THE GIVING DEBATE WHAT EUROPE, U.N. DON'T GET

New York Post ^ | 12/30/04 | COLLIN LEVEY

[kattracks]

WITH Southeast Asia battling one of the worst natural disasters in modern history, Western politicians took the opportunity to create a perfect storm of petty recriminations. As the world scrambled to send money to help, U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland huffed that rich nations are "stingy" with foreign aid.

Trying to talk his way out of the ensuing flap, he explained Tuesday that he didn't mean stingy so much now in the current relief effort but more, well, stingy all the time: Our governments don't give enough cash to the Third World.

What he doesn't get (natch, he's a U.N. bureaucrat) is this: The countries that prosper are those that want investment, not giveaways. When this crisis passes, that will be more obvious than ever.

In the wake of the tsunami, the United States will inevitably end up shelling out more for relief than the rest of the world combined. But America's status as the largest donor overall (foreign aid budget: $20 billion a year) doesn't matter to Europe and the United Nations, because America doesn't give as much as a percentage of national income as say . . . Egeland's own Norway.

As ever, this obsession with redistributing wealth misses the importance of creating it. Which — even though we're the world's biggest giver of handouts — is where the United States makes its most vital contribution to fighting poverty worldwide.

[shibumi]

Charity is a matter of one's own heart and conscience.

No man owns the product of another's labor or invention.

EVER!!!

[InTheRight]

I wonder where the big-hearted, generous UN has been throughout the war on terrorism? Oh yes, I forgot -- shredding evidence of the $$ they were making at the expense of the Iraqis.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

What you write is all well and good but this whole aid question is a very important one and an area where conservatives should play a stronger role.

To mean there is a great deal of difference between "aid" and "chairty". The former is done out of self-interest, the latter out of altruistic kindness.

The former is an investment of resources with the hope of a return. The latter is done to assuage feelings of guilt.

Now on a personal level, most (the world's wealthiest excluded) can only give contributions large enough for "charity". Often we give them ot organizations that allow us to have a greater impact by pooling resources and therefore, what we give can consittute "aid".

Nations should never, ever provide "chairty". But, this is what liberals want and how they expect taxpayer money to be spent.

Conservatives need to take the lead in designing true "aid" packages that are extremely signficant in size and focused on creating the type of dynamics in developing nations that will allow them to be our allies and customers. Sam Brownback of Kansas appears to understand this. More Pubbies need to get on board.

Aid is money well invested. The liberal squandering of money in the past should not be used to punish those in the developing world who might very well be worth investing in.

Indeed, the private sector must play the largest role. But there is a certain critical mass of infrastructure that government must create in before the reins can be passed.

[lwoodham]

I just want to know how much the NY Times is giving.

[cfhBAMA]

A Smart person is one that, when they find that they have dug themselves into a hole, they stop digging.

[shibumi]

"To mean there is a great deal of difference between "aid" and "chairty". The former is done out of self-interest, the latter out of altruistic kindness"

I will not parse words. If you mean investment, SAY "investment".

"Indeed, the private sector must play the largest role. But there is a certain critical mass of infrastructure that government must create in before the reins can be passed"

My position (open for your comment) is that there is no field of endeavor, save for the military, which the government can do that the private sector cannot do better. Good luck trying to find a constitutional basis for international "aid".

"Aid is money well invested. The liberal squandering of money in the past should not be used to punish those in the developing world who might very well be worth investing in"

History tells US a different story....something like money down a rathole.

I respect your right to your opinion - I disagree.

[loboinok]

The latter is done to assuage feelings of guilt.



You seem to have a warped understanding of "charity"

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Back to your comment regarding the military, Private investment cannot and will never be sufficient to build infrastructure for the hinterland.

In the US after the use of electricity became practical, private investment would have sufficed to serve the major centers of population. But a government program was necessary for rural electrification. The same is true of telephones and interstate highways and in many circumstances water supply.

The rule of thumb is that the last 5% of the population costs 95% of the outlay and vice versa. Naturally, the more rural a population, the different the number.

The costs are too high and returns too dispersed to rely on private investors. Thus, government investment is needed.

If you read what I wrote you will see I mentioned basic infrastructure.

This can also include a legal infrastructure necessary to protect property.

[shibumi]

The underlying falacy is that somehow government has money that does not come from it's citizens. The only difference is that when the government undertakes to provide for the people, whether it is in the form of good, services or basic infrastructure they invariably provide it in the least cost effective way possible. The government has no funds that are not confiscated from people, usually against their will. When people in the hinterlands desire services badly enough to pay for them, then they will see that those services are provided.

One example is electric service. Not thirty miles from the Chicago Metro area, there are several rural co-ops that provide electric, water and in some cases sewer to some of the most upscale as well as the most basic forms of housing. These co-ops are the result of people providing their own infrastructure in order to improve the quality of life and the value of their property. After the initial costs were amortized, the resultant fees were substantially less than those paid by urban dwellers whose basic utilities are subsidized, cost controlled and rate fixed by the government. These co-ops WERE NOT FUNDED BY GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. They are the result of private bond issues.

As far as the military goes, private firms are more efficient than national armies, for example, Executive Outcomes of South Africa. The only limitation they face is size and scope.

I do not question your figures on the last 5% of a population requiring 95% of the outlay. I do question where it is written that 100% of a population are somehow guaranteed the same quality of life. (Our Constitution says "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness". It does not include gas heat, electric lights, air conditioning or a paved road.) John Maynard Keynes thories had been thoroughly disproved.....just ask Milton Friedman.