We Were Wrong (Third World)

 Noah Smith writes about China's economic progress and its problems here.

His description of the progress China's made reminds me of how wrong/mistaken internationalist liberals were in the 50's and 60's. Back then it seems to me our focus was on the need for foreign aid to help the "Third World" to advance.  I'm thinking of people like Barbara Ward. For all that our hearts were in the right place, I think it's fair to say we never conceived of China's path out of severe poverty. 

Thank goodness we were wrong, because foreign aid, while important and helpful, never reached the levels we thought were necessary. 

Basic Income Test

 Annie Lowrey has a piece in TheAtlantic about a basic income experiment in Stockton, CA. Using private donations, some individuals got $500 a month to spend as they wished.  She asserts it worked out well.

"Stockton has now proved this [a hand up is better than a handout] false. An exclusive new analysis of data from the demonstration project shows that a lack of resources is its own miserable trap. The best way to get people out of poverty is just to get them out of poverty; the best way to offer families more resources is just to offer them more resources."

I like the idea of experiments, but it's hard for government to run them. I like this one and the result, but I'm put off by the first two sentences:

Two years ago, the city of Stockton, California, did something remarkable: It brought back welfare.

Having lived through Reagan's demonizing of welfare queens, and the attacks on ADC for disrupting parental relations, I've a knee-jerk reaction to "welfare".  Similarly, when Sen. Romney proposed his Family Plan I had an initial positive reaction, but then when I saw someone comparing it to welfare I grew concerned. My mind's still open on the issue, but judging by my gut I fear for the viability of such proposals.

Covid-19 Makes Us All Poor

Don't normally listen to podcasts but I did this one at Slate with an ER doctor..

He points to the lack of control felt by him and the public. That's one of the things about being poor--the lack of control over your life, the need to live from crisis to crisis, without the resources to get ahead of things.  The lack of control means you lose the ability to scan the environment and to plan the future.

For me, these descriptions apply to my current state of mind--my mental horizon has contracted to the issues raised by the virus: buying food, the loss of outside entertainment possibilities, the uncertainty,.  In other words, I'm now pretty much stupid.

[Updated--I forgot the most important thing--obsessing about the possibility Starbucks will close. I can't live without my coffee.]

Blast from the Past: J.K. Galbraith

Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money posts about reading J.K. Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" (it's been 60 years since its publication).  That was a very influential book for liberals back in the days of the New Frontier.  But then came Michael Harrington and his "The Other America" which (re)discovered poverty.  Between the two, they shaped much of my thinking back then.

A Virtuous Circle?

Some interesting reports: teenage sex is down, employers are looking to ex-convicts to fill job vacancies, the gap between black and white unemployment rates is the narrowest it's been since the figures were available, crime is down so that black urban dwellings now have the same vulnerability to crime as white suburbanites did in 1990.

I've long believed in the vicious cycle of poverty/racism/social ills.  Bad things feed on each other.  But maybe I need to admit the possibility of virtuous cycles?

You Can't Will Yourself to Have Willpower

"You can't will yourself to have willpower" is a thought I had, when thinking about poverty, but it also seems to me to apply to dieting.

My idea is that people have willpower in specific areas, and not in others.  For example, I've little problem in exercising willpower in what I eat, but not in whether I can complete a set of tasks. 

$14,000 Per Poor Person?

David Brooks says Robert Samuelson reports that the federal government spends $14,000 per poor person in today's column.

I don't believe it.  A top of the head estimate is we have about 45 million poor people (15 percent times 300,000,000 total population).  So Brooks and Samuelson are saying we spend $600 billion on poor people?  No way.

To be continued.

History Repeats: Kenya, Cellphones and I-Cow

Been doing some reading (and a little writing) in the history of USDA, extension, etc.  The theme I see there is that USDA worked for the most literate, most progressive farmers.  That's why I'm struck by this article in CSMonitor on I-Cow in Kenya; an app helps Kenyan dairy farmers manage their herds. 

Kahumbu’s iCow may not be the latest sensation on Wall Street, but experts say it is just the latest example of an innovative high-tech entrepreneurial culture that has started to take hold in Kenya. Following in the footsteps of major commercial successes such as MPESA – a mobile-phone banking application that now rivals Western Union – other Kenyan software developers are setting up shop in Nairobi, creating high-tech solutions for an African market that has long been ignored; universities and private companies are setting up labs and business incubators; and government officials are plotting strategies to transform Kenya into a high-tech hub for the continent.

I'd like to celebrate the progress being made, but we should also have a thought for those who will be left behind in the race to the top, to modernity.

Disasters, Climbing Mountains, and the Poor

I'm not a mountain climber, but it seems it me mountain climbing is a good metaphor for being poor, and disasters.

Imagine a big high mountain and the game of life is to try to climb it.  The mountain has various nooks and crannies, easier routes and harder routes, and most of all it has a lot of loose stones, so it's very easy for a climber to dislodge a stone which falls, sometimes triggering more rock falls.  Now where you start on the mountain is a matter of luck, your ancestors and your inheritance.  Some people just find a cranny near their starting point and rest there.  Others are able to make mad sprints up an easy route. But most people toil away at whatever level they're at on the mountain.

Unfortunately, as they toil they knock the stones off, the stones go bouncing down the side and they can hit the people below, knocking them backwards down the mountain.

The poor are at the lowest levels of the mountain and therefore have the longest climb and face the most stones falling down.  That's life, that's unfair, that's disaster.

Thinking of filing insurance claims for damage caused by Sandy, that assumes people have insurance.  But the poor are less likely to have insurance, that's a luxury you can't afford  Lose all the food in your refrigerator; that's particularly hard if your food budget is tight.  Lose the car to the flooding, unlikely to have comprehensive insurance.  Have the apartment flooded, no renters insurance. The local restaurant is flooded, lose weeks of work as dishwasher or waiter until it gets going again.

Income Inequality: Fairfax and Prince William

Propublica has an interactive site which shows, based on Census figures, how equal or unequal the distribution of incomes in your county is.  According to it, about 26 percent of populous counties are more equal than Fairfax,VA.  Meanwhile, Prince William, the next further county out from Fairfax and home of Manassas, VA, more equal than every populous county.  Meanwhile, places like Essex county, MA, Baltimore, MD, and Orleans parish, LA are up there in the 90+ percent.

I'm not clear why the differences, though my guess is: history.  Fairfax has a longer history as a populous county than Prince William, so it had longer to develop pockets of poverty and pockets of wealth (McLean and Great Falls).  The same of course is even more true for the old urban and suburban areas (Fairfax was mostly rural until the 50's.).

The Poor and Food

An item in the Post this morning and the sight of a sale on canned tomatoes reminds me of a fact, or a series of facts, interlinked. Stereotypically the grocery stores in poorer urban neighborhoods are small and pricey. The urban poor typically do not have cars, being more reliant on public transport. (Even in Reston I often see people walking from the local Safeway to the once-subsidized housing complex carrying a couple bags of groceries.) The poor live from month to month. All of which makes it difficult to take advantage of sales at stores, to invest money in food which you may eat in 6 months, rather than 6 hours.

My wife and I will stock up on canned tomatoes on our weekly shopping trip, and thereby save about 40 percent on the cost. It's easy because we have the money, we have the car (I normally walk except for the weekly trip), and the store is handy. It's taking advantage of an opportunity (which we can do on other staples), not a determined effort to limit food expenditures to a budget figure, but it does mean our food costs are lower than for a poorer couple in different circumstances.