussion of whether religion is good or bad is the discussion of a symptom, not a cause. What it all boils down to, in the end and IMO, is whether individual people are good or bad or indifferent. Despite what too many people believe, goodness does not rub off on one via one's religion or via one's devotion to God or via one's group membership/identity. Nor does one do good by not doing bad, or by just verbally condemning bad and espousing good. Turns out, it's hard to do good. I have found that a parsimonious definition of good combined with a healthy skepticism of one's personal level of goodness is a useful working model and a strong motivator. Apparently, I am in the minority with this position. Most people I have this discussion with feel that giving $100 to juvenile diabetes research because their friend's son has diabetes is the equivalent on the goodness scale to giving that $100 to

Quoting Me&theboys: Most people I have this discussion with feel that giving $100 to juvenile diabetes research because their friend's son has diabetes is the equivalent on the goodness scale to giving that $100 to feed a starving child they don't personally know. In terms of personal sacrifice they may be equivalent, but in terms of good, I think they are a world apart.

Worlds apart also in terms of overall good are the two main views of helping people in the U.S. Help someone learn how to help him/herself and you propagate that which is best in mankind. Keep someone dependant on your help for political power and you not only stifle their potential as a human being, you perpetuaute their misery and facilitate the socialist road-to-hell patronage that has grown into much worse where it has been tried (and failed) before. Kind of fitting as our representatives vote to take over 1/7th of our economy to buy political power. Hardly surprising is the reason they felt compelled to rush it through before the holiday, the more the people found out about it, the worse it looked. Peace and good will to everyone, Merry Christmas.

Quoting Me&theboys: Excellent timing (at the holidays and on the heels of the wright/hitchens religion debate) for an excellent topic discussed by two experts on the topic. THANK YOU! Makes me remember that the discussion of whether religion is good or bad is the discussion of a symptom, not a cause. What it all boils down to, in the end and IMO, is whether individual people are good or bad or indifferent. Despite what too many people believe, goodness does not rub off on one via one's religion or via one's devotion to God or via one's group membership/identity. Nor does one do good by not doing bad, or by just verbally condemning bad and espousing good. Turns out, it's hard to do good. I have found that a parsimonious definition of good combined with a healthy skepticism of one's personal level of goodness is a useful working model and a strong motivator. Apparently, I am in the minority with this position. Most people I have this discussion with feel that giving $100 to juvenile diabetes research because their friend's son has diabetes is the equivalent on the goodness scale to giving that $100 to

Quoting harkin: Help someone learn how to help him/herself and you propagate that which is best in mankind.

Yes, but sometimes you have to help people first to reach the point when they can help themselves.

Peace and good will to everyone, Merry Christmas.

Happy Holidays and Peace for the New Year!

Great diavlog, and an excellent catch getting peter Singer here. Still, Bill Easterly needs to do something about his political naivete http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/248...8:31&out=28:59 Senators from Nebraska are incredibly powerful! If American taxpayers that spend billions every year to enrich farm state agribusinesses can't get the farm bill repealed, how do impoverished people in the developing world have a prayer?

Quoting Don Zeko: Great diavlog, and an excellent catch getting peter Singer here. Still, Bill Easterly needs to do something about his political naivete

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/248...8:31&out=28:59

Senators from Nebraska are incredibly powerful! If American taxpayers that spend billions every year to enrich farm state agribusinesses can't get the farm bill repealed, how do impoverished people in the developing world have a prayer?

Actually the majority of voters are *in favor* of the farm bills. People don't vote their pocket-books, they vote their ideals and emotional impulses.

True, true, but I don't think that the majority of people are in favor of the reforms that Easterly suggests; they are simply unaware that this problem exists. I think that the same is true of the Farm Bill.

Quoting Don Zeko: True, true, but I don't think that the majority of people are in favor of the reforms that Easterly suggests; they are simply unaware that this problem exists. I think that the same is true of the Farm Bill.

Exactly. So Easterly advocates informing and educating. I wouldn't say that he's naive, though, quite the opposite.

