Archive for Poverty

Thanks, Greedy Capitalists

We may be subsisting on crumbs from your table, but they’re very tasty crumbs, and nutritious!


In 1820, according to data compiled by Roser*, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in “extreme” poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the “extreme” poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

“In the past only a small elite lived a life without poverty,” Roser explains. “Since the onset of industriali[z]ation – and as a consequence of this, economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since.”

“In the past only a small elite lived a life without poverty,” Roser explains. “Since the onset of industriali[z]ation – and as a consequence of this, economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since.”

*Note from Roser:

“The share of people of living in poverty and extreme poverty is taken from Bourguignon and Morrison (2002) and ‘the poverty lines were calibrated so that poverty and extreme poverty headcounts in 1992 coincided roughly with estimates from other sources.’ And in footnote they say ‘these definitions correspond to poverty lines equal to consumption per capita of $2 and $1 a day, expressed in 1985 PPP.’

To this I added the share of people living below the international poverty line which, since the revision in 2008, is $1.25 at 2005 purchasing-power parity (PPP). This data is from the World Bank and is available here – for the period 1981-2011. The revisions in the definition of the poverty line and the PPP adjustment make the poverty figures not comparable to earlier data – to illustrate this I have plotted both series for the time from 1981 to 1992. The World Bank data was downloaded in January 2015.”

I would add, because it’s true, that the decline in the poverty rate accelerated (if that’s not a form of double negative) just after the second world war. Our much-maligned times, jacked-up on technology and industrialization, have seen billions—billions—of people lifted out of a starvation existence (if that’s not an oxymoron). Those living on $1.25 a day have fallen by two-thirds (53% to 17%) in the last thirty years alone (1981-2011).

Hug a capitalist today.

PS: And the next time you hear someone longing for an agrarian, pre-industrial existence, cross the street. For you are in the presence of true evil, a genocidal monster on par with Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.


Vote Democrat, Be Poor

Lest there be any doubt:

The gap between the rich and poor in big cities in the United States is still widening, according to a new report.

Atlanta is the most unequal city with the wealthy taking home nearly 20 times more than low-income households, data from the Brookings Institution revealed.

Nationwide the rich took home around 9.3 times more money – but in big cities it was up to 11.6 times.

It showed the average wage for top earners in Atlanta was $288,159 – nearly $274,000 more than the bottom fifth’s earnings.

The income gap was also large in San Francisco, Boston and Miami, with San Francisco boasting the highest earnings for the wealthy at $423,171. Rich households in Washington were the only others to top $300,000.

The nation’s most equal city is Virginia Beach, where the rich only take home around six times more.

Colorado Springs, Mesa and Oklahoma City are also fairly equal.

I didn’t look up the party affiliation of all the unequal city mayors—all almost certainly Democrat—but the most equal cities are all led by Republican mayors (John Giles of Mesa, AZ is a self-identified conservative).

Go ahead, libs, I’m waiting for your explanation.


The Equal Parenting Act

If not now, when?

“When kids come to school, the rich kids are bringing in their backpack support from family, both moral support and encouragements and so on,” Putnam said. “And the poor kids are bringing from their neighborhoods gang violence and depression and family disruption and so on. Not that the kids themselves are responsible for it, but that’s in their backpack.”

“So it affects all the kids,” Putnam told the co-hosts. “If you’re lucky, you go to school with rich kids and if you’re not so lucky, you go to school with poor kids. That means the schools are like an echo chamber, and they’re making the problem worse.”

“Is our education system actually exacerbating inequality?” co-host Krystal Ball asked.

Putnam said it’s “not so much because of what the schools are doing to the kids” but because of what kids have learned at home and are bringing to school.

Why should the rich parents have good parenting habits when the poor parents don’t? Wouldn’t it be fair to spread the parenting around, so that the rich kids get violence and depression and the poor kids get encouragement and moral support? Why doesn’t Congress act?

To be serious for a moment, we once went to a back-to-school night where the teacher, new to the school after having taught for several years in an inner-city school, was astonished to see a classroom full of parents instead of the one or two he was accustomed to seeing. He never said, and we never inferred, the reason. But we can think about it.

