Moral Consequences of Economic Growth

Though Christmas is over, I'm adding this book to my wish-list. A review from Publishers Weekly reads:

This probing study argues that, far from fostering rapacious materialism, economic growth is a prerequisite for the creation of a liberal, open society. Harvard economist Friedman, author of Day of Reckoning: The Consequences of American Economic Policy in the 1980s, contends that periods of robust economic growth, in which most people see their circumstances palpably improving, foster tolerance, democracy and generous public support for the disadvantaged. Economic stagnation and insecurity, by contrast, usher in distrust, retrenchment and reaction, as well as a tightfisted callousness toward the poor and—from the nativism of 19th-century Populists to the white supremacist movement of the 1980s—a scapegoating of immigrants and minorities. Exploring two centuries of historical evidence, from income and unemployment data to period novels, Friedman elucidates connections between economic conditions, social attitudes and public policy throughout the world. He offers a nuanced defense of globalization against claims that it promotes inequality and, less convincingly, remains optimistic that technology will resolve the conflicts between continual growth and environmental degradation.

If someone is productive and expecting to be rewarded for that productivity, does that make him/her materialistic in your mind? If someone prefers more wealth to less, does that make him or her immoral?

PREVIOUS: On Economic Inequality and the U.S. Government

The $100 Laptop

Regarding economic development ideas for third world nations and reducing poverty: This site has some nice pictures of the $100 laptop computer being developed by MIT and Quanta Computer of Taiwan for children in third-world countries.

Joyeux Noël

I may not be able to say it right, but at least I can spell it.

Another Fake Headline

From AFP: "Bush defends Iraq war, says he will attack another nation if necessary"

The article is about a speech that US President Bush gave yesterday. I actually watched the speech in question on C-Span, and Mr. Bush never said what the AFP is reporting he said. Of course, he did not say that he would "not" attack another nation if necessary, either. Jacques Chirac didn't say that he would not attack another nation, so should we conclude that Jacques is a warmongering cowboy? Who writes these headlines, anyway?

Why I dislike the UN

Two words – Rwandan Genocide:

The Rwandan Genocide was the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus by a group of Hutu extremists known as Interahamwe during a period of 100 days in 1994.
For many, the Rwandan Genocide stands out as historically significant not only because of the sheer number of people that were murdered in such a short period of time, but also because of the way many Western countries responded to the atrocities. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage reflecting the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, virtually all first-world countries declined to intervene. The United Nations refused to authorize its peacekeeping operation in Rwanda at the time to take action to bring the killing to a halt. Despite numerous requests by Canadian General Roméo Dallaire the UN peacekeepers on the ground were forbidden from engaging the militias or even discharging their weapons. In the weeks prior to the attacks the UN ignored reports of Hutu militias amassing weapons and rejected plans for a pre-emptive interdiction. This failure to act became the focus of bitter recriminations towards individual policymakers specifically, such as Jacques-Roger Booh-Booh, as well as the United Nations and countries such as France and the United States more generally and President Clinton specifically. Clinton was kept informed on a daily basis by his closest advisors and by the U.S. Embassy of Rwanda. Clinton was also advised by others close to him to "stay out of Rwanda" because of the possible political backlash similar to that which occurred just a year earlier in a failed attempt to help the country of Somalia in the Battle of Mogadishu.

And to add insult to injury, Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril, Military Advisor to the United Nations Secretary-General and head of the Military Division of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations of the United Nations at the time of the Rwandan genocide advised that the UN take No action in Rwanda. The result was the slaughter of almost a million people. Talk about poor judgment! He is now a "Judge" - surprise surprise. In 2002, he led the Canadian board of inquiry into the "friendly fire" incident in Afghanistan on April 17, 2002. That's right. Murderers with machetes chopping innocent people into pieces 'couldn't be stopped' and almost a million die, but 4 Canadians die, in what everyone agrees is an accident, and Joseph Gérard Maurice Baril convenes a "board of inquiry."

And don't even get me started on Darfur.

More on Socialized Medicine

I just came across this chart:
Can someone explain for me why people in countries with socialized medicine aren't living longer than those in the U.S.?