I listened to this while editing pictures. I later wrote about the Details for my blog.
I enjoyed this conversation. The two men listened to each other, and agreed on a lot of points. While stormy disagreements have their place, it is enjoyable to see some civility. This was quite the contrast to the unlistenable Hitchens fiasco. The two men did not respond to each other, but had concurrent monologs. They might as well have posted separate rants for all that they responded to each other.

Yet with regard to the clip I posted, the implication I read from his remark was that the (ridiculous on the merits) objections of parochial farm state Senators is an obstacle that one can easily overcome given a non-trivial amount of public pressure. I don't think this is true; the Farm Bill demonstrates that, even if the merits of their case are laughable and wonks of every ideological persuasion hate the policy, farms state Senators can defend their interests even if that requires them to wring billions of dollars out of the rest of the country. This is depressing, and bodes poorly for a rational food aid policy.

http://fora.tv/2009/06/05/Uncommon_K...e_Dambisa_Moyo In the words of Jim Carry Merry Christy Christy Christmas !!!!!! (pushback to aclu type disgust with all mentions of religion)

I think Bill Easterly has good intentions, but he's dead wrong (in my opinion) about driving out local manufacturers as causing harm. Easterly knows how helpful free trade is, and the usual logical argument for that is that getting free stuff is even better! It's important to make bed nets, for instance, because people need them. If there are plenty of them there are other helpful things (even in poorest Africa) for the manufacturers to do. The real way of viewing it is that if there is a significant indigenous bednet industry then there is less likely to be a shortage of bednets and so perhaps there is something more helpful to give. The marginal benefit is not negative, but just lower than it could be. I've also complained at his blog about the focus on paternalism vs dignity. Paternalist attitudes may offend intellectuals, but dignity doesn't put food on the table. I think that poor people would rather receive some assistance even at the expense of some dignity (many low-paying jobs, for instance are not very dignified). The relatively well off (like Easterly and his African intellectual friends) can afford

Quoting T.G.G.P: I think Bill Easterly has good intentions, but he's dead wrong (in my opinion) about driving out local manufacturers as causing harm. Easterly knows how helpful free trade is, and the usual logical argument for that is that getting free stuff is even better! It's important to make bed nets, for instance, because people need them. If there are plenty of them there are other helpful things (even in poorest Africa) for the manufacturers to do. The real way of viewing it is that if there is a significant indigenous bednet industry then there is less likely to be a shortage of bednets and so perhaps there is something more helpful to give. The marginal benefit is not negative, but just lower than it could be.

I've also complained at his blog about the focus on paternalism vs dignity. Paternalist attitudes may offend intellectuals, but dignity doesn't put food on the table. I think that poor people would rather receive some assistance even at the expense of some dignity (many low-paying jobs, for instance are not very dignified). The relatively well off (like Easterly and his African intellectual friends) can afford

This was an excellent interchange on charitable giving for relief of the symptoms of poverty. Bill provided welcome emphasis on how hard it is to do that well. Bill was also especially strong in emphasizing that cash is not enough. He might have connected this with his comments on USG civilian assistance to Afghanistan. When budgets get that big, they become entirely political. And of course in this case the military has the dominant voice. The third 'D' -- Development -- is present in name only. It's regrettable to characterize that as USAID's doing, by the way. USAID programs clearly are different in less politically charged environments. And I hope Bill doesn't really believe that an official working group on USG civilian assistance to Afghanistan has anything to do with "fixing" it in any sense Bill would recognize. Finally, the other thing that is sad, besides the symptoms of poverty themselves, is the institutional structure in poor societies, above the heads of the poor people, that perpetuates it. The Pete-Bill interchange didn't really get into changing that -- code word: development -- probably because it's an order of magnitude harder than even good charitable giving for relief, and because it's

Quoting T.G.G.P: I think Bill Easterly has good intentions, but he's dead wrong (in my opinion) about driving out local manufacturers as causing harm. Easterly knows how helpful free trade is, and the usual logical argument for that is that getting free stuff is even better! It's important to make bed nets, for instance, because people need them. If there are plenty of them there are other helpful things (even in poorest Africa) for the manufacturers to do. The real way of viewing it is that if there is a significant indigenous bednet industry then there is less likely to be a shortage of bednets and so perhaps there is something more helpful to give. The marginal benefit is not negative, but just lower than it could be.