And it wasn’t just at school:

“What we also know is the amount of verbal interaction between parents and their kids, first of all, differs a lot between upper-class and lower-class families,” Putnam assessed. “Secondly that, difference has been growing a lot. So now kids like my grandchildren, who have well-educated parents, get about 45 minutes a day more verbal interaction with their parents. More, how was your day, and family dinners and so on. And those various alternatives we see as a kind of a scissors grab, we call it, things getting better and better for rich kids and getting worse and worse for poor kids. And that shows up all the way through the rest of their lives.”

Some of those kids have parents working multiple jobs, some have parents working no jobs, and some don’t have parents at all (or just one). I have a moderately broad definition of family: one of each, two of each, one plus a grandparent, aunt, uncle, etc. But kids need someone to care about them, to ask them how there day was. The facts of life are conservative. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, much less an act of Congress. It takes a family.

Comments (1)

Reprimitivization Watch

Let’s get the race card on the table at the start: when I write about Detroit—80% African American—I write about race. I feel uneasy doing so, but I only report the sad truths—bankruptcy, abandonment, water cutoffs—that I read in the news.

To which add squatters:

A year-and-a-half after filing for bankruptcy, Detroit is on its way out. For outside investors, now is the time to get in to the Motor City, but beware of a pesky problem.

Squatters are a bigger nuisance than bedbugs and, in Detroit, Charlie LeDuff found an outrageous story that puts a new twist on the old saying “A man is the king of his castle.”

Sarah Hamilton owns a home in Detroit and was planning to sell it. That is, until she ran into a problem: Lynn Williams, a squatter, had moved into the home. Sarah says she’s been threatened with a knife and the police were even called on her after an altercation. Lynn says Sarah tried running her down with a car.

Later that night, Sarah was cuffed. As she was booked in, Lynn moved back in to the home.

Charlie LeDuff got to work. After getting permission, and the keys, from Sarah, he planned to move in himself. But not without the cops’ knowledge first.

LeDuff was not armed and Lynn Williams, known in the penal system as Arthur Williams, is on probation for a felony assault conviction.

Check out what happens when he tried to get in wearing his bathrobe and carrying the deed to the house, and Lynn’s reason for why she’s squatting and refusing to pack up and move out by clicking play above.

Pardon my second American Idol reference of the morning, but, as below, I feel like I’m watching an audition in the early weeks, when they feature some mentally unstable derelict with delusions of grandeur. Or at least tonality.

I tell myself that it’s not about race, or not just. It’s about communities—geographic or racial—that give themselves over, body and soul, to the Democratic Party. Women like Lynn (née Arthur) Williams didn’t turn Detroit into the reprimitivized [bleep]hole it has become. Not alone anyway. Generations of Democrat politicians, owned and operated by the unions, plundered the city until what we see is all that’s left.

But now that the grown-ups have come onto the scene, now that the rotting has been stopped or slowed, there is no place for Ms. Williams on the streets of a city that will never be great again, but might, just might, achieve decency. The 80% Africans Americans and 20% other deserve nothing less.

Kevin D. Williamson agrees:

The Democrats, if they had any remaining intellectual honesty, would hold their convention in Detroit. Democratic leadership, Democratic unions and the Democratic policies that empower them, Democrat-dominated school bureaucracies, Democrat-style law enforcement, Democratic levels of taxation and spending, the politics of protest and grievance in the classical Democratic mode — all of these have made Detroit what it is today: an unwholesome slop-pail of woe and degradation that does not seem to belong in North America, a craptastical crater groaning with misery, a city-shaped void in what once was the industrial soul of the nation. If you want to see the end point of Barack Obama’s shining path, visit Detroit.


Murder is Their Business, and Business Sure is Swell

At least one industry in Detroit is alive: the death industry.

Nearly one-third of all pregnancies in the city of Detroit end in abortion, a statistic public health officials blame on rising poverty and dwindling access to affordable contraception.

Can we stop here for a second? Affordable contraception? How much does a condom cost? Nothing, if you get it from Planned Parenthood. (They tell us they offer more services than just abortion—here’s their chance to prove it.)

Anyway, back to the jolly news:

While the abortion rate has been climbing in Detroit, it’s been declining in Michigan and across the U.S. “We’re seeing a picture that looks more like some Third-World country than someplace in the United States,” said Dr. Susan Schooley, chairwoman of the Department of Family Medicine at Henry Ford Hospital.

