Caring About the World’s Poor

Come on, Dr. Boudreaux. Don't you know that foreign aid is how you help the poor? Free trade and free immigration? Please!

Great letter exposing Meyerson's hypocricy.

OK - I've always agreed with your posts on free trade (a few scuffles over buying local, I suppose). But if muirgeo wondered out loud "whether you gave a damn about the world's poor" you'd light into him in no time flat. Meyerson is an old school union guy. I don't even usually find him worth reading. But I don't think those failings on his part are a reason to second guess his intent or his compassion.

Daniel,

You are so good.

That's right, Danny. He's compassionately all for keeping people in poverty. But, compassionately.

What's important is how the lefties label things. That's the key.

If I label rat poison "Coca Cola", would you drink it?

Of course politicians always express sympathy for the: poor, children, seniors, disabled, mentally ill, minorities, jobless, homeless, etc.

Politics is all about gesturing.

You should know by now when morals and ideology butt heads, ideology always wins.

Methinks -

Huh? I'm not claiming he's doing the right thing for the poor. I'm just not sure what the point is in questioning whether he cares about them or whether there's any evidence that he doesn't. There are other areas - outside of trade policy - where I would probably think your conclusions end up hurting the poor. That doesn't give me license to conclude you don't give a damn about them.

What Meyerson feels is largely irrelevant to the issue anyway (the substance of which I absolutely agree with Don on) - so the only reason to bring up whether he cares is to smear him.

Sam -

Meyerson is a journalist, not a politician.

That doesn't give me license to conclude you don't give a damn about [the poor].

You don't need a license ... yet. When the statesmen starting licensing compassion, expect the licensees to start building themselves castles ... or cathedrals ... whatever.

I support free trade with few conditions, but the U.S. doesn't trade freely with the rest of the world as a matter of fact, so my support and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... for the moment.

I believe that Don supports free trade with few restrictions, but I'd like to see him address the established restrictions more forthrightly, like restrictions on immigration (trade in labor), international patents (which hardly existed before the 1990s), subsidies (like incredible state expenditures on non-commercial goods from Boeing and GE) and "health and safety" regulations of all sorts. The devil is always in the details, and I prefer discussing the details.

That doesn't give me license to conclude you don't give a damn about [the poor].

You don't need a license ... yet. When the statesmen starting licensing compassion, expect the licensees to start building themselves castles ... or cathedrals ... whatever.

I support free trade with few conditions, but the U.S. doesn't trade freely with the rest of the world as a matter of fact, so my support and five bucks will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks ... for the moment.

I believe that Don supports free trade with few restrictions, but I'd like to see him address the established restrictions more forthrightly, like restrictions on immigration (trade in labor), international patents (which hardly existed before the 1990s), subsidies (like incredible state expenditures on non-commercial goods from Boeing and GE) and "health and safety" regulations of all sorts. The devil is always in the details, and I prefer discussing the details.

I'm just not sure what the point is in questioning whether he cares about them or whether there's any evidence that he doesn't.

What is the difference between caring about the poor and actively hurting them and not caring about them? You can't eat caring, Danny.

Thus, if he doesn't understand that he's keeping people in poverty, he's a moron. If he publicly advocates for a course of action that will hurt the poor, then he's a dangerous moron and deserves to be identified as such.

If he purposely proposes to keep some poor in favour of others, then he's not...um...as compassionate as he claims to be. Since the left is all about "feelings" and passion, I think it's pretty relevant.

So, he's either a lying asshole or a moron. Take your pick, but he's one or the other.

You don't understand the point of questioning caring and feelings? Are you serious? Have you never ever listened to a political speech? Politicians - particularly leftists - trade in feelings. If you don't see the point of what Don said, who really cares?

There are other areas - outside of trade policy - where I would probably think your conclusions end up hurting the poor

When you can name one, then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just your fantasies playing in your head.

Meyerson is a journalist, not a politician.

And Al Franken is a comedian. What's your point?

Correction: ... incredible state expenditures on non-commercial "goods" from Boeing and GE ...

Well. I think also of global free trade, it is important to the free movement of all production factors, including labor. It is this natural state of complete freedom a prerequisite for optimizing both the producctividad and resource allocation. This will optimize the global production, distribution of income and wealth distribution.

Methinks -

RE: "You can't eat caring, Danny."

Exactly my point when I said it's irrelevant. I'm glad you seem to agree with me. I'm not the one that seems to care what Meyerson thinks.

RE: "So, he's either a lying asshole or a moron. Take your pick, but he's one or the other."

