The Policy Blender

It's alright Ben - Bush has already said he doesn't give a shit. 'I will put America's interests first' isn't really something we'd criticise any other time; after all, I'd be bloody annoyed if Blair didn't put Britain's interests first. But the timing of this morning's Bush news does say 'Fuck you Africa', even if by saying so he also says 'Fuck you' to a number of particularly malicious dictators.

Maybe Bush could liberate their peoples, by killing a small percentage of them, then give them increased aid under a democratic system. Cause really, many African nations would be better off without their evil dictators, and I bet they've got just as many WMDs as Iraq turned out to have.

Incidentally, on an unrelated subject, America is currently in the throws of a petrol crisis. Oil prices have pushed the price of a gallon up by 8c, to a huge £1.15 per gallon, around 20% of the price in the UK.

Not entirely unrelated, of course, as America burns a hell of a lot of fossil fuels so is keen to have any climate deal not penalise them whilst giving a free pass to others such as Russia and China…

I loved the horror on the front page of the Guardian today - "Oh my God, Bush doesn't give a shit what we think about him…"

Well, the vast majority of the 3 billion people who saw Live 8 don't have a vote in the US elections.

And of course oil isn't entirely unrelated to Bush's apparent indifference to Africa. None of the top 8 sources of oil are in Africa, none of them have any money to buy American goods, no one from America wants to go on holiday in Africa, they don't make very good coffee, they're not really good for much at all. Though I'm pretty sure Libya and Nigeria (9 and 10 in the world's oil reserve stakes) come up in US foriegn policy discussions from time to time.

there's a cracking article in the speccie this week about Live 8 funding "Mercs for Jerks"...

I'm trying to dig it out so I can post it on this thread...

This is worrying - I'm starting to believe what you said about there being no such thing as altruism. Not because everyone who gives to charity feels good/less guilty when they do it, but because everyone who gives to charity creams a bit off for themselves, or does so for extra votes, or more album sales.

Am I the only person in the world who would get involved in something like this cause I actually think people starving and dying from cheaply treatable disease is a bad thing? I mean, aside from your political views about evil dictators and self-interested popstars, you do think death from extreme poverty is a bad thing, don't you?

Am I being naive in thinking there must be some people who want to help people just to help people?

absolutely - a very bad thing.

I wish more people would frame the situation in terms of allowing the Africans (and other poor peoples of the world) to actually help themselves.

At the moment, all the momentum generated by events such as these (albeit for the right end reason) is woefully counter-productive. Portions of Africa are now utterly dependant on aid - this was certainly not the case a couple of decades ago.

We need to stop treating the world's poorer nations like sick children, reliant on our parenthood for their survival; and start treating them like responsible human beings. It's patronising and says more in terms of humanity about the self importance of western society than it does about the mess that some of the African nations are in.

Billions and billions of pounds worth of aid has been handed to the corrupt bastards that run these countries in the last few years. All that has happened is that the rich, those in power have got richer. Not, I think, the desired effect of those Governments, taxpayers and charitable donors that stumped up the cash. But Bob Geldof tells us we "shouldn't dwell on the corruption thing"; really? I think we should. I think we should sort out the fuckers that are pissing the money away on private jets, huge state buildings, fleets of mercs and Abromavichesque yachts before we start pumping the funds through to them.

The people we are trying to help are poor because they have had their hopes and opportunities whittled away from them by repressive and bloated plutocracies. They have been forced into starvation by regressive and self-destructive agricultural and economic policy. They have been turned against one another in bloody civil wars as their governments engineer religious/tribal/ethnic hatred to deflect attention from the massive extent of their economic plundering and the savagery of their repression.

Nobody is helpless. But under the state imposed poverty of an African plutocracy it certainly seems like that. And we all cough up and hand the money over to the very people that benefit from the disgusting status quo.

If we really want to help poor Africans, or poor anybodies for that matter, we have to let our politicians know that we're on to them. We know that they know that state aid is just a gesture - just a self serving popularity measure that actually exacerbates the problem. We're on to you, Tony Blair, the UN, the EU. We know that if you really gave a shit, if you really wanted to make a difference to the lives of people living in - and dying of - poverty you could do something about the sick bastards who rule their like countries like squalid zoos. We know that these sadistic dictators, fat on the bounty plundered from their people and gifted by the west are granted legitimacy at the grand table of the UN, sitting on a level with democratic and liberal societies as if to show exactly how democratic they really are by sharing bread with murderers and crooks and sadists. Stop this ridiculous ego-trip. Legitimising these scumbags is vile, paying them and then claiming the righteous plaudits for helping the poor is beneath contempt. Kick them out. Help the people that need help by giving them a chance in life.

Does this include the changes to trade laws that Bob and his chums were trying to encourage? You're right that money won't solve the problem, and the poorer nations need a change in the system to work their own way out of poverty. But, in the same way as changing the trade laws too fast will probably screw up the West's economy, axing the aid altogether will mean more people dying next month, surely? Precisely because they ARE reliant on it now, whether through poor judgement on the west's part or not. And isn't some aid beneficial as long as it ends up in the right place?

I do like the fact that every thread on our page seems to start with two extreme positions and end up somewhere in the middle. We must be doing something right.

The axe should fall on the bastards that piss all of the money away, not on the aid itself.

I'm not advocating pulling the plug altogether: building a successful economic infrastructure (something these countries don't bother with) costs money, and in the short-term people will obviously still need help.

There should be a strategy that goes something along the (very simple and obvious) lines of: short term - aid and investment in economies; medium term - vast reduction in aid with support for economies; long term - no aid and no economic support.

If we invested half of what is currently wasted by the despots on sustainable economic growth and economic and social infrastructure we'd be well on the way to providing the platform for a prosperous and liberal society.

Then there's Chris' aspect of this argument that is just as important as mine: the human rights question. These murderers and thugs aren't just blowing or hording all the aid money, they're making a concerted effort to become the most depraved people that walked the earth: sanctioned state violence and rape as a political weapon; genocide; amputations; proliferation of aids; children forced into combat. Get rid of the bastards at the top, and we stand a better chance of doing something about the despicable state of their nations.

By definition it's harder to abuse human rights in a free society. End the tyranny and arm the repressed with the economic and social tools to build a prosperous and free society and we'll have done some good.

The Live8 folk are on the wrong wavelength with the trade laws argument, as with the debt forgiveness bit. Economic growth requires investment. Investment requires a credit history (or a guarantor - I accept) and if we drop the debt, we bugger the debtors credit rating. Freeze or recalculate the interest by all means, but dropping the debt is gesture politics that does much more hard than good in the long run. The trade laws guff advocated by the Live8 lot seems like a GCSE course in protectionism. A protected market is exactly what these counties don't need. You can see the attraction - like growing a sapling in a case until it is strong enough to survive. But markets don't work like that. Much as it pains me, what is needed is the dreaded third way - that is, financial support from the west whilst operating in the real world with the support reduced over time (see medium and long term parts of my simple and obvious plan above).

I accept that, whilst capitalism would work instantly as a cure to the economic ills of the poorer African nations in a laboratory, it won't work in the real world. That's why any plan must allow for the investment in economic and social structure to operate under controlled conditions - for once, Governments may be of use for economic growth - hence the short term aspect of the plan.

It's not rocket science, it will aid western economies - under free trade in the long run - and it doesn't spend the money on private jets and fleets of limos for dictators.

All we need is a group of people with the bollocks to implement it. Bush would do it, Blair would too, but I bet there aren't that many other world leaders sat around the table next week that would have the balls to end repression and give hope to millions of starving people.

You're right. Let's plant some WMDs.

The thing that gets me about this credit rating business is that, like money, like the trade laws, and like the aid, it's all a human institution, and exceptions can be made. Again, and I know it's my job to be so, but maybe I'm being naive in thinking that this could be overlooked as a fresh start, and future loan discrepancies by these countries could be the basis of their credit ratings, and this write-off treated as a charitable act, not an exasperated bank accepting that it's not getting its money back. (Of course, this all depends on the human-rights criteria that Chris, you and Gordon Brown have all spoken about). I can't see a bank running itself as a business being happy to give money to a country with a history of not paying its debts back, but at the same time, it only takes the right words from the right people. Probably the people in Gleneagles this week. And once their existing debt is gone, then your short-mid-long plan has more room to work.

Also, my understanding of the Live8 line was that protectionism was exactly what they didn't want. Not for Africa, but most importantly not for the West. The end of CAP, the end of levies on imports to the US, and so on. Again, correct me if I'm wrong - I also heard something about having to keep Brazilian sugar out of African markets, so it could be either or.

mmm… the point about dropping the debt could be viable if governments do the lending in the future, but there aren't that many governments that would commit to that. If we could nail down government lending or specific guarantors for future borrowing then the debt idea could be feasible. For the time being, I would advocate interest freezing, repayment holidays subsidised by western governments and possible recalculation of interest under an asset/return basis.

European protectionism is much of the problem in that Africa, for all its abundant resources and potential labour market, has not been able to compete in European markets because of subsidies and state (EU) control of supply. The CAP being part of this. Protectionism always shafts someone.

Live 8 is advocating protection of the African markets, e.g. the sugar. This may seem like the ideal way to grow a sapling economy (in isolation to the other trees) but in actual fact it simply breeds a false economy and internal market that, due to its separation from the rest of the world in its development, cannot compete when it is traded in a free market. Thus growth is capped.

An example (though not exactly the same) could be what is happening to the French wine market currently following liberalised EU trade rules.

The world is getting smaller, communication, technology, travel and language developments mean that free trade is becoming more and more likely as the fairest and simplest method of conducting global commerce. Even the Chinese have grasped this and are making hay whilst the sun shines and their government continues to enjoy a free pass on Human Rights issues.

To advocate protectionism for the poorer African countries - such as with the sugar example - is to say that they should be limited in their growth potential. They can improve, but not by that much now.

I think the hypocrisy - berating it at home and advocating it for others, simply reflects the fact that whoever briefed St Bob and the rest of the Live 8 kingpins on economics was trying desperately to hang onto an outdated and discredited leftist economic theory.

Chris pointed out that the British Empire was built on the back of ruthless protectionism. The world has changed since then. Competition is good for the consumer and good for business. If we are to learn one thing from what has happened to Africa over the recent past it's that its resources must not be wasted nor ignored. Protection encourages waste and complacency. Free markets and capitalism encourage diversity, efficiency and dynamic entrepreneurship. Africa needs the last three more than the first two.

As I mentioned earlier on in this thread, I'm being realistic. I'm not advocating dropping a capitalism bomb. There needs to be a gradual roll out with time spent investing in the economic and social infrastructure needed to provide the platform for sustainable economic growth. Pure capitalism at the extreme base level resembles anarchy and that's not where we need to go. Africa needs help to help itself, but that doesn't mean that they should be shafting the Brazilians or - for that matter - themselves in the long run.

So we're agreed. Then we need to start a charity called 'Make Poverty History, Slowly, And Only Under Nice Governments'. I'll see if http://www.makepovertyhistoryslowlyandonlyundernicegovernments.org is available.

What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah
By Mark Steyn
The Telegraph(Filed: 05/07/2005)

'To sneer at such events," cautioned The Sunday Telegraph apropos Live8, "demeans the generosity which they embody".

Oh, dear. If you can't sneer at rock stars in the Telegraph, where can you? None the less, if not exactly a full-blown sneer, I did feel a faint early Sir Cliff-like curl of the lip coming on during the opening moments of Saturday's festivities, when Sir Paul McCartney stepped onstage.

Not because Sir Paul was any better or worse than Sir Elton or Sir Bob or any other member of the aristorockracy, but because it reminded me of why I'm sceptical about the "generosity" which these events "embody".

Seven years ago, you'll recall, Sir Paul's wife died of cancer. Linda McCartney had been a resident of the United Kingdom for three decades but her Manhattan tax lawyers, Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts, devoted considerable energy in her final months to establishing her right to have her estate probated in New York state.

That way she could set up a "qualified domestic marital trust" that would... Yeah, yeah, yeah, in the immortal words of Lennon and/or McCartney. Big deal, you say. We're into world peace and saving the planet and feeding Africa. What difference does it make which jurisdiction some squaresville suit files the boring paperwork in?

Okay, I'll cut to the chase. By filing for probate in New York rather than the United Kingdom, Linda McCartney avoided the 40 per cent death duties levied by Her Majesty's Government. That way, her family gets all 100 per cent - and 100 per cent of Linda McCartney's estate isn't to be sneezed at.

For purposes of comparison, Bob Geldof's original Live Aid concert in 1985 raised £50 million. Lady McCartney's estate was estimated at around £150 million. In other words, had she paid her 40 per cent death duties, the British Treasury would have raised more money than Sir Bob did with Bananarama and all the gang at Wembley Stadium that day.

Given that she'd enjoyed all the blessings of life in these islands since 1968, Gordon Brown might have felt justified in reprising Sir Bob's heartfelt catchphrase at Wembley: "Give us yer fokkin' money!" But she didn't. She kept it for herself. And good for her. I only wish I could afford her lawyers.

I don't presume to know what was in her mind, but perhaps she figured that for the causes she cared about - vegetarianism, animal rights, the usual stuff - her money would do more good if it stayed in private hands rather than getting tossed down the great sucking maw of the Treasury where an extra 60 million quid makes barely a ripple.

And, while one might query whether Sir Paul (with his own fortune of £500 million) or young Stella really need an extra 15 million or so apiece, in the end Linda McCartney made a wise decision in concluding that her estate would do more good kept out of Mr Brown's hands, or even re-routed to Africa, where it might just about have defrayed the costs of the deflowering ceremony for the King of Swaziland's latest wife.

And that's why the Live8 bonanza was so misguided. Two decades ago, Sir Bob was at least demanding we give him our own fokkin' money. This time round, all he was asking was that we join him into bullying the G8 blokes to give us their taxpayers' fokkin' money.

Or as Dave Gilmour of Pink Floyd put it: "I want to do everything I can to persuade the G8 leaders to make huge commitments to the relief of poverty and increased aid to the Third World. It's crazy that America gives such a paltry percentage of its GNP to the starving nations."

No, it's not. It's no more crazy than Linda McCartney giving such a paltry percentage of her estate - ie, 0 per cent - to Gordon Brown. And, while Britain may be a Bananarama republic, it's not yet the full-blown thing.

Africa is a hard place to help. I had a letter from a reader the other day who works with a small Canadian charity in West Africa. They bought a 14-year-old SUV for 1,500 Canadian dollars to ferry food and supplies to the school they run in a rural village. Customs officials are demanding a payment of $8,000 before they'll release it.

There are thousands of incidents like that all over Africa every day of the week. Yet, throughout the weekend's events, Dave Gilmour and Co were too busy Rocking Against Bush to spare a few moments to Boogie Against Bureaucracy or Caterwaul Against Corruption or Ululate Against Usurpation. Instead, Madonna urged the people to "start a revolution". Like Africa hasn't had enough of those these past 40 years?

Let's take it as read that Sir Bob and Sir Bono are exceptionally well informed and articulate on Africa's problems. Why then didn't they get the rest of the guys round for a meeting beforehand with graphs and pie charts and bullet points in bright magic markers, so that Sir Dave and Dame Madonna would understand that Africa's problem is not a lack of "aid". The tragedy of Live8 is that its message was as cobwebbed as its repertoire.

Don't get me wrong. I love old rockers - not for the songs, which are awful, but for their business affairs, which so totally rock. In 1997, David Bowie became the first pop star to hold a bond offering himself. How about that? Fifty-five million dollars' worth of Bowie "class A royalty-backed notes" were snapped up in minutes after Moody's in New York gave them their coveted triple-A rating.

Once upon a time, rock stars weren't rated by Moody, they were moody - they self-destructed, they choked to death in their own vomit, they hoped to die before they got old. Instead, judging from Sir Pete Townshend on Saturday, they got older than anyone's ever been. Today, Paul McCartney is a businessman: he owns the publishing rights to Annie and Guys & Dolls. These faux revolutionaries are capitalists red in tooth and claw.

The system that enriched them could enrich Africa. But capitalism's the one cause the poseurs never speak up for. The rockers demand we give our fokkin' money to African dictators to manage, while they give their fokkin' money to Winthrop Stimson Putnam & Roberts to manage. Which of those models makes more sense?

Christ ben, you could always just link to it!

A good point, though it's my intention to do everything to avoid 40% inheriance tax myself, whether on the giving or receiving end. I think it's absurd that the government takes 2/5 of someone's belongings when they die. I mean, it's not like the Government made any huge effort to make Linda die (I doubt she was treated by the NHS, whihc would be the main reason they might have had a hand in her death), so why should they receive £60m because of it?

it's because they're blood commies that's why!

bsds