Globalization = global elimination of poverty

John Ray with an excellent link, and a quote which I will now borrow:

We're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent. Best of all, the poorer nations are leading the way. Some rich countries, like the U.S. and Japan, are doing well, but the developing world is leading this economic surge. Developing countries are seeing their economies expand by 6.1 percent this year - an unprecedented rate - and, even if you take China, India and Russia out of the equation, developing world growth is still around 5 percent... This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia..... What explains all this good news? The short answer is this thing we call globalization. Over the past decades, many nations have undertaken structural reforms to lower trade barriers, shore up property rights and free economic activity. International trade is surging.

Hurray for globalization!

Write this on your forehead: Free trade reduces world suffering. (#)

Indeed.

The problem-solving state

Problems surround us all the time. Generally they can be divided into two categories: Those that individuals can solve themselves or in free partnership with other individuals, and those that require outside assistance to be solved.

Most problems fall into the first category. When a person feels sick, there are the options of staying home, visit a doctor or simply push on as long as health allows. When a person has financial problems there are the options of taking a loan, work more, ask for a pay-raise, switch jobs, spend less or sell property. Generally speaking: Most problems require no outside solutions.

Problems which need outside assistance to be solved are for example crimes. The police investigates crimes, courts solve disputes, the army fights off hostile invasions and the politicians lay frameworks for people and companies to act within. The problems which require outside solutions - or should I say outside interference - are few but important.

But the philosophical truth of this basic way of thinking is unfortunately not the reality in which we live today. For some reason the state (of all institutions) has taken the part of the problem-solving mechanism in the society. The consequence is plain and simple: Now everyone needs outside help of some kind. A few examples:

• Those who have children automatically need help with supporting themselves, paying for schools and babysitting.
• Those who happen to reach a certain age need financial support.
• Those who seek higher education need support from those who don't and those who have already finished their education.
• Those who owe money need support with the interests.

The list is much longer but the pattern is clear: The state has expanded its authority into that of making almost everyone in need of help, and everyone else the exceptions.

This problem-solving addiction of politicians and the state is itself dangerous. It undermines peoples way of thinking for themselves. It undermines free partnership when problems come up. Now everything is thrown at government officials and made to stand in line with all other problems. Those who dare to object to this centralization of problem-solving in society (like me) get reputations of being cruel and selfish. What about the poor? What about the elderly? Don't I want poor people to have education and access to health care? I do. However, catch-phrases like these don't suffice to explain why the state needs to have its fingers in education and health care. They just don't.

Life is not about money, and complaining about high taxes and extensive government simply because it costs taxpayers money is not my style. However, free choice is more often than not tied together with money. We choose to see a movie in exchange for money, thereby electing according to our choice. We choose to change grocery-stores, for example to lower the food-bill, and thereby elect limited selection in exchange for cheaper food. Consumers put companies out of business by choosing the competitors - using money as their vote. Voters are not so free when they dislike their childrens education in state-schools, or their doctors attitude in the state-hospital.

The problem is not the state itself, because the state is indeed very important in our society. The problem is the problem-solving state and its seemingly unlimited lust for more problems to solve.

Socialistic capitalism

I would like to think there is such a thing as a "socialistic capitalism". It appears in the heads of people who live in capitalist states, but believe they are living in a socialistic state. An easy example is Denmark. Danish people complain and complain about the lack of state-support to children, older people, students, artists, average working people, users of the public transport-system, consumers, families with children, loners, unemployed people and so on. At the same time Danish people are hard consumers, changing shops, banks, insurance-companies, phone-companies and whatever there is as soon as they dislike prices or services.

In other words - they beg for more state-interferance, but at the same time exploit there freedom in the free market, without connecting the dots.

What dots? Well, the dot which says that freedom generally means prosperity in every sense of the word, and the dot that freedom is best achieved by the absense of the state.

