Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Self-inflicted poverty: Walter E. Williams teaches how African socialism brings despair
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, June 30, 2004 | Walter E. Williams

Posted on 06/30/2004 3:31:03 AM PDT by JohnHuang2

Wednesday, June 30, 2004


A Minority View Walter Williams
Self-inflicted poverty

Posted: June 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Walter Williams


© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Did you learn that the United States is rich because we have bountiful natural resources? That has to be nonsense. Africa and South America are probably the richest continents in natural resources but are home to the world's most miserably poor people. On the other hand, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan and England are poor in natural resources, but their people are among the world's richest.

Maybe your college professor taught that the legacy of colonialism explains Third World poverty. That's nonsense as well. Canada was a colony. So were Australia, New Zealand and Hong Kong. In fact, the richest country in the world, the United States, was once a colony. By contrast, Ethiopia, Liberia, Tibet, Sikkim, Nepal and Bhutan were never colonies, but they are home to the world's poorest people.

There's no complete explanation for why some countries are affluent while others are poor, but there are some leads. Rank countries along a continuum according to whether they are closer to being free-market economies or whether they're closer to socialist or planned economies. Then, rank countries by per-capita income. We will find a general, not perfect, pattern whereby those countries having a larger free-market sector produce a higher standard of living for their citizens than those at the socialist end of the continuum.

What is more important is that if we ranked countries according to how Freedom House or Amnesty International rates their human-rights guarantees, we'd see that citizens of countries with market economies are not only richer, but they tend to enjoy a greater measure of human-rights protections. While there is no complete explanation for the correlation between free markets, higher wealth and human-rights protections, you can bet the rent money that the correlation is not simply coincidental.

With but few exceptions, African countries are not free, and most are basket cases. My colleague, John Blundell, director of the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, highlights some of this in his article "Africa's Plight Will Not End With Aid" in The Scotsman (June 14, 2004).

Once a food-exporting country, Zimbabwe stands on the brink of starvation. Just recently, President Robert Mugabe declared that he's going to nationalize all the farmland. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that the consequence will be to exacerbate Zimbabwe's food problems. Sierra Leone, rich in minerals, especially diamonds, with highly fertile land and home to the best port site in West Africa, has declined into a condition of utter despair. It's a similar story in nearly all of south-of-Sahara Africa. Its people are generally worse off now than they were during colonialism both in terms of standard of living and human-rights protections.

Blundell says the institutions Westerners take for granted are entirely absent in most of Africa. Africans are not incompetent; they're just like us. Without the rule of law, private-property rights, an independent judiciary, limited government and an infrastructure for basic transportation, water, electricity and communication, we'd also be a diseased, broken and starving people.

What can the West do to help? The worst thing is more foreign aid. For the most part, foreign aid is government to government, and as such, it provides the financial resources that allow Africa's corrupt regimes to buy military equipment, pay off cronies and continue to oppress their people. It also provides resources for the leaders to set up "retirement" accounts in Swiss banks. Even so-called humanitarian aid in the form of food is often diverted. Blundell reports that Mugabe's thugs rip labels off of wheat and corn shipments from the United States and Europe and re-label them as benevolence from the dictator.

Most of what Africa needs the West cannot give, and that's the rule of law, private-property rights, an independent judiciary and limited government. The one important way we can help is to lower our trade barriers.


Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.



TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: poverty; walterwilliams
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2004 3:31:04 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Without the rule of law, private-property rights, an independent judiciary, limited government and an infrastructure for basic transportation, water, electricity and communication, we'd also be a diseased, broken and starving people."

"Many of you are well enough off that . . . the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Monday, at a political fund-raiser in San Francisco, vowing that the Democrats will rescind President Bush's tax cuts if they win control of the White House and Congress

2 posted on 06/30/2004 3:42:54 AM PDT by FormerACLUmember (One man in the right makes a majority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

The democrats demagogue the lie that the poor are poor because of a lack of money (whites have taken their money). The problem is never money. Rather, vast, complicated, disasterous social problems are the problem.


3 posted on 06/30/2004 3:49:34 AM PDT by tkathy (nihilism: absolute destructiveness toward the world at large and oneself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

It's such a fine article that one hates to nitpick it, but ... the author mentions Ethiopia as one of the world's poorest countries that was never a colony. Ethiopia was in fact an Italian colony.


4 posted on 06/30/2004 4:05:00 AM PDT by solzhenitsyn ("Live Not By Lies")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Walter Williams left out what I think is the most important ingredient that Africa and these other countries he mentioned are missing--a theology (life view, if you must) that underpins prosperity. The West, mostly the US, has (had) a worldview thanks to its Calvinistic theology (generally) that was the foundation stone for generating the prosperity we have.

Where the Reformation flourished, so did material prosperity. Disparage John Calvin as much as you want, but his interpretation of the Bible and how it applied to culture was fertile soil for economic growth. The ideas of the rule of law and private property were preached by the Calvinists.

5 posted on 06/30/2004 4:06:52 AM PDT by aardvark1 (You can't have everything...where would you put it? --Steven Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

What's also interesting is that by giving free food, the local producers of food go broke, and then the populations become dependent on free food and the cycle continues further downward...


6 posted on 06/30/2004 4:10:46 AM PDT by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FormerACLUmember

The operative words in that quote are the "WE" and the "YOU." That's how liberals in government see themselves. They are the WE who must do things to help the YOU, because YOU are incapable of deciding what is in your best interested. WIth Reagan it was always "US" and "THEM." Them being people like Hillary.

If she really said that it will be a devastating ad against her when she runs for president someday.