I don't see a parallel with free-trade at all. To trade two parties need to come together: one offering a good or service and the other offering to pay for it. In the case of aid, unfortunately, items are brought in without asking if they are wanted. They might be welcome in some case, but in other cases they might also do harm. We just don't know. I think

Quoting Don Zeko: Yet with regard to the clip I posted, the implication I read from his remark was that the (ridiculous on the merits) objections of parochial farm state Senators is an obstacle that one can easily overcome given a non-trivial amount of public pressure. I don't think this is true; the Farm Bill demonstrates that, even if the merits of their case are laughable and wonks of every ideological persuasion hate the policy, farms state Senators can defend their interests even if that requires them to wring billions of dollars out of the rest of the country. This is depressing, and bodes poorly for a rational food aid policy.

I think you're right, but I suspect Easterly also agrees with you. Just because reality is stacked up against better ideas, what else can we do but continue to voice them?

If one really wants to see just how ridicules farm subsidies can be take a look at the sugar subsidies. In Florida they go to I believe 7 (memory) families, have resulted in the destruction of vast areas of the Everglades, and do nothing but keep the price of sugar about 3 times what it is else where in the world. Tie this into the import restrictions, we place on sugar, and the billions slated for Everglades restoration and the true folly of the government intervention becomes obvious.

Quoting piscivorous: If one really wants to see just how ridicules farm subsidies can be take a look at the sugar subsidies. In Florida they go to I believe 7 (memory) families, have resulted in the destruction of vast areas of the Everglades, and do nothing but keep the price of sugar about 3 times what it is else where in the world. Tie this into the import restrictions, we place on sugar, and the billions slated for Everglades restoration and the true folly of the government intervention becomes obvious.

Merry Christmas, pisc. Is there any value to be considered, as far as the jobs created in the fields and factories to get the sugar to market?

Quoting look: Merry Christmas, pisc. Is there any value to be considered, as far as the jobs created in the fields and factories to get the sugar to market?

That is what is seen.

Quoting Unit: That is what is seen.

Thanks, Unit, that was very informative.

Quoting look: Thanks, Unit, that was very informative.

It's nothing. Isn't Bastiat amazing? He's writing more than 150 years ago and it's as fresh as written yesterday. I love this quote: "Good Lord! What a lot of trouble to prove in political economy that two and two make four; and if you succeed in doing so, people cry, "It is so clear that it is boring." Then they vote as if you had never proved anything at all." and this one: "When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge

Quoting Unit: It's nothing. Isn't Bastiat amazing? He's writing more than 150 years ago and it's as fresh as written yesterday. I love this quote:

"Good Lord! What a lot of trouble to prove in political economy that two and two make four; and if you succeed in doing so, people cry, "It is so clear that it is boring." Then they vote as if you had never proved anything at all."

and this one:

"When we oppose subsidies, we are charged with opposing the very thing that it was proposed to subsidize and of being the enemies of all kinds of activity, because we want these activities to be voluntary and to seek their proper reward in themselves. Thus, if we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in religious matters, we are atheists. If we ask that the state not intervene, by taxation, in education, then we hate enlightenment. If we say that the state should not give, by taxation, an artificial value to land or to some branch of industry, then we are the enemies of property and of labor. If we think that the state should not subsidize artists, we are barbarians who judge the arts useless."

He's

Quoting JonIrenicus: Sometimes, dignity and weening oneself away from a paternalistic model can go hand in hand. Check out the link above from someone who holds that perspective.

I agree, and I'm not trying to argue in favor of paternalism and subjecting people to indignity. But I am saying that I think undignified paternalist assistance is generally better than nothing at all.

Quoting Unit: I don't see a parallel with free-trade at all. To trade two parties need to come together: one offering a good or service and the other offering to pay for it. In the case of aid, unfortunately, items are brought in without asking if they are wanted. They might be welcome in some case, but in other cases they might also do harm. We just don't know. I think that's the point of saying, let's go micro, let's make sure there's a genuine exchange.

How do the items do harm? Just think of it as an example of trade where the price demanded is zero. If nobody wants it the goods may just sit there, rotting, not helping anyone. But that's not actually harmful, it's just not helpful. We might say there is a problem when prices are zero because

Quoting T.G.G.P: How do the items do harm? Just think of it as an example of trade where the price demanded is zero. If nobody wants it the goods may just sit there, rotting, not helping anyone. But that's not actually harmful, it's just not helpful. We might say there is a problem when prices are zero because price signals (per Hayek) are very important for transmitting information. But this again just means we are not helping as much as we might if we were operating based on information about what is most needed.

Suppose I come to your house and give you stuff you don't want on a daily basis and then ask to be have a picture taken next to you, and you have to look a certain way to make the picture more effective, and everyday I ask to use your phone and I'm in the way while you're trying to go out the door yourself, or start asking your kids to help bring in the bags of stuff etc... The point is that with trade the individual customer has to decide if he/she really

Quoting Unit: Suppose I come to your house and give you stuff you don't want on a daily basis and then ask to be have a picture taken next to you, and you have to look a certain way to make the picture more effective, and everyday I ask to use your phone and I'm in the way while you're trying to go out the door yourself, or start asking your kids to help bring in the bags of stuff etc...

The point is that with trade the individual customer has to decide if he/she really wants something, has to go to a nearby store or write down an order and put some money on the table. If the price is zero, then cancel the last part. But that's not what's happening. You don't have individual person going to an office/store and putting in a request for a given item, getting that item and then putting down zero dollars on the table. No what you get is bags of say molded rice dropped down by an airplane onto the roof your house, producing a hole that

Quoting T.G.G.P: But I don't think it's actually case (generally) that bags are being dropped on roofs, creating holes in them! Nor do aid workers seem to be seriously obstructing people as they attempt to walk through doors.

You took me literally?

Thought I had answered this once but it seems to be missing. Since a good deal of the harvesting and processing, here in Florida, is now automated the need for individual labor is not great. There is an up tick in transient hiring during the pre-harvest burn and numerous tractor operators and truck drivers during the actual harvest but the numbers are not large.

Peter Singer bears an uncanny physical resemblance to Rupert Murdoch. He could play him in the movie.

Quoting Unit: You took me literally?

No, you were giving a hypothetical example, and I was pointing out how removed the hypothetical must be from reality in order for aid to actually be harmful. Markos, since Singer is also Australian he wouldn't even have to put on a fake accent!

Quoting T.G.G.P: No, you were giving a hypothetical example, and I was pointing out how removed the hypothetical must be from reality in order for aid to actually be harmful.

You must lack imagination.

This diavlog needed a much more skeptical cast. I think I counted two clauses skeptical of the value of aid, and both were part of a larger sentence confirming aid.

Quoting piscivorous: Thought I had answered this once but it seems to be missing. Since a good deal of the harvesting and processing, here in Florida, is now automated the need for individual labor is not great. There is an up tick in transient hiring during the pre-harvest burn and numerous tractor operators and truck drivers during the actual harvest but the numbers are not large.

Okay, thanks.

Quoting Unit: and:

"Our adversaries believe that an activity that is neither subsidized nor regulated is abolished. We believe the contrary. Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind. Ours is in mankind, not in the legislator."

I love it.

I've noticed you love economics in general, although I confess to not following your debates with clay. One of these days I should crack open my Economics for Dummies books. Thanks again.

"but he's dead wrong (in my opinion) about driving out local manufacturers as causing harm. Easterly knows how helpful free trade is, and the usual logical argument for that is that getting free stuff is even better!" Dude what Easterly was criticizing wasn't free trade, unless free trade is paying double to buy food in the states and shipping it thousands of miles to Africa when it could be bought in Africa for a fraction of the price off "local manufacturers" and driven to the affected poeple within days or weeks, not months! None of this is free trade, its distorted trade working in distorted markets to satisfy interest groups.
Plus your point about free stuff is mute and you should know that.