I saw this article, and have cut and pasted from the article to cut down reading by 70% (in case you wonder why its a little choppy).
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
Tonight I hope to persuade you that to call economics the “dismal science” has it exactly backwards—that it is the economists and businessmen who hold the hopeful view of life, and that far from being fundamentally opposed, the admirers of Adam Smith have more in common with the followers of the Good Book than we might suppose.
So here’s a question. What happens when you think that the cause of a nation’s poverty is not too much government in the market but not enough government control over how many children a couple will have?
In China it led to forced abortions and a birth rate wildly skewed against baby girls.
In India in the mid-1970s, it led to a mass campaign of assembly-line sterilizations. So brutal was the policy, it provoked a backlash that brought down Indira Gandhi’s government the following year.
In South Africa and Namibia, it led to policies that appeared to target the part of the population least able to defend itself. Young black women were given contraceptive injections without their consent—not infrequently right after the birth of their first child.
In short, from Peru to the Philippines, innocent men and women were subjected to outrages all based on the assumption that our new humanitarians shared with Mr. Carlyle: the need for a beneficent whip.
And who were the voices of protest? Who reminded the experts and self-styled humanitarians that human beings flourish in liberty and languish when they are treated like chattel? Who argued that the way to help the world’s poor was not to tell them that their babies are a burden, but to tear down government barriers preventing them from taking their rightful place in the global economy?
The answer is: the economists.
Am I suggesting, then, that we trade the Sermon on the Mount for The Wealth of Nations? Hardly. I do say that when it comes to the banquet of life, our economists have proved themselves more gracious hosts than our humanitarians; that a businessman who travels to a poor country and envisions a thriving factory has a more realistic assessment of human possibility than the U.N. aid worker who believes the answer is reducing the birth rate; and that the champions of liberty tend to do better by humanity than the champions of humanity do by either.
Gary Becker put it this way: “I am struck by the similarity between the church’s view of the relationship between the family and the economy and the view of economists—arrived at by totally independent means. Economic science and spiritual concerns appear to point in the same direction.”
So let others speak of a dismal science. We—the champions of human dignity and possibility—need to cheer and celebrate.
One does not have to be an economist to recognize that societies that open their markets are better fed, better housed, and offer better opportunities for upward mobility than societies that remain closed and bureaucratic. Nor does one have to be a religious believer to recognize that the source of all man’s wealth has been just this: that he does not take the world as given, but uses his mind to find new and creative ways to take from the earth and add to its bounty.
If, however, we do believe, can we really be surprised that the Almighty who created us in His image also bequeathed to us a world where we are most prosperous when we are most free
There has always been population control. If you don't believe me, get out your spreadsheet and check out how long it takes for a population to increase from 2 people to 9 billion people. If growth occurs at 1% annually, it takes less than 3,000 years. Since humans have been around much longer than that, it follows that population growth has been restricted. This population control could have occurred as a result of judicious family planning, but given our inability to plan population growth in the last 300 years, what reason is there be believe planning led to controlled population growth in the past. None. So population growth has always been tempered by famine, disease (epidemic) and war.
ReplyDeleteThe bible supports this contention. Abraham experienced a famine, We all know about the famine Joseph presided over. Naomi and Ruth experienced a famine. Ezra experienced a famine. According to Wikipedia, there are references to about 30 famines in Ethiopia from 1500 to the present. The black death is only one of many European famines. Wikipedia says there were 1,828 major famines in China between 108 BC and 1911 AD. So there has always been involuntary population control. Given the opportunities that came with the industrial revolution, and given man's capacity to anticipate and plan with his 3 lb. brain, there were those who thought involuntary population could be averted through planning. I was never optimistic about that.
Fundamentally this has to do with the “Rape of the Commons”. I have tried to explain that concept in previous posts. If you can explain to me how free market capitalism, as we experience it today, will help us humans deal with that concept, your argument will have some credibility with me. As far as I am concerned, there is no respect for the commons built into today's manifestations of capitalism. No doubt there are those capitalists who also respect the commons, but that is an aberration. At the clan level, throughout history, there has been respect for the commons, and there are group survival skills that come into play at this level, but there is no place for these skills in the global capitalism we experience today.
I thought we resolved the "rape of the commons". History and common sense shows, that when resources are privately held, people take care of them, but when it is "common property" like a communist system, it fails. Take timber lands. I have recently considered purchasing timber land. The math I go through is how to I maximize the value of the land. If i clearcut all the land, sell all the timber, I make money on the trees, but i am left with nearly worthless acers of land, which causes me to lose money on the investment overall. However, depending on the timber, there is a maximum-life- value to trees (say 80 year old trees for this example) so the way to maximize the land is to harvest the 80 year old trees, and replant them. Since the lives of trees varies on each property, to maximize the value of the land, i would only cut a few trees (and then replant) each year. In cases were the government owns the land, people simply clearcut the trees, as they dont have to worry about the terminal value as they don't own the land, and hence don't care.
ReplyDeleteI think privatizing resources goes a long way. However, with respect to fishing and general air poplution, I think we need some basic government intervention into a capitalist system. Clearly countries like Canada and US (more capitalist) have far cleaner environments than Russia or China (socialist). So is capitalism perfect, no. But no system is, and history suggests it is the most effective at feeding the most and protecting the environment in the process.
On the history of population, yes world population has gone through many contractions from famine, disease and war. However, are you implying that over-population caused the problems? I see very little evidence. Additionaly, those examples in the past preceded wide adoption of private property rights or a capitalist system.
What i find frustrating, is that most people on the left, desire population control when the math suggests we do not have an overpopulation problem. In all developed countries, the birthrate is less than 2 children per couple, which implies that over time populations will decline over time in those countries, without immigration. I think for many on the left, they think humans are a cancer on the earth, whereas many on the right beileve God when he said "be fruitful and multiply".
Your example of timber management is good and I agree with you – mostly. I may want to pick up on some of that another time.
ReplyDeleteBut to focus on population for the moment, my point is that the human approach to population growth is an example of the “rape of the commons”. In making its reproductive decisions, each family makes those decisions on the basis of what's best for the family, not on the basis of what's best for the planet. Furthermore, the more global our world is, the more this is so. I am told that it has not always been so. Anthropologists tell us that in hunting cultures, the clan frequently decides how many young children the clan can tolerate. Obviously small children impede the mobility of the hunting party, and so for its survival, the clan determines whether a new born should live or not. These people love their children as much as we do, and they cope with the guilt of infanticide by saying that the baby only becomes a human as it takes its first milk from the mother. I have no idea how widespread this action has been among hunting cultures. My point is simply, that although there are exceptions, normally humans do not take the welfare of the larger human community into account when they make decisions related to reproduction. Whether that is rape of the commons or not, depends, I suppose, on whether you consider the end result good or not.
With respect to the history of population, surely you have seen the graph. Here is just one http://ldolphin.org/popul.html I found quickly. They all look more or less the same. Yes, I am strongly of the opinion that over-population has been at the basis of much, if not most of the famine disease and war that the world has experienced. What sort of evidence would you like. Maybe you are more comfortable with saying that these are “Acts of God”. Or, in your opinion, what caused these disasters?
I have struggled, and continue to struggle with that. One of the things I learned in Africa was how different a “modern” thinks than a “traditional”. I would go visiting farmers. I would visit a farmer and ask him how the crop was. He said poor. Why? Too much rain. I then visited the adjacent farmer. How is the crop? Poor. Why? Too little rain. What this modern (me) got out of this exchange, is that we moderns tend to define our problems in terms of things we could have done something about (planted earlier or later) whereas the traditional defined the problem in terms of what God had done. We moderns have also often labelled the “traditional” as being fatalistic. I think the label is accurate, but I now, as a modern, would not assume the same superiority that I have in the past.
Or are you saying that the seminal event, the event that finally allowed for the exponential growth of the human population, that occurred round about 1500AD was the adoption of capitalism and private property rights? If you are of that opinion, I would really like to know on what basis you believe that. I for one, believe the seminal event was the discovery of fossil fuel, first coal, then oil and natural gas. Modern agriculture, that is the modern food production system, is utterly dependant on fossil energy for both power and fertilization. This is almost as true of China and India as it is true of the US and Canada.
ReplyDeleteAs far as declining birth rates is concerned, we could have many discussions. We might speculate as to why the birth rate in Ukraine, Rumania, Russia and many other former Soviet countries is lower than it is in the West. Why is the birth rate in Russia lower than in China? Why is it lower in China than in India? Why is it lower in Iran than in Saudi Arabia?
As far as the opinion of left is concerned, you may be right. I don't know. Since we have started these discussion, I am increasingly convinced that I am no part of the left as you define it. But I am sufficiently familiar with biological systems to know that they all have one thing in common. If they are allowed to grow in an unrestricted manner, the time comes when that population runs out of food. The possible exception could be humans, in that they alone, of all creation have the ability to plan ahead – to anticpate. The question is whether they will use that ability. I see no evidence that they will or perhaps more accurately, can.
In the end, Karl, I think we come out at very much the same place. I am not an advocate of population control. I cannot conceive of a way that it could be implemented that would respect other humans in the way God would have us respect them. Where we differ is that I don't share your faith that the capitalist system will save us.
I think the difference between you and I, is perhaps that I have made peace with the fact that the capitalist system is not perfect, but it is the best system we have despite all its imperfections. I understand that this means we will have unequal results, but I am comfortable with that as long as we strive for equal opportunity.
ReplyDeleteI believe any government controls have many more unintended consequences that the solutions they try to resolve. Therefore, I would phrase your last sentence a little different. I believe that while we live in an imperfect world, I don't see that we need to be "saved" in the sense you state. Yes, we will continue to have many tragedies and struggles, but I don’t believe the world is over-populated and don't believe we are consuming earth's resources faster than scientific advancements.
Yes, the earth has grown exponentially in the past 300 years, but that growth rate is significantly slowing now (which I frankly think is a much more serious problem, particularly given the only areas of rapid human growth are in areas hostile to human freedom – like Africa and the Middle East – check out stats below). But based on my prior arguments of commodity prices adjusted for inflation going down over time, the increase in life expetency the past 1500 years, etc., I see little evidence that we have an overpopluation problem in the world. I realize this brings us back to prior debates, but I am not sure how to resolve it, as you have chosen to take the view that the next 50 years will be dramatically different than the trendline of the past 400 years. I have chosen to believe that the lumpy events that caused contractions in human population in periods such as the black-death in Europe, are possible - but unlikely to be caused by overpopulation - given world population growth rates are slowing, while technical advancements are not.
A few quick stats. Keep in mind birthrates less than 2.1, imply a declining population without immigration. The only counties with a fertility rate able to sustain the population (2.1 or above), that have over 15k GDP per capita (31 countries in total) are Saudi Arabia and Israel (with US, Canada, every European country, Japan, Korea, Austrilia, New Zealand averaging a very low 1.4). Reversely, 39 countries have birth rates over 4.0 (effectively, 100% are in Africa and the Middle-east, with a couple of Latin American) and all of them have GDPs less than $3000/per capita. This is unique in the history of the world to see all the poor countries with dictatorial/non-democratic governments growing so fast, while the democracies of the world are dieing. This to me is a bigger problem, for how the world will look in 50 years.
I have enjoyed this discussion, if I had something to add I would and I should since I have been reading Hayek's book Road to Serfdom and it has helped me understand this all a bit better even if often I am way over my head. If I could've remembered something I would write but to look it up too lazy right now, besides I am sure you have covered it well.
ReplyDeleteCoincidentally I read about Germany's low birth rate and comparing it to other countries in Isabell's Politik book this weekend.
The book compared Germany's birthrate and reasons why to France and USA. This is what is stated: France has more children because they have better daycare system to accomodate the working mothers. But what interested me is USA there were five reasons stated: 1. all day school 2. flexible working conditions 3. strong family unit. 4. affordability, affordable housing, afford own home and ability to hire nanny's hiring cheaply by hiring immigrants ( I think it even said illegal immigrants)5. Americans don't see children as a BURDEN but instead as Glück part of the pursuit of happiness.
Isn't if awful that it's actually written in a book for youth, 14 yr olds, that Germans see children as a burden, I mean I know, it's true. No matter what politicians try to do and implement programs one cannot change the attitude of people who see children as a pain and burden to themselves and the earth.
Two media items of recent months come to mind that present this, 1. a young woman was recently kicked off the bus because her very young baby was crying and the other passengers complained, so the bus driver made her get out and walk the rest of the way. I did not make this up you can read it here oh.. was just last week.
http://www.thelocal.de/society/20110316-33767.html
the other item that won in favour of children is that recently the law was changed that children's lärm, noise is no longer seen as something verboten, thus seniors or others cannot complain about them and thus one is now allowed to build schools in residential areas even where seniors live. I did not make this up read here http://www.thelocal.de/society/20110216-33155.html I think this is wonderful, I know when I was home sick I loved listening to the kids when they would come to and from school. It was the best part of the day and considered myself fortunate to live by a school. I even thought they should build senior centers near schools, guess not in Germany.
It is very sad, but I agree that much of the world views children as only a burden. I think there is a main reason missing in the reasons why certain countries have fewer kids. There is a high correlation that the more secular the fewer children, and converesly the more religious the more children (I don't have the stats handy, but if anyone doubts this it is probably simple to find). Therefore, I think with the west becoming increasingly secular, that is the primary (but not only) factor in fewer children. Since Europe is even more secular than the US (in the sense that the US still has a large minority that regularly attends church) I think they have fewer children. Those countries with high birth rates (Africa, Middle East and Latin America) are very serious about their religious beliefs. Within the US, the religious have far more children than the secular.
ReplyDeleteI think for the secular world, “fun” and “happiness” are the “purpose of life”. If those are goals in and of themselves, then I can understand why a life without children would appear to enable more “fun” and less burden.
So you have “made peace with the fact that the capitalist system is not perfect, but it is the best system we have despite all its imperfections.” I consider that a fair position, although I hope you are not too firmly committed to it, because well meaning people who are working at addressing the imperfections of capitalism need you help.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to take your statement “I believe any government controls have many more unintended consequences that the solutions they try to resolve.” seriously. Surely you are saying more there than what you intend to say.
I expect few people on the left would consider increasing government expenditure in itself a significant accomplishment. The program the new expenditure allows, would be the accomplishment. On the right, however, I hear that cutting government expenditure is an accomplishment, no matter what program is axed as a result.
A deficiency Hayek and Keynes have in common is that both assume perpetual growth is not only possible, but also good. So both of them seek the same thing – growth. They just disagree on how to get there. I don't think there is a single biological scientist who would today say perpetual growth is possible. That club is filled by economists. So the challenge is to develop an economic system that will help us with degrowth. So I agree with you Karl, that there is reason to be concerned about halted growth, but my concern emanates for a different space. You think halted growth is a bad thing. I think it is a good thing, but am not at all confident that capitalism is able to help through degrowth.
So if the Right thinks perpetual growth is a good thing, why is it so opposed to immigration?
Your observation that the more religious, the bigger the families, rings true with my observations, no matter what that religion may be. This was terribly obvious in the former Soviet states we have visited. But I become uneasy when Christian leaders suggest Christian families need to have more babies to keep the Muslim hoards at bay. If that indeed is the issue, God has other ways.
The democracies of the world are dying, but not because of low birth rates. They can always encourage more immigration. If China finds that their one child policy is not working, they will stop it, and begin to promote multiple births (Won't that be scary – The most populous country in the world encouraging their women to have more children). And biologically the situation will correct itself. There is no biological problem. If the economic system can't handle it, humans need to find one that can. Democracies are dying because the ruling elite in those countries have lost their connection with the people. In my view, both Canada and the US are way less democratic now than they were 50 years ago. I may start a new post on that, but not today.
An example of why accepting the inherent weaknesses of the free market is not good enough. The market needs our help. http://www.carbonfees.org/home/?page_id=35
ReplyDelete