7 posted on 06/30/2004 4:21:59 AM PDT by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Casloy
If she really said that it will be a devastating ad against her when she runs for president someday.

Oh, she said it!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/06/28/politics2039EDT0165.DTL&type=printable

8 posted on 06/30/2004 4:32:57 AM PDT by Taxachusan (Livin' in blue state hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
"Did you learn that the United States is rich because we have bountiful natural resources?"

I remember being told in high school that Brazil would be the next super power nation because of all the bountiful natural resources it possessed. This was in the early 1950's. Maybe they will still achieve super power status some day.

9 posted on 06/30/2004 5:28:20 AM PDT by lstanle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1

Calvin was a nutball... but one fundamental tenant (about the only one) that he preached that was spot on, is that final judgement will not be made based souly on the fact you were a decent person, but on the acts and aid you provided to your fellow man and all of mankind.

When your worth is measured by what you have done to make the world a better place, and not simply by "don't rock the boat"... you wind up with everyone working to make the world a better place... and low and behold, it happens.


10 posted on 06/30/2004 5:47:19 AM PDT by HamiltonJay ("You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Calvin a nut ball??!! I see you paid close attention in your history classes. You can thank John Calvin that you have the freedom to call him a nut ball.


11 posted on 06/30/2004 5:51:23 AM PDT by aardvark1 (I am doing this because I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1

Yes, and if I bought into much of his craziness, my fundamental right of free will and choice would be pretty much useless anyway, as regardless of how good or poorly I ran my life, my fate in the afterlife was already determined regardless of what actions I took on earth....

So, yea, forgive me if I don't really buy into his 5 basic principles. Thanks to his reforms I get to see religious churches based on his principles that embrace homosexuality, believe that the lay person who has no dedication to religion beyond showing up on Sunday has the same weight in spiritual decisions as people who have dedicated their lives to theology.... I have to listen to ordaned pastors claim there are no Angels in the Bible... etc etc etc...

Sorry, the "reformed" church that evolved from his dogma is undermining the very religious foundations that Calvin himself did hold dear... so, I'm not really crazy about the man.


12 posted on 06/30/2004 6:29:20 AM PDT by HamiltonJay ("You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aardvark1
Where the Reformation flourished, so did material prosperity.

Bang on! So did political 'prosperity'. ;^)

The political revolution sparked by English Non-conformists may well be the secular salvation of mankind, if we can maintain its dynamism.

If.

13 posted on 06/30/2004 7:17:38 AM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

We may have our faults, but the US system works better than any other, I don't care what Hillary Clinton thinks. All around the world the "haves" carefully segregate themselves from the "have-nots" with very little chance for the "have-nots" to improve their lives in any meaningful way. Even in Britain you have a whole sub-class that lives permanently on the dole. That kind of poverty is disenfranchisement, pure and simple.


14 posted on 06/30/2004 8:03:31 AM PDT by Sabatier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2

What a great article. Good catch.

The root cause of the economic prosperity he discusses is, I believe, a Judeo-Christian ethic. In order to have a free market, you must have a respect for human life, law and order based on justice and compassion, and a respect for private property. Neat stuff.


15 posted on 06/30/2004 8:33:13 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

John Calvin was not a "nutball." He knew his Bible better than just about anyone else in history.

You may not agree with his conclusions regarding God's sovereign election and grace, and that is fine. But don't try to intimate that he was crazy or stupid.

And I have no idea why Calvin is responsible for liberal church's embracing homosexual behavior or bad theology.


16 posted on 06/30/2004 8:42:58 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Taxachusan

Yep, she sure did. It almost seemed too good to be true. And now there is feverish speculation she will be Kerry's running mate. Can't wait for someone to ask Kerry if he agrees with her statement.


17 posted on 06/30/2004 8:47:39 AM PDT by Casloy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay
Sorry, the "reformed" church that evolved from his dogma is undermining the very religious foundations that Calvin himself did hold dear... so, I'm not really crazy about the man.

I understand your reservations with the reformed faith, although I disagree with them, but would you apply the same logic to Jesus that you do to Calvin. Because there are some bad followers of Jesus are you not crazy about him?

Calvin was far from perfect, but his understanding and application of Scripture is unmatched.

BTW, Calvin never said you didn't have free will, he said your free will is twisted by sin so you choose evil instead of good (Isaiah 64:6). As a result the destiny of every son of Adam is hell. It is only by God's grace that anyone avoids hell, not by your good works or your own cleverness.

18 posted on 06/30/2004 8:58:42 AM PDT by aardvark1 (I am doing this because I can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
Williams is correct. The biggest problem with socialism is that it is structured to take advantage of existing wealth; that is, it does not create wealth, it redistributes wealth created by non-socialist economies. It is, in that sense, dependent on capitalism for its grub-stake, and Marx was the very first to admit this. His notion was that it could take this and make it more just and especially more efficient; in practice, however, it never really got much beyond the stage of simple thievery.

Africa simply does not have that baseline, and attempting to collectivize subsistence farmers, which is essentially what Mugabe is trying, is simply ensuring that not a few starve, but that everyone starves. That is quite honestly portrayed as "social justice," which is what redistribution is really all about, but its result is not the equality of the collective, but the equality of death.

Bertrand De Jouvenel deals with this in his Ethics of Redistribution, a book I'd recommend to anyone who is curious about the persistent claims that socialism is a more "just" economic system that capitalism.

19 posted on 06/30/2004 9:14:11 AM PDT by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: solzhenitsyn

Under Italian occupation but not a colony.


20 posted on 06/30/2004 9:15:47 AM PDT by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson