My Beauty Best Teacher

Dambisa Moyo in the WSJ:

Few will deny that there is a clear moral imperative for humanitarian and charity-based aid to step in when necessary, such as during the 2004 tsunami in Asia. Nevertheless, it's worth reminding ourselves what emergency and charity-based aid can and cannot do. Aid-supported scholarships have certainly helped send African girls to school (never mind that they won't be able to find a job in their own countries once they have graduated). This kind of aid can provide band-aid solutions to alleviate immediate suffering, but by its very nature cannot be the platform for long-term sustainable growth...[continue reading]

Paul Collier writes in ANSA:

...as the radically different trajectories of Botswana and Sierra Leone illustrate, growth based on resource exports is critically dependent upon the quality of public choices. A long chain of decisions has to be got right, not just once but repeatedly for a generation. The upstream part of the decision chain involves reconciling strong incentives for prospecting with capturing as much as possible of the resource rents for society. This requires overcoming acute problems of agency, of time-inconsistency, and of asymmetric information. As the Niger Delta and the Gulf of Mexico demonstrate, it also requires the effective restraint of environmental damage.
The downstream part of the decision chain is about harnessing revenues for sustainable growth. Resource revenues need to be treated distinctively: they come from the depletion of a natural asset and should be substantially offset by the accumulation of other assets. The only European model of prudent use of resource revenues is Norway, but the Norwegian model is inapplicable for Africa. Norway has more invested capital per member of the labour force than anywhere else on earth, whereas Africa has less. Hence, whereas it is appropriate for Norway to accumulate foreign financial assets, Africa needs to invest domestically

Liberals, including those who have seized control of the modern-day Democratic Party, often talk fondly about China and its economic model. But what they fail to recognize about the economic model employed by China is  that it is inherently unsustainable because of its current methods of energy generation. Oh, I know many watermelons (people who pretend to care about the environment just to advance their statist communist desires) like to talk about China's wind power, nuclear power, solar power, or hydro-electric power, but in reality, the majority of China's energy production comes from coal.

Energy production from coal production does not have to be environmentally damaging or harmful to those who work in the industry. In nations like the United States, where there are clear property rights and freedom of labor, workers are treated better, the environment is better protected, and businesses are free to produce as much coal safely as possible in order to maximize profits. For example, there are only about 30 people killed per year in coal mining in the United States, and the United States has embraced clean coal technology which does a much better job of controlling emissions. The United States has made the difficult transition from energy generation to sustainable energy generation, and only needs to continue and expand its efforts in oil drilling, coal mining, and nuclear technology in order to become the cleanest and safest energy producer in the world.

Sadly, environmentalists in America have a different agenda. In their noble desire to make the world a better place, they are putting in place policies in America which force it and other nations to obtain energy from nations around the world that are producing energy in destructive, deadly ways. Rather than encouraging the expansion of safe, natural, and efficient methods of energy generation such as oil, coal, and nuclear, they are forcing America and nations that could be buying energy from America to turn to nations like China for energy generation and resources. And the end result of these environmentalists policies is a world that is less safe, less secure, and were more people die.

China currently generates around two thirds of its electricity from coal-fired power stations, and is the process of dramatically expanding its coal-fired capacity in recent years with the introduction of 562 new coal-fired plants- in fact, an average of two new plants were being opened every week. China uses this coal-production to satisfy its own energy needs and also export energy to other nations.

To sustain it economic growth and growing energy needs through coal power, China is paying a heavy price. Thousands of people die every year in coal pits, premature deaths due to indoor air pollution is at 420,000 per year, deaths due to outdoor air pollution is estimated at around 300,000 deaths per year, and rural populations in particular are suffering from a range of diseases related to coal production, including arsenic poisoning, skeletal fluorosis (over 10 million people afflicted in China), esophageal and lung cancers, and selenium poisoning. A report by the World Bank in cooperation with the Chinese government found that about 750,000 people die prematurely in China each year from air pollution.

China's economic model, which people like the head of the SEIU say should be the future of the United States, is unsustainable and killing its own people. It's model emphasizes state control of people and businesses and the de-humanizing of both. It is a model which stands in marked contrast to the economic model of the historical United States, a model which emphasizes little state control, more liberty given to people to make free economic choices, and strong individual and business property rights, and is a model that embraces the humanity of life. We can see the difference in the two models when we look at China's coal mining industry and electric power generation, and see the difference in the contrasting visions.

Elections have consequences- in the coming elections for US President, Senator, Representative, or even at the local level, ask yourself whether the candidate you support has a vision of the future that pushes for more state control over people's lives or less state control. Those who push for more state control will boast of the economic growth in nations like China- while ignoring the enormous cost in terms of human life and damage to the environment. Those who push for less state control over people's lives will point to the United States, which in contrast to those with state control have much better records on life, liberty, and wealth creation- although not perfect, because man is not perfect.

And for readers of my blog around the world, this applies to you as well- although China's economy is growing, there is a real cost to humanity for their growth, and in the end its statist economy will collapse like the Soviet Union's did. Only economic models that give more power to people and more freedom to individuals and more rights to businesses and corporations and individuals are successful in creating wealth in a sustainable manner while protecting life and liberty. You have a real choice to make in your nation too- state control for short term unequally distributed wealth, or less state control for longer term more equal distribution of life, liberty, and property.

For those who are interested in reading more about China and its coal production methods and coal-powered economy, I suggest you check out an article called China’s Dark Power.

K.Y. Amoako commented on the need for sustainable job growth in Africa "...The creation of decent jobs that can be performed by poor people is the single most effective way to reduce poverty in Africa,' said...According to ECA, some 8 million jobs must be created each year to satisfy the growing number of job seekers..."

From Pambazuka, The Kenyan Section of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ Kenya) and the Konrad Adenaur Foundation invite contributions to be published in a Special Issue on Electoral Systems Reform in Sub Saharan Africa:

It is increasingly becoming a trend in Africa, that, whilst elections are supposed to anchor and ensure sustainable growth in democracies, in countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, elections have become a liability. Instead of institutionalising democracy, they have fueled political instability. Consequently, the essential question is: to what extend do electoral systems and institutions in Sub Saharan Africa turn into political assets and / or liabilities?

Niranjan Rajadhyaksha asks at Livemint "What is the solution to poverty?":

Many have asked why Bangladesh continues to be mired in terrible poverty when it has such a large microfinance sector. The good ol’ basics matter more — property rights, open markets, human capital, innovation etc.
A new policy research paper, Who Gets Credit?, published by the World Bank shows that economies benefit more when money is lent to firms rather than households. India is one of the 45 countries the economists have covered in their study.

The East Asian countries managed to develop brilliantly through channelling much, if not most, of their savings into serious growth-oriented sustainable business projects. This is why many East Asian countries may have started at similar GDP levels as Bangladesh in the 1970s but have since massively outpaced Bangladesh in terms of growth and development. Economics 101 shows conclusively how critical savings are to development, but only if intermediated into growth and productivity enhancing projects. If it goes into rickshaws, kisoks, chicken farms, traders and so on, then the country simply will not develop and sustainably reduce poverty...[continue reading]

A paper by Uche Nworah on the Nigerian Diaspora highlights amongst other things, inefficiencies in the allocation of remittance revenues. "...the issue of foreign remittances back to Africa has become a subject of interest in the international community. According to a recent report (Migrations and Development) by the International Development Select Committee (UK), over $300 Billion was sent from developed to developing countries in 2003 by diasporas living in the developed countries. Global remittance, the report maintains is growing faster than official development assistance from the developed countries, also global remittance is the second largest source of external funding for developing countries, behind Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), and also accounts for as much as 27% of the GDP for some African countries. The report also says that global remittance accounts for 5% of GDP in Nigeria, this figure is predicted to increase in the coming years. A U.S government official recently claimed that Nigerian diasporas remit back to Nigeria the sum of $12 billion annually, while other sources claim that Nigerians send a total of $3Billion annually through the official channels of the Western Union and other financial institutions. While there appears to be different conflicting figures with regards to the exact amount of such capital outflows or global remittances back to Africa and Nigeria in particular, the fact remains that it is a phenomenon that is on the increase and also one that is good for the continent, sadly though, such remittances have not been channeled effectively by the recipients to areas that will yield long term benefits and sustainable growth..."
Via Global Politician

Samantha Spooner writes in the Daily Nation:

The critics of the aid industry have focused heavily on aid accountability on both the part of the donors and the beneficiaries, and on concerns over whether aid breeds poverty and is therefore not conducive to long-term sustainable growth.
While these analyses are both valid and widely recognised there is another insight into the potential inefficiency of the aid business which sheds light on an anthropological, more localised critique: Sometimes aid attempts to solve problems which are either created or misunderstood...[continue reading]

From Frank Beckmann's column, edited somewhat by me "Sustainable curriculum teaches kids to envy success":

The latest school to start a curriculum called "Sustainability Education" will be Eastover Elementary School in Bloomfield Hills. This curriculum takes existing lessons and slants them with a union and environmental agenda, for example promoting boycots of corporations and workers rights movements. Suggested resources include Zero Population Growth materials to promote lower birth rates.

Of course, even though this curriculum was adopted in one of Detroit's wealthiest suburbs and home to numerous Big 3 auto executives through the years, not a single school board member suggested that the wealth of Bloomfield Hills was unfairly created and not one cited any inequities that they were immediately willing to correct by surrendering their own lofty status in one of America's most well-to-do communities

The Bloomfield Hills school board unanimously approved the change back in May. Eastover Principal Jami Wood told the board that Sustainability Education will "support our students' learning as well as our own." Huh?? Teachers learning along with the fifth-graders rather than giving instruction? Wood issued a handout which said the new curriculum "prepares students to create a healthy environment, a fair economy, and an equitable society," whatever such non-specific rhetoric is supposed to mean.

Not a word of protest was uttered during the proposal's presentation. We'll let China and India worry about producing more engineers and highly skilled workers to gobble up high-paying jobs in the future. We'll let Eastover and other schools train their students to protest that success and complain about the unfairness of it all.

Alex O. Awiti a fellow at the Earth Institute writes:

Entrepreneurs can catalyse sustainable economic growth by identifying market opportunities and business models that meet the needs of underserved communities in emerging economies. In essence, entrepreneurs can be true allies in poverty alleviation through market solutions, employment and wealth creation as opposed to aid and subsidies. Proponents of foreign aid often think of poverty as a technical problem they can solve using a universal blueprint or Big Plan and huge dollars in financing. If it were that simple poverty would be history. Efforts to alleviate poverty must recognise that poverty is a complex labyrinth of social, institutional, political, historical, geographical and technological factors.

"...After decades of centralized “command and control,” government leaders espouse market-led economic growth and community empowerment without a clear understanding of the changes this likely requires in their roles and behavior. After years of operating as what many in their own lands considered “pariahs” and “profiteers,” business leaders are unfamiliar with emerging norms of public-private cooperation and corporate social responsibility. And, eternal advocates for change, civil society leaders often lack a clear understanding of the need for business and government alike to satisfy multiple stakeholders in order to create truly sustainable prosperity and peace. For there to be progress, the next generation of leaders in all three sectors must come together:
• to identify and address their personal strengths and weaknesses as leaders,
• to understand the challenges they face as participants in a rapidly globalizing society,
• to share and refine their respective visions of the society they would like to live in, and
• to lead by example in building this society.
It is for these reasons that The Africa Leadership Initiative has been conceived..."

Andrew Rugasira writes in the FT:

Has any nation ever developed by way of handouts? The British industrial revolution for example, was fuelled by home grown technological breakthroughs that defined Britain as a truly modern society.
Pro-aid campaigners argue that providing aid to accountable governments is a means of stimulating their economies. This is nonsense. Giving aid to poor countries and working exclusively through their government agencies makes accountability worse rather than better.
Africa's only viable and sustainable strategy for economic growth is one based on trade and not aid.

The aims of the Private Sector Foundation Uganda, are "...To promote private sector influence for business growth and competitiveness through policy advocacy and capacity building in a sustainable manner...To strengthen private sector capacity for effective policy advocacy and market competitiveness..."

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), President Obama's latest budget plans would generate deficits over the upcoming decade that would total $9.8 trillion. That's $1.2 trillion more than predicted by the administration, and doesn't take into account that recent CBO estimates of Obama's budget plans have been underestimated the deficits.

Barack Obama, a Democrat, in his first year of office (2009) submitted a budget to the Democrats who run America's Congress that added another eye-popping $1.75 trillion to the federal debt. That is the highest ever in dollar terms, and amounts to a 12.3 percent share of the economy - the largest since 1945. He is now prepared to follow that with more eye-popping deficit budgets that will add another minimum of $9.8 trillion to the debt, especially if Obama is a two-term President (8 years).

Under the president's budget, debt held by the public would grow from US$7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to US$20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020,” CBO said. This level has not been seen since World War Two, and is not sustainable.

Interest on the debt would become one of the largest spending categories in the federal budget, and would more than quadruple in the next 10 years, rising from US$209 billion this year to US$916 billion in 2020. This debt would increasingly be held by foreign investors, such as China, who currently hold $7.5 trillion in debt but at the end of Obama's two-terms would hold $20.3 trillion in American debt.

Obama has repeatedly said that he inherited a financial mess from his Republican predecessor President George W. Bush and had to step up government spending immediately after taking office to fight the worst U.S. recession in decades. He has indeed done so, dramatically increasing federal spending (CBO estimates that showed a record US$3.8 trillion in spending in fiscal 2011). He also says that he will fight these deficits that he is increasing by increasing taxes and fees, arguing that taxing more of the wealth from Americans will revive the economy and lead to higher government revenues and thus lower deficits.

Obama is wrong- raising taxes will lead to falling revenues, more government programs will stagnate growth, the federal government debt will be a toxic drag on the economy, increased government spending will create more inefficiencies in the marketplace, and his trade policies will lead to falling exports and rising costs of imports. Obama and the Democrats in Congress are wrong for America.

Information and data for this story came from this source.