Economics

I just returned a book to the library called The Birth of Plenty. It was a very interesting read, and I really wish I had time to finish it off; too much slacking right after I borrowed it and a list of requests after me. But the premise of it is a thought provoking one, especially in the face of the anti-globalization forces.

The theory goes that the explosive growth in technology, quality of living, income, and what not can be traced to a union of four factors. These four factors emerged first in Europe, and have yet to emerge everywhere:

1. Efficient Property Rights.
2. Scientific Rationalism
3. Access to Capital Markets
4. Access to Fast Transportation and Information Exchange For Goods and Services
   

And that list is in rough order of their occurrence. The rudiments of property rights were lain down in the Magna Carta. Scientific rationalism got a boost during the Reformation. Capital markets emerged in the Netherlands and then England. Transport (the steam engine and railroads) and Information exchange (telegraph) were products a free market process engendered by the first three items.

Of the four, the last could be said to be in place pretty much everywhere in the globe. The Internet has done wonders for information exchange, even in restrictive nations. The other three are more dubious.

There is a postulate in the book that colonialism had a factor into determining the colonies ultimate prosperity. The US inherited England's property system, capital markets, rationalism, and had the chance to excise out the cruft-of-ages. Therefore, the US prospered. Mexico (and most of Latin America) inherited Spain's rather broken property institutions, which in turn crippled her ability to leverage capital. Therefore, Mexico lags behind.

There is an interesting passage that hilights the differences between property rights in different ex-colonial nations. This is from memory:

The most time consuming part of buying a house in America is agreeing to a price. Once that is done, you head to the County recorder, check to see if the title is clear, and if it is, transfer the property. Done!

In Lima, Peru the same transaction takes 728 steps. Therefore, only the wealthy can afford to obtain clear title to properties. This encourages land to pass down in the family, subdividing as the generations go on. Because people can't guarantee that they have a clear title to the land they own, banks will not lend against that property because they can't be certain that some other party has an interest in the property already. This has a crippling effect on capital liquidity.

Due to a greedy king in the 1200's, England had codified property rights from way back. Few other places had such a thing. This particular institution was exported to England colonies, which is why a large number of them (America, Canada, Australia) are 'first world' nations now. Spain was not so lucky, in that her property institutions were very inefficient, which was also exported to her colonies to their detriment.

But not always. America was a new nation of European immigrants with strong institutions. Bolivia (to use an example) had relatively few European immigrants, and a lot of native-descendants. And not only that. The US rebellion was led by educated men with a strong basis in Western thinking, where the South American rebellions were more wars of self aggrandizement than throwing off the yolk of imperial rule.

The author also touched briefly on the problem the Arab world faces now. The Islamic states of North Africa in the 1500's started to become increasingly conservative, and less friendly to the spirit of inquiry that had the Iberian Moslems so dramatically beyond Christian Europe in the dark ages. These days, some Islamic states lack all keys to prosperity but efficient transportation. Others just lack one item, such as a spirit of scientific rationalism, or effective capital markets.

Another point that was made was that it isn't democracy that produces prosperity. Prosperity leads, generally, to democracy. Attempts to go from democracy to prosperity have been made in the past 60 years since colonialism's demise, and have failed in almost every case. You can have prosperity under authoritarian regimes, it just takes flexibility on the part of the leader. In fact, the Spanish legacy was rooted out more singularly in nations with 'benevolent autocrats' (Chile) than in nations that have been democratic for much longer, and as a result these ex-autocratic states have more robust economies than their neighbors.

The author paints a picture of France in the 1680-revolution period as one that looks remarkably like the Soviet state. Centrally planned, managed, and coordinated. The French state ultimately fell like the Soviets did, for much of the same reasons. At the end of the period, France had as many canals as England did, but her addiction to monopolies was such that all innovation was stamped out of her populace; a violation of the fourth principle.

The 'now' parts of the book were the ones that I didn't get to, so I can't speak as to his views on how to fix prosperity in the world today. One thing is clear, though. Protectionism in any form, be it punitive tariffs or subsidization, is in general bad for prosperity. And if the foes of 'globalization' are anything, they're protectionist (or at least a good percentage of 'em).

What I want to know is how foreign aid figures into the picture.

This is the point

Fareed Zakaria wrote an article in last week's Newsweek that hits the nail on the head.

Pssst ... Nobody Loves a Torturer
Ask any American soldier in Iraq when the general population really turned against the United States and he will say, "Abu Ghraib."

He then goes into detail about how the US can attempt to regain the reputation we've lost since Abu Ghraib broke. It is a very good read, and I strongly recommend it.

An interesting take

The Washington Post posted an article recently that describes a debate forming over the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine that has been developed recently. This particular virus is strongly associated with certain forms of cervical cancer, so the vaccine is seen as a way to prevent future cancers.

Apparently the key debate started when officials started talking about when to vaccinate people. Ideally it needs to happen before puberty kicks in and kids start doing what kids do when puberty hits. The problem here is that, apparently, vaccinating against a STD sends a message that such pre-marital behavior is OK. Therefore, the HPV vaccine is lumped into the same category as birth-control and abortions.

The desire here seems to be to make sure that pre-marital you-know-what has consequences. Possibly dire consequences. God gave you those urges to test you, or something, and through resisting until marriage you will rise in the eyes of Him and live a better life along the way.

Which only brings up the question of what'll happen if the science wonks ever figure out an effective HIV vaccine. Such a thing is nearly impossible due to the nature of the virus, but it does pose an interesting thought experiment. Even today HIV is seen in some sections as God's punishment to the promiscuous queers. Such a vaccine would have an undeniable public health benefit, as anyone who has read about the crisis in Africa can attest.

But here in America, where forcible or incest rape is a teeny percentage of HIV transmission, you can bet the 'clear health benefit' will be lost in a moral storm. Especially if talks are to vaccinate children before their marriage-night. Pre-marital you-know-what needs to have consequences, and God delivered this one to us just for that.

I don't know the stats, but I suspect that the majority of STDs are contracted by people in the 'young idiot' demographic (puberty to about age 25). I do know that in the Gay community, the younguns who don't remember the AIDS scares of the 80's and 90's are the ones most likely to participate in very unsafe behavior. Anything that can protect this age-group needs to be done.

The argument that "pre-marital you know what must have consequences" is a key part of the version of "reproductive health" that has survived in our public schools. Gone are the days when they taught how to use birth-control, and now the focus is on birth-control failure rates (which will inevitably go up since we're not teaching how to use the stuff), infectious diseases you can catch that'll kill you, and the chances and consequences of pregnancy before marriage. The overwhelming argument being that you-know-what can kill you, so you'd best only do it with one and only one person in your whole life.

So in the end, seeing that certain parties see the HPV vaccine as a threat doesn't come as a surprise.