Funding for family planning and contraceptives has decreased significantly in Michigan in recent years, from more than $5 million in 2006 to $692,300 in 2013, according to the state Department of Community Health. The number of clients receiving free family-planning assistance decreased by about 80,000 between 2006 and 2013.

“Both routine primary care and family planning-specific primary care are not available in Detroit,” Schooley said. “To the extent that a significant proportion of those (pregnancies) are unplanned, it leads to all these decision-making options of which abortion is one lousy choice.”

On that we agree. I do have to wonder, however, how these clients are so engaged with medicine to get their abortions, yet so disengaged when it comes to “family planning”. I guess a city so wasted as Detroit really has been “re-primitivized”—darkened streets, vast tracts of abandoned buildings, a population plummet of almost two-thirds. (Say, you don’t suppose that could be related, do you?) Concepts such as consequence and responsibility seem irrelevant to life on Detroit’s streets.

I just wish the victims of this genocide weren’t disparately born by unborn black children. (Detroit is over 80% black.)

It’s another public health challenge for Detroit, which is the most dangerous city in America to be a child, according to a Detroit News study. Published in January, the study found that the death rate for children 18 and younger is higher in Detroit than in any U.S. city its size or larger. The highest number of deaths occur in the first year, most related to premature birth. Homicide is the second greatest cause of child deaths in the city.

Just peachy. Those children who survive until birth will be lucky to live to adulthood. It really is “third world”.

But have you noticed something missing from this story?

Loretta Davis, president and CEO of Detroit’s Institute for Population Health, which administers health services for the city of Detroit including family planning programs, said the increasing abortion rate represents a “public health failure.”

“Somehow, we need to be able to get to these women and girls and reach them in such a way that they are able to make a healthy decision around their sexuality and choose a method of birth control that will work for them,” Davis said.

Have I forgotten my biology, or do women and girls need men and boys to have an abortion (who has babies anymore)? Why are they excluded from this discussion? The article mentions all sorts of medical interventions on women (pills, implants, multiple abortions), yet ignores the cheapest (and safest, I’ll wager) contraception of all (save abstinence), the condom. I won’t dictate personal preference, but if the slogan “keep your laws off our bodies” is to have any meaning, someone has to take responsibility for your bodies. I’d rather it not fall so disproportionately on the black unborn.

PS: Call me what you will, but if you polled the black unborn, I think they’d agree with me.

PPS: I have written essentially the same piece several times before, about the abortion rate among black women in New York City. So, it’s not unique to Detroit. The “third world” extends to a stone’s throw from Park Avenue and the West Village, too.


Minimum Wage To Rise; Poor, Homeless Hardest Hit

Don’t worry, it’s actually quite amusing.

It’s happening in Seattle! Hahahahaha!!!!

A proposal to raise Seattle’s minimum wage to $15 an hour would force many nonprofit organizations to either shut their doors or limit their services to the disabled and needy, according to a preliminary study conducted by the Seattle Human Services Coalition (SHSC).

The authors of the study concluded that, “Since nonprofits generally do not have the option of covering an increase in wages by ‘raising their prices or decreasing profits,’ resources would either have to be added to the agency or be shifted within the agency in order to raise wages.”

They noted that the extreme wage hikes would adversely impact Seattle’s most downtrodden residents.

“Without additional resources added, often the only option would be to decrease or cut services, meaning the impacts would be felt first by the most vulnerable members of the Seattle communities: the people who need these services,” read the study.

The study found that shelter beds for the homeless, meal service for the formerly homeless and housing for the disabled could in some cases be eliminated. Head Start availability would be decreased, eliminating at least one classroom serving 20 children. Food banks would be closed one or more days per week, with some possibly closing entirely.

If those homeless and disabled would only get a job, they’d be rolling in clover! Fifteen bucks an hour? Who needs pre-school if you can learn to bag fries?

I’m sorry. I don’t really want the poor to go hungry or the homeless to shiver in the cold rain of the Pacific Northwest. That’s what Seattle liberals want. But I can at least laugh at their inept do-goodery.

And I do. Hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

Comments (3)

OMG, America is So Sexist, Racist, Etc., Even the American Dream is Sexist, Racist, Etc!