PREVIOUS: On Socialized Medicine

If I were King of the USA for a day, I would...

Institute tort reform in medicine. (This would reduce insurance premiums and increase access to medical care.)

Withdraw from NATO and the UN.

Auction off the UN building and use the proceeds to pay down the national debt.

Establish a commission to locate programs with waste and fraud and cut such programs. Get rid of the DEA, DoE, DoT, and ATF. (I thought alcohol, tobacco and firearms were legal.) Let the individual states handle their own drug, transportation and energy issues.

Get rid of the CIA and replace it with something less political.

Prohibit all judicial judgments from being swayed by foreign laws. Order reversal of Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade (leave abortion up to the states, but ban late-term abortions, require parental-notification for minors except in cases of child abuse, and require husband notification except in cases of spouse abuse), Casey v. Planned Parenthood (husbands should have reproductive rights, too!), Roper v. Simmons, and Kelo v. New London (the state should not be allowed to take property from one person and give it to another, more politically connected person).

Remove the words "and general Welfare" from Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Repeal the 16th, 17th, and 23rd Amendments.

Remove the words, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," from the 2nd Amendment.

Eliminate most restrictions on nuclear power production and make fusion research a priority (i.e., fund it).

Build a space elevator.

Force bankrupt companies to sell their assets to pay contractual obligations to their employees. Promising pension benefits and then not delivering is not acceptable.

Require that every public government document be stored in an open-source format.

Require that the Navy release John Kerry's full military record, confirming or denying what many think includes a dishonorable discharge followed by a replacement honorable discharge granted after former President Carter's general pardon.

Institute playoffs in college football.

Privatize Social Security.

Mandate school vouchers for private school equal to the per-pupil funding for public schools. (I think that more competition in the market for education would improve the product.)

Increase subsidies to the Guaranteed Student Loan (GSL) program - who says negative interest rates can't happen?

Punish individuals who fail to take reasonable steps to verify whether employees are legal residents of the United States, and create a system to help them in such a verification process.

Secure the borders.

Protect unborn human beings just as other human beings are protected.

Abolish the death penalty. (It's more expensive than life in prison anyway.)

Mandate life in prison without parole for child molestation, kidnapping, violent rape or first degree murder.

Require that no Congressional district be of a geometric shape with more than seven sides. (Have you ever seen California's Congressional district map? Yikes!)

Replace the existing income tax system with a 10% flat tax, or replace the federal income tax with a federal sales tax (exempting food and residential housing), or better yet just tax total wealth (which would increase total tax revenue even if only a small percentage of wealth were taxed). If it were possible to maintain basic government functions (i.e., protect citizens' rights and enforce contracts) without taxation, then I would eliminate taxes altogether.

Require a super-majority to raise taxes.

Prohibit government legislators from hiring accountants to do their taxes for them. If it's too complex for the Senator to figure out, then he/she has no business imposing his/her loopy tax loopholes on the rest of us.

Abolish the death tax.

Require that welfare be only for the destitute and that it not be a permanent subsidy but only for emergency situations. (This goes for corporate welfare as well as individual welfare.)

Make Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" and Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" required reading for high school graduation.

Students would be required to pass a basic Finance class to graduate from high school. Many of the most important decisions they will make in their adult lives will be financial decisions, yet most people have no clue how to make such decisions.

QUESTION: What would you do if you were King (or Queen) for a day?

Rebuilding the South

I have seen a stream of media coverage lately on "rebuilding the hurricane zone." The way that it is currently being presented in the media is horrific. I just heard on CNN news that "these people are building shelters and new homes in New Orleans and they don't even know if these structures will make it past the next hurricane season. I seems as if the media is comparing these people to the old story of the people who kept rebuiding their home on the river and it kept getting washed away year after year. Maybe it's not the most intellegent place to rebuild... who can argue with that? The problem I have is that these people have lost their homes, all their resources and some of them even lost their families. If they had the opportunity to build a home in California, they probably would. Instead, they are left with little more than the aid that America is providing for them. Maybe they recieved aid money to rebuild in the same location? Who knows... but the media portrayed these people as dumb. Haven't these people lost enough already? Why should their pride be next?