goldstandardnation.ca

Professor Easterly of NYU claims in his book "The White Man's Burden" that a tragedy of poor nation aid over the past 50 years is that $1 trillion (in 1985 constant dollars) has been spent, with little to show for it. Easterly goes on to state that aid has been largely ineffective in combating poverty. Yet Easterly fails to put things in context.

Let us do a little math. Suppose there are two billion poor people in the world (a rather conservative estimate). Dividing $1 trillion by this amount, we get $500/person. Yet this amount is spread out over 50 years. Thus, dividing $500/person over 50 years, we get $10/person per year - a miniscule amount. When you add to that the aid money that is stolen or wasted, the actual aid reaching poor people is ridiculously small.

The answer to this problem is not to cut aid funding, but to restructure aid departments, increase aid, and use other development tools like military intervention(as should have been done in Rwanda), trade policy, and laws/charters. Easterly, in my humble opinion, is misguided.

On the evening of November 30th the opposition in the Canadian Parliament had had enough; Prime Minister Stephen Harper had pushed them too far, and they decided to act. They agreed to a deal that would make much despised Stephane Dion the Prime Minister of Canada in a coalition government between the Liberals and NDP.

The outcry against the coalition has been tremendous, some calling the move undemocratic and unconstitutional. Some accuse the NDP and the Liberals of being power hungry and selfish. Not to mention the ultimately terrible conception of including the Bloc Québecois into the mix. This for many, is against everything that Canada stands for, as rallies are organized to "Stand up for Canada". (The Conservative media machine could really use a new slogan once in awhile here too.) However, it is important to question the nature of these accusations and thereby perhaps justify the coalition government.

Today progress has been achieved. The American people have elected the right man to the Presidency, and historians one hundred years from now will look back on this day, and see it as a turning point in American history - a turning point for the better.

I raise a toast to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I feel I must respond to the Wall Street Journal article mentioned below.

The article reflects Republicans' desperation as election day approaches; overanalyzing Barack Obama's policies, manipulating his statements, and using the old conservative "empathy has no place in politics" argument.

It is clear at this point that Obama is going to win the election, yet it appears that some are still in denial. The McCain campaign has been plagued by comedy as Americans witnessed John McCain's foolish remarks about the economy, and laughed in agony over his vice presidential selection of Sarah Palin. Obama on the other hand has shown intelligence, determination, and leadership throughout his campaign - he deserves to be Commander in Chief.

Yet another thing disturbs me about this article: the idea that empathy has no place in politics. What is politics then? Some cold, calculating, machine? An economically rational process? NO! Democratically elected politicians are meant to *serve* the people, and that requires empathy. I certainly would not want a psychopath as President.

Strangely enough, the Bush Administration was perhaps the least empathetic in American history. Look where that got us.

What follows describes the critical state of the American Federal Judiciary and the menace that lurks over it.

That menace is Barack Obama.

Take careful note of the article's quotation of Obama, and try rendering that compatible with another tradition of jurisprudence which we accept as sound: the liberal notion of justice based upon the supremacy of reason and rational legal discourse.

If you cannot render them compatible, then I shall remind you:
Contradictions do not exist. Check your premises and start again.

If in the course of that, you end up premising a McCain Presidency, then the courts will be all the better for it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122515067227674187.html

Paul Krugman (see below) on the financial crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The first blog for The Gold Standard - how exciting! And to get things fired up, here's a fascinating article about my favourite New York Times columnist: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/krugman-could-turn-into-m_b_...