Turns out the secret to wealth and success is love, marriage, and hard work.

The bastards! (Okay, you can skip love.)

Rich America is working America: Wealthy households contain on average more than four times as many full-time workers as do poor households, and, surprisingly, inherited wealth constitutes a smaller share of their assets than it does for middle-class and poor households. They live modestly relative to their means and for the most part do not work on Wall Street or as corporate executives. The caricature of the rich American as a child of privilege who inherited a fortune and spends his days shuttling between mansions in a private jet is largely a product of the imagination of such would-be class warriors as Elizabeth Warren and Robert Reich, neither of whom lives in Section 8 housing, or even downwind of it.

For the hated “1 percent,” inherited wealth accounts for about 15 percent of holdings. Contrary to the story the Left likes to tell about economic inequality in the United States, those numbers have gone down over recent decades — by almost half for the wealthiest Americans. Meanwhile, inherited money makes up 43 percent of the wealth of the lowest income group and 31 percent for the second-lowest. In case our would-be class warriors are having trouble running the numbers here, that means that inherited money on net reduces wealth inequality in the United States (measured as a ratio) rather than exacerbating it; eliminating inherited wealth would have approximately twice as much of a negative effect on modest households as on wealthy ones.

So, go ahead! Hammer them, Lieawatha!

There is a reason that money earned from work accounts for a relatively large share of the holdings of rich Americans: They work more — a lot more.

There is, to be sure, such a thing as the working poor, but the most salient characteristic of poor households is the lack of full-time workers in them. For the bottom income group, there is an average of 0.42 earners per household, with 68.2 percent of householders not working at all, as opposed to 1.97 earners per household and only 13.3 percent not working for the highest income group. The answer to poverty turns out to be “get a job,” after all.

Not surprisingly, 78.4 percent of those highest-income families were married couples, as opposed to 17 percent for the lowest-income group. What this all means in brief is that the highest-income families are composed almost exclusively of two-earner households, the overwhelming majority of them married couples. Those who are inclined to see public policy mainly through green eyeshades may sniff at the social conservatives and their quaint worries about marriage, but there is a very strong connection between how we conduct our family lives and our economic outcomes.

This is not an invitation to moral crowing about the virtues of the rich — okay, maybe it is. The country would in fact be far better off if more people lived the way the top 20 percent do: married, working their butts off, saving and investing their money, and living within their means. (In his research for The Millionaire Next Door, Thomas J. Stanley found that the most popular make of automobile among the wealthy was not Ferrari or Mercedes but Ford, and that the most common Ford model owned by a millionaire was the F-150 pickup truck.)

You know what’s funnier than the secret of wealth turning out to be Leave it to Beaver (with Mrs. Cleaver running a successful catering business, employing Eddie Haskell as a delivery driver)? It’s no secret!

This guy crunched the numbers, but who doesn’t know this intuitively? Two incomes, stable homes, kids learning the value of education—it sounds like the Obamas. And they’re stinking rich! (Relax, it’s just an expression.)

If class warriors like Fauxcahantas really wanted to help the middle class, she’d… she’d do nothing. Most government programs for the poor have led to more poverty. The successful household model—two working parents—has only gotten further out of reach for the poorer among us. God help us if Liberals get their talons into the rest of us. We’ll be skinning each other’s dogs and cats for food. Or living in Detroit.


Rush Limbaugh, Right Again

Rush Limbaugh took a bit of heat a few weeks ago for daring to correct the Pope on economic theory. Capitalism, not socialism, not even charity, lifted the most people out of poverty, Rush averred.

Somebody—a lot of somebodies—owe Rush an apology:

More than one in five people live in extreme poverty globally, according to a new report, though China’s continued economic growth has improved the lives of millions.

The poverty rate in the world’s most populous country fell by nearly three-quarters in the last six years, from 26% in 2007 to 7% by 2012, the report by Gallup, a U.S.-based research company, said.

Such a trend is attributed to the economic reforms within the country in the last couple of decades.

Reform from what to what, CNN? No reply.

These substantial strides by China meant overall poverty across the globe was halved from 40% to 20% within two decades, according to World Bank President Jim Yong Kim.