Is this really how you approach people that disagree with you? I mean - I'm against Meyerson on this and many other points too. But I wouldn't go this far. It's possible to be wrong and not be a moron or a liar.

RE: "Politicians - particularly leftists - trade in feelings."

Right... and their feelings are equally irrelevant. But just because I question the arguments of a particular politician doesn't mean I conclude he hates poor people.

RE: "When you can name one, then we can talk. Otherwise, it's just your fantasies playing in your head."

My you're argumentative today! It wasn't a challenge to you - it's just a statement about getting the vitriol out of the discussion.

What Meyerson feels is largely irrelevant to the issue anyway (the substance of which I absolutely agree with Don on) - so the only reason to bring up whether he cares is to smear him

In a mob-rule society such as ours, the inanities being fed to the mob on a daily basis is relevant and important to the powerless minorities. The enlightened minority will have to do their tiny bit to shine light on the darkness being perpetrated by Meyersons of the world, whether the darkness is spread intentionally or unintentionally is immaterial.

>>I'm not the one that seems to care what Meyerson thinks.<<

It's probably because you do not view his writings as leading to dangerous and destructive ideologies for the many that have their views shaped by his.

>>It's possible to be wrong and not be a moron or a liar.<<

Maybe! But it's a very fine line if the person who is wrong is writing definitively...that's just my opinion, though.

>>Right... and their feelings are equally irrelevant<<

Except when those on the other side of the trade (of feelings) are encouraged to accept more governance as a result. Many of us who can see through the bullshit also have to suffer with more governance. In the climate change arguments, you like to bring up externalities. What's different with the externality that bad governance is...certainly those voters that can see through the bullshit feelings and class envy have to put up with the externality of what those voters who cannot see through it bring through their voting patterns.

LCJ -

RE: "It's probably because you do not view his writings as leading to dangerous and destructive ideologies for the many that have their views shaped by his."

No, it's because:

1. I can separate his feelings about the poor from the value of his perscription for the poor, and

2. Once those two are separated I can recognize that no matter what he personally thinks about the poor, it's irrelevant to the poor themselves. As Methinks said when he decided to agree with me, "you can't eat caring".

RE: "Maybe! But it's a very fine line if the person who is wrong is writing definitively...that's just my opinion, though."

And you are neither a moron or a liar for having it :)

RE: "What's different with the externality that bad governance is...certainly those voters that can see through the bullshit feelings and class envy have to put up with the externality of what those voters who cannot see through it bring through their voting patterns."

Be careful not to assume that voters you disagree with have succombed to "bullshit feelings". That's a really big assumption for you to make.

Either way - Meyerson demonstrates no ill will towards the poor. To query whether he cares about the poor is a little out in left field, I think.

>>Be careful not to assume that voters you disagree with have succombed to "bullshit feelings". That's a really big assumption for you to make.<<

Then what about the class envy and the externatlities that that brings out through the political process?

Sam -

Meyerson is a journalist, not a politician.

He's a politician in the field of journalism.

Is this really how you approach people that disagree with you?

No. This is how I approach asshole. Just because you don't consider Meyerson one doesn't mean I don't. Just to clarify, I consider anyone who advocates stomping on other people's liberty to further his own agenda an asshole. Anyone who merely disagrees with me is not automatically one. BTW, I don't care how much you like or don't like Meyerson and I apologize to the professors for using trading floor language, but sometimes you just have to cut to the chase. I've made my point, so I'll not do it again.

Right... and their feelings are equally irrelevant.

That point just sailed right over your head, didn't it? Politicians and their water boys (Meyerson) convince us that they feel the pain of others so deeply that we are to trust them to change the world into a better place. Kumbaya. I don't give a crap if Bush hates black people or not, he still signed a minimum wage increase that will hurt predominantly young black men and that MAKES him less compassionate than he claims. I don't care if Meyerson is generally a warm and fuzzy guy who likes bunnies and is kind to his wife. The fact that he is advocating keeping people in poverty MAKES him less compassionate while he CLAIMS to care so much. He clearly doesn't and since he's CLAIMING to care, then whether he does or not is absolutely relevant.

Either way - Meyerson demonstrates no ill will towards the poor.

You're kidding, right? He wants to keep impoverished non-Americans in poverty to "protect" Americans. That's not showing ill will toward the poor like Stalin and Lenin showed no ill-will toward the peasants. They didn't hate them. They were just pushing an agenda for the betterment of the common good and some of those folks were in the way. I'm sure that although you are completely ignorant of the history I cited, you will assure me that the two have ABSOLUTELY nothing in common. You leftist think everyone but you is retarded.

My you're argumentative today!

Because today, just for giggles, I decided to get into one of your inane arguments about something completely secondary to the point. The last time was when you were repeatedly assuring all of us that it's not at all completely insane for adult Michael Jackson mourners to flail around like lunatics when that wasn't even Don's point. You kids today.

I'm starting to really understand why Vidyohs and ds Lesvic can be so grouchy.

But then it can be show that charity-givers hurt the poor - so much grain can pour in from charities that local growers can't compete thefefore the poor people have no incentive to grow food for themselves. Go on say it - the poor must be left alone to develop their skills of independence and even voluntary charity can do more harm than good.

Either way - Meyerson demonstrates no ill will towards the poor. To query whether he cares about the poor is a little out in left field, I think.

Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Jul 15, 2009 4:16:02 PM

Wow oh wow. He cares so much for the world's poor he wants to keep them poor to keep us rich. How thoughtful of him. And you say you're NOT a troll?

You're putting me with Vidyohs.

Thanks a lot.

I can't speak for dg lesvic, he speaks pretty well for himself; but, do not equate a T-Brazorian's natural, enculturated, and experienced reluctance to coddle fools and waste time on educating brickwalls to being grouchy.

We have a saying down here in my part of the country about people like Disingenuous Kuehn, "he couldn't say sh.t, if he had a mouthful."

In other words he lives in a different place in his head than you and I probably do, and that place is not reality. Evidence his closest compatriot here seems to be the biggest fool of all, muirduck.

"In other words he lives in a different place in his head than you and I probably do, and that place is not reality."

ROFL

Projecting a little?

Putting the poor aside for a moment, where do we see free trade right now, and in the near future?

Global trade is expected to be off by 12% this year, but I think that only tells part of the story.

I think there is some level of permanently reduced consumption from this recession/depression. Mindsets have changed.

When they talk of a jobless recovery, to me, that significantly increases the chance that wage deflation, and deflation in general could take hold.

We need jobs, and we need to export. I don't know what a 'recovery' looks like with 10% unemployment. Whatever it looks like, it will be short-lived, or its not really a recovery.

So far, the vast bulk of measures and resources to fight this recession has focused on the financial sector. The government has it exactly backwards: the financial sector will do good when the rest of the economy is doing good.

We have to work through the slack, and we have to work through our debt, and the absolute best way to do that is by exporting.

We: see, need, need, have to, have to.

Planning from the central authority?

Ackerman,

Before we export we have to produce something. Before we decide to make the effort and investment to produce something, we need decide the incentive to produce exists. Nobody is going to work harder and take greater risks if a larger portion of the return is taxed away. So, we need lower tax rates for the politically unpopular group that provides most of the capital but is also slated to be tapped to pay for everything - the evil rich. Of course, to truly lower taxes, the government has to also reduce spending. When you think those two things will happen, be sure to give me a shout.

Of course, punishing our trading partners for subsidizing our purchases will likely mean that they will retaliate and make it more difficult for U.S. exporters.

You're basically saying you want more economic activity and lower trade barriers, what you're getting instead is more distortion and government waste. We're becoming like France only with badly dressed fat people and disgusting food. merde.

But then it can be show that charity-givers hurt the poor - so much grain can pour in from charities that local growers can't compete therefore the poor people have no incentive to grow food for themselves.

In order to get the situation you describe you have to have a segmented grain market, so that donors buy their grain in a market whose prices are decoupled from the local market in the area receiving the aid. In that case, local growers would get no benefit from the increased demand, and they might suffer if some of the donated grain were misdirected to people who might have otherwise bought locally grown grain.

In that case, however, it seems glib to point the finger at charity as the cause of the local growers' suffering. It is the trade restrictions which cut them off from the better prices in the global market. The charity's unintended consequences would vanish completely if we eliminated the trade barriers, while the unintended consequences of trade restrictions would remain, even if there were no charity. Therefore, it seems more reasonable to cite protectionism as the real culprit for the direct harm it causes as well as for the unfortunate side effects it attaches to charitable efforts.

"even voluntary charity can do more harm than good"

Nice thing about voluntary charity--it rapidly ends if the givers discover it isn't satisfying their wishes.

This is as opposed to government "charity" where to justify his job, the distributer of funds just accelerates his efforts regardless of outcome. Even worse, he hopes for a bad outcome because to him that is job security.