Taxes

A well known, but never told too-often, story about the harm of taxes is the following:

Man A can fix a car in 1 hour. However, it takes him 4 hours to paint a room.
Man B can paint a room 1 hour, but it takes him 4 hours to fix a car.

A logical consequence of this difference in skills is that Man A hires Man B to paint his room, and that Man B hires Man A to fix his car. Then both save 3 hours of work, which they then use on whatever else they want (for example work more or simply relax).

But what happens if we throw in elements like licence-fees, taxes on work and materials and other of that kind? One consequence could be that it will take Man A too many hours to work in order to afford the price of hireing Man B. Man A will have to pay taxes of his own earnings and then pay Man B which again has to pay taxes of his own earnings. In Denmark (which has high taxes on everything which changes hands or is done at all) it takes the average man 5 hours to work for 1 hour of hired help.

What does that translate into then? It translates into a system where people spend a lot of time doing things they are not good at, and thereby doing less of the things they are good at.

Who benefits from that?

Global crises of democracy

USA wants to "spread out" democracy. Europeans say the same thing, but suggest different methods. To put it very roughly, it could be said that two methods are in the debate:

1. Drive dictators out of power by using force and sanctions (USA).
2. Use sanctions, political pressure and discussions and hope that the dictators go away (Europe).

To say it short - I dislike both methods.

What rigth has one state (or groupe of states) to impose policies upon others? Did the UN, for example, have any right to interfere with Saddam Husseins Kurdish-massacres by limiting trade to Iraq? Does the UN have any right to interfere with Sudan, where millions of people are potentially being wiped off the face of the planet? Do Americans and Europeans have any right to pressure the communists in China to lay a little of their un-humane treatment of their own subjects?

Its a complicated matter. If Gaddafi, Castro and other brutal, facist/socialist dictators are allowed to participate in the society of free nations, isn't some kind of recognition of their power to torture and oppress innocent civilians? I would say yes. However, by blocking out dictator-ruled states from the global venue I think bad becomes worse. As an example: Communist Cuba. However, by doing nothing, bad might become better. As an example: Communist China.

China is big and powerful, and has been as long as anyone can remember. Americans have never dared to threaten China in any serious way, knowing that the Chinese could fight back and even shoot weapons of mass destruction at anyone who moves a muscle. Still China is ruled by commnuists, just like Iraq was ruled by a facist, Cuba is by a socialist, and North-Korea is by a maniac. Chinas force has enabled it to be left alone under communistic rule for decades, and allowed it to trade with other nations in the global market, although Chinese human-rights are in the dumpster.

The results of this tolerance towards socialism? Fantastic!

• China has entered the WTO, thereby admitting that globaliztion and capitalism are the path for the future.
• Private property rights have found their way into Chinas political structure.
• A middle-class is forming in China, and fast! Free trade formed a middle-class in Europe a couple of hundred years ago, and that middle-class gradually demanded more and more rights and self-control from their kings and queens. The same is happening in China. A middle-class in China will undermine the communists (and hopefully peacefully).

This short list is probably a lot longer in reality. By simply doing nothing about the brutal dictatorship of Chinese communists, the global market has created a foundation on which a peaceful overturn of socialism can take place.

But the moral question is still remaining: How can we just sit back and watch dictators slaughter their subjects, and do nothing about it? Can we allow another Saddam Hussein to tramp on the UN for 10 years while he slowly wipes out the enemies of his state? Can we watch while the communists of North-Korea slowly starve their subjects to death? Can we hear news about the genocides in Darfur without feeling the need for action (American or European-style above-mentioned)?

Those questions I cannot answer. But I know what patience does in the long run, if its followed up with abundance of free trade. Something to think about, or what?

Terrorism

Clinton sat in the White House for 8 years. Half a year after he left office, terrorists flew airplanes in the towers of the World Trade Center. George W. Bush is left with cleaning up the mess Clinton created. Why is then George W. Bush getting the blame?