Sub-Saharan Africa was found to have the highest levels of poverty, with the majority of the population in the region — 54% — living under extreme poverty. The statistics in Liberia and Burundi are even more dire, with 90% of the population classed in this category.

I’m not saying you want to be China, Africa, but there’s nothing stopping you.


Democrats Dominate, Pretty Latinas Hardest Hit

The point of my post below (since I have to explain these things) is that liberal policies bring about the very conditions against which liberals rail. In the post below, it’s income disparity (worse now, they claim, than when Obama took office nearly five years ago).

What’s even worse than income disparity in America?

Homelessness in Massachusetts:

Record numbers of homeless families are overwhelming the state’s emergency shelter system, filling motel rooms at the cost to taxpayers of tens of millions of dollars a year.

An average of nearly 2,100 families a night — an all-time high — were temporarily housed in motel rooms in October, just about equaling the number of families in emergency shelters across the state, according to be the state Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development.

The demand for shelter is so great that the state has been temporarily sending homeless families from Boston to motels in Western Massachusetts, although state officials said many have been relocated back again, closer to home.

Aaron Gornstein, the undersecretary for housing, said the surge has followed cuts in state and federal housing subsidies, soaring rents in Greater Boston, and still-high rates of unemployment and underemployment, particularly among lower-income workers.

“The state as a whole has recovered from the Great Recession faster than most other states, but in many ways we’re still struggling,” Gornstein said.

Give the Globe credit for at least providing eye candy!

UMass student Felicita Diaz moved to Northborough when a subsidy ended. Her family has since relocated to Chelsea.

Hmm, she doesn’t sound homeless to me. Too bad, I would have offered a warm bed. Half of one, anyway.

But back to my point. This is Boston—as hardline liberal an enclave within the liberal enclave of Massachusetts within the liberal enclave of New England as exists. And we did better during hard times than the rest of the country.

And yet:

A recent report from the Department of Housing and Urban Development said the number of homeless people in shelters and living on the streets in Massachusetts has risen 14 percent since 2010 to nearly 20,000 in January 2013, even as homelessness has declined nationally.

The mayor is a Democrat. The governor is a Democrat. The city council, state house, and state senate are overwhelmingly Democrat.

And yet:

Felicita Diaz’s family — her mother, 20-year-old sister, and 11-year-old brother — moved to an EconoLodge in Northborough for three weeks this fall after the housing subsidy for their Dorchester apartment ended.

Diaz, 18, a freshman at UMass Boston, said she took the commuter rail to get to her first day of college and then stayed with friends so she could attend classes and keep her job in the admissions office. But her 11-year-old brother missed about three weeks of school because the family could not afford the daily $9 fare to and from Boston on the commuter rail. Her mother had to quit her English as a Second Language classes because of the distance.

The family has temporarily moved to an apartment in Chelsea, continuing to hunt for affordable housing. Diaz’s brother is back in school, but her mother will have to wait until spring to enroll again in English classes.

“It’s been really hard,” Diaz said.

Someone needs a hug. And relief from Democrats.


Not a Title Worth Having

If this story is more than a little dispiriting, at least it reveals to our inquiring minds “the world’s worst place to be a mother”:

Tax avoidance, secret mining deals and financial transfers are depriving Africa of the benefits of its resources boom, ex-UN chief Kofi Annan has said.

Firms that shift profits to lower tax jurisdictions cost Africa $38bn (£25bn) a year, says a report produced by a panel he heads.

“Africa loses twice as much money through these loopholes as it gets from donors,” Mr Annan told the BBC.

It was like taking food off the tables of the poor, he said.

The Africa Progress Report is released every May – produced by a panel of 10 prominent figures, including former Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo and Graca Machel, the wife of South African ex-President Nelson Mandela.

African countries needed to improve governance and the world’s richest nations should help introduce global rules on transparency and taxation, Mr Annan said.

The report gave the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example, where between 2010 and 2012 five under-priced mining concessions were sold in “highly opaque and secretive deals”.

This cost the country, which the charity Save the Children said earlier this week was the world’s worst place to be a mother, $1.3bn in revenues.

And whose fault is that?

It takes two to make a deal, shady or otherwise, and “firms” stay in business by trying to keep costs—including taxes—low. You want business to stay? keep your taxes low. You’ll thrive.

But they’re right on “governance” and the rule of law. If there is no rule of law, there is only lawlessness. The sooner Africa, and South America, learn that, the sooner they will crawl out of poverty and despair.

Or not. Their call.


Homeboy Industries

You wouldn’t know it from this crusty, grizzled exterior (not that you can see my exterior, but take my word for it), but I turn out of bed every Sunday morning by 6 a.m. to listen to On Being on NPR. The host, Krista Tippett, interviews a range of people, from clerics to scientists, on topics broadly defined as “spirituality”.

Ordinarily, I would run screaming from the room at the very thought, and I wouldn’t blame you if you did. Depending on the guest, I still do.

This morning, even as I write, I am listening to an interview with Father Greg Boyle, a Jesuit priest who has worked with gangs in Los Angeles for decades. He began his ministry trying to bring peace to rival gangs, until he realized that, as he put it, to work with gangs is to give them oxygen. Gangs don’t kill out of logic or need, they just kill. And he was done with them.

So he opened a business for ex-gang members, Homeboy Industries, and there, in the midst of cruelty and hopelessness, he found his calling. He couldn’t place his homies with established businesses—a criminal record makes for a poor resume—so he set about creating his own. Now, it’s an empire, if by diner, cafe, market, etc., you can call it an empire. He’s had his successes and failures too: in the interview, he mentions having recently buried the 183rd member of his flock over a quarter century. (And Homeboy Plumbing went down the drain.)

I suppose that’s what grabs me about this interview. There is no make-up on the ugly face of cruelty. He has seen more evil than the rest of us combined, and out of his myriad failures, he has managed to create good. No, that’s not right: find good, channel good, collect good. As much for himself as for his homies.

You’ll need to be curious enough to pursue this on your own. I’ve given you the links. But if you do check it out, listen long enough to hear the story about the three t-shirts. It will change you. You may find your own such moments in the course of the conversation. You’ll never hear the expression “the feeling’s mutual” again.

Longer version of the interview on You Tube.


Good News, Bad News

The good news is that Africa can feed the world.

The bad news is that it’s Africa we’re talking about:

Images of starving children, epitomised in news coverage from Ethiopia in the 1980s, have given Africa a reputation for famine that does an injustice to the continent’s potential.

It’s true that a recent report by three U.N. agencies said nearly 239 million in Africa are hungry, a figure some 20 million higher than four years ago. And recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Sahel certainly highlight the desperate uncertainties of food supply for millions – malnutrition still cuts deep scars into progress on health and education.

But the Africa Progress Panel and many others believe that Africa has the potential not only to feed itself, but also to become a major food supplier for the rest of the world

Consider, for example, Africa’s agricultural land. According to an influential recent analysis, Africa has around 600 million hectares of uncultivated arable land, roughly 60 percent of the global total.

And on the land that is being used, outdated technologies and techniques mean productivity is low. African cereal yields, for example, are just over one-third of the developing world average and have barely increased in 30 years.

Boy, where to begin? First of all, I will dismiss any notion that Africa’s problems are to do with race. While everyone in Africa is indeed African, that tells us nothing. There are prosperous countries in Africa and there are basket cases. Let’s look below skin deep to figure out why.

It would take a report of a thousand pages to do this justice, and I don’t have the time, but just let me say that before you get to agricultural or climatological reasons, you have to deal with political, cultural, and religious issues first.

It’s hard to grow crops in the midst of a civil or guerrilla war, for example, and little easier under a corrupt regime. Areas of Islamist insurgency may have those twin ills to face, plus the irrational demands of religious zealots. In short, success in agriculture starts with success in society. Peace, stability, the rule of law. Even more than rainfall, those must be in ample supply. Investment and modernization will follow.

It’s not that hard to solve in theory, but virtually impossible to remedy in deed. If peace and lawfulness are not virtuous in their own right, will prosperity be enough of an inducement? Perhaps only those countries where these traits are already in ample supply can benefit, while the basket cases just get worse.

The author has his own ideas, from the plausible to the ridiculous (climate change mitigation paid for by the “international community” being an example of the latter—get real). But whatever the approach, without sound economic principles, the rule of law, and peace, Africa—or anywhere—is doomed.

And I mean anywhere.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »