That's how Dan Klein described this piece to me. The end of the piece runs as follows:
One has to wonder if anyone who has read [Henry] George
could lend a hand to the production of the screed of mistruths and
error that is The End of Poverty. I prefer to be subtler, but this movie does not allow it.
I guess I did not signal magnanimity with that one. I believe the movie is coming out soon.
Addendum: David Henderson adds comment.
That’s pretty brutal, but very good. I especially liked the point about how the Schalkenbach Foundation was founded to promote exactly the opposite ideas put forth in the movie.
Thanks.
It’s not about the facts; it’s about the narrative.
That may be the largest dose of scathing commentary I’ve ever seen from you. But you might have had the wrong effect–I now want to see this movie to see just how bad it is. On the other hand, I might find it even more difficult to watch then it was to read that review.
It’s true that it’s about narrative not facts. Perhaps we should ask ourselves: when is narrative more important than facts? Can we put ourselves into the shoes of those who have always lived in poverty? What perspective would you hear if you talked to such people? How much “noise” would there be in what they say? Is the expression, amplification, and propagation of their message, even if wrong, an important goal in its own right? If so, how much untruth should we tolerate in the service of amplifying the voice of those with different perspectives and histories? Is there reason to believe that our views should be revised in a Bayesian way, given the presence of radically different perspectives?
Alternatively, should we acknowledge the emotional aspects as relevant to our assessment? Can it be utility-maximizing to reduce one’s own level of certainty in a belief purely for emotional reasons? In short, is there an ethic of communication, especially intercultural communication, which is important in addition to factual questions, and even as an input into factual questions?
I posted the article on my facebook page, where I rarely place links. It was that good.
saving = savaging
This reminds me of a scene in the movie “The Quiet Man,” where John Wayne refuses to fight most of the movie, and when he’s finally had enough…here comes the crushing blows of the Duke (or, in this case, Tyler). It’s just plain fun to watch.
This is a delightful departure from the usual Tyler Cowen posts on MR, seemingly weary of beating a dead horse, who might hold back or be dismissive toward Naomi Klein and company for that reason. The dead horse is alive and well!
For some reason I’d thought you either hadn’t seen the Wire, or at least were not much of a fan. Any chance of a post dealing with the Wire and it’s depiction of poverty? I definitely agree with your claim about the show in the article.
This is definitely a real break from the traditional tentative and uncertain posts of Tyler. It’s great though. As they say on the internets, Cowen pwned Diaz big time.
Now follow up with a left hook, perhaps savaging the neocons for soiling all of us by waterboarding a couple “masterminds” almost 300 times because the “masterminds” “masterminded” the “masterful” attack of 19 guys with razor blades.
Angry ape, after a review pointing out that the causes for poverty are complicated and beyond simple, individual cuauses, the idea that poor people are poor because of their incompetence and stupidity seems hardly an improvement over the movie.
“we are told that an expenditure of $20 billion would cut global poverty in half”. What would do this and how much would it cost?
Say you reduced malaria significantly in Africa. How much would this cost and how much poverty would it end?
Economic costs of malaria
http://rspas.anu.edu.au/~sambit/papers/revised%20JAE%20webpage.pdf
Costs of prevention?
http://www.cheap-mosquito-nets.com/
Great article btw.
“For quite a while, every time I thought Rand was overdoing it, I’d run across someone talking like one of her villains. It was such a consistent pattern that I’m tempted to magical explanations.”
Maybe this is because in real life people are cardboard characters. Their views and motivations are highly 2-dimensional since most of their ideas come from the MSM and society. Real 3-dimensional people are unrealistic.
“I’m willing to state that those sweatshop jobs are better than the ‘natural economy’ jobs they displaced, but are Diaz or Sheen?”
Nike pays better than the local sweatshops. Nike even pays better than the government of Vietnam, or they did when Philippe Legrain wrote about them in the book Open World. I don’t have the book close to hand, but there’s a review by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, from which I can quote: “Its employees turn out to be paid more than mid-level government officials. But how can that be when everybody knows workers in developing countries are exploited by malevolent multinational corporations? The answer is that everybody is wrong: the worst factories are locally owned.” I can’t speak for Adidas, but Nike’s not bad.
This is definitely a real break from the traditional tentative and uncertain posts of Tyler. It’s great though. As they say on the internets, Cowen pwned Diaz big time.
Comments on this entry are closed.