Assiduous readers may have noticed that a rather angry commenter known as Jim from North London keeps on at me about my rubbishing of the UN, promotion of private sector aid, development and so on. The latest little piece I see at his place contains this:
Meanwhile, cretins in the UK have quietened down somewhat. Tim Worstall stopped responding to comments on his anti-UN snipes once the posts had fallen off his blog’s front page. When criticised by The Obscurer,
though, Worstall is quick to say that "yes, indeed, everyone who is
helping deserves both our thanks and our support" (directly
contradicting his previous insistence that anyone who works for the UN
deserve none). Don’t hold your breath waiting for a similar admission
on his own blog, though.
As I’m not in the UK I assume the cretins bit doesn’t apply to me. As to the responding to his comment, well, do have a look at what he says. I must have missed that lesson at the Blogging Academy where it is pointed out that I have to respond to every passing crank, especially when there are other posts here which explain exactly my views on such matters.
Just to make it clear, as I do in response to The Obscurer, of course anyone and everyone who has helped save lives deserves our thanks and support. What Jim manages to miss is that this blog uses economic arguments a lot of the time. We are always interested in relative results, not absolute. Or, if you prefer, we are aware of the existence of opportunity costs around here. Doing something in an inefficient manner, no matter how well intentioned, is worse than doing something in an efficient manner. Sure, we can all have a great global love-in called the UN but if that organisation is less effective than, say, the US Military, at delivering disaster aid then we should be using the latter, not the former, to deliver disaster aid.
This, of course, requires observation of which is the more efficient system, even commentary on which is.
Not a complex set of reasoning that but then if you want to see why Jim doesn’t get it have a look at his page on 10 ideas for development. A more absurd and preposterous series of economic ideas is difficult to imagine outside the syphilitic ravings of Lenin on Imperialism. I’ve actually finally come round to the idea that Jim and his site are in fact a spoof, a long lasting one but one that I have finally seen through. No one who honestly wanted to improve the lot of the world’s poor would seriously suggest that more money and more economic power should be given to the liars, thieves and economic incompetents who currently run the poor countries. I mean, really, they wouldn’t, would they? Surely no one can be that blind to economic reality?
Allow developing countries to selectively protect and nurture their
industries, just as every one of today’s rich countries has done in the
past.
Bob Mugabe gets to decide which industries get tariff protection? Oh, Puhleease, get a grip dear boy.
Leave a Reply