Steve Forbes points out that government subsidies in the housing market weren’t needed for Canadians to become home owners:
“The Bush Administration botched an opportunity in 2008 to put these entities in receivership, with the idea of either liquidating or privatizing them. A winding down of Fannie and Freddie would have led to a birth of new players, well-capitalized and ready and willing to buy, package and sell home mortgages–and subject to failure.
The Obama Administration won’t formally nationalize the current Fannie and Freddie because that would swell the official budget deficit. And it certainly won’t countenance the idea of privatizing them. That will have to wait until we have a Republican President. Fortunately, this individual will have a Congress with enough new members who won’t have been corrupted by Fannie and Freddie the way previous occupants on Capitol Hill were. Certainly public opinion will back privatization. In fact, the two companies should be recapitalized, broken up into at least a half-dozen entities and sent out into the real world, with no ties to Washington.
Studies have conclusively shown that Fannie and Freddie did virtually nothing to boost home ownership. Canada, for instance, has almost none of the props for housing that the U.S. has had, yet the proportion of its population owning homes wasn’t much different from that of the U.S. before the bubble.”
The article then ranges widely, moving from Michael Crichton (best-known, outside his fiction, for his skepticism about anthropogenic global warming) to the ban on DDT, which Forbes blames for a resurgence in malaria world-wide:
“Not only is malaria on the rise because we won’t use DDT to kill mosquitoes but so are other insect-borne diseases, such as dengue fever. “
My Comment:
On the GSE’s I agree with Forbes. But not on DDT, where his argument is one that activists in the field hotly rebut. Water-borne diseases, especially, are largely a product of poor sanitation. And filthy water, they say, is also to blame for the return of malaria.
Forbes then makes the argument that DDT, properly used, doesn’t have the bad effects attributed to it by Rachel Carson, in her seminal book, “Silent Spring.”
The operative word here is “properly used.”
(You could, after all, say as much about Credit Default Swaps. Properly used, they aren’t harmful either).
Anything can be “improperly used.” So where do you draw the line? What’s the proper use of DDT?
Experts say it should be confined to dusting the insides of homes, instead of the large-scale crop-dusting that had a toxic effect on the environment earlier. That sounds fairly reasonable, if the DDT is used along with more sustainable, local practices – draining and cleaning stagnant water and sewers, and, most important of all, improving public hygiene. Without that, chemicals are pointless in the long term.
More than half of India (to take an example) lacks access to toilets and defecates in public. Surely that fact, as well as the problem of wet waste, takes precedence in any discussion of health. That means the root of most diseases in India, including malaria, is poverty and bad habits, the solution to which really isn’t DDT, but economic development and cultural reform.
I did a piece on this called, “Cleaning House” (Alternet, Feb 5, 2004), where I discussed the phenomenon of Not In My Back Yard that prevents community best practices from being implemented on a larger scale.
“When I walk over to my nephew’s house, only a mile and a half away in a rural campus, my journey has a Victorian arduousness to it. I have to pick my way gingerly through the dusty path cutting across the field, alert for dozing vipers, lantana thorns, cantankerous goats tethered to the bushes, and random puddings of animal and human excreta. At first, it is a mystery where these come from because the villages are a good bit away. But distance does not dim the force of the NIMBY (not in my backyard) sentiment, which until recent years has been the motto of Indian civic life.”
Beyond poverty and flawed culture (and often driving them), there’s also the government.
The filth in public spaces is one of the tragedies of the commons. When everyone owns something, no one cares for it. That’s the fate of public space in India, socialist since independence in 1947, with a bureaucracy fattened by years of being a poster-child for poverty on the international aid circuit.
At least in the cases of Africa and Asia, then, the social and political context is absolutely crucial in arguments about economic liberty and technology. And the perspective from the ground, in the case of malaria and other tropical diseases, suggests a different kind of technology from bio-tech, one in which regulation isn’t much of an issue at all.
Jason Gale, Bloomberg, May 2007:
“Nair says modern sewers aren’t the answer for India. The country can’t afford to waste water by flushing it down a latrine. Instead, she’s encouraging airplane-style commodes that are vacuum cleared or toilets that are attached to contained pits rather than systems that pipe the effluent miles away for treatment. In Nair’s world, recycling human excrement for use as fertilizer is preferable.
“We need to invent our own devices which are cost- effective, environmentally sustainable and go with our people,” she says. “We cannot afford the things which are simply things that some civil engineer learned somewhere.”
Converting excreta that have been properly dried for 6-24 months into plant food uses less water than traditional sewage systems and is less likely to pollute waterways, Payden says.
Bartram says composted sewage that’s been handled correctly can be used in agriculture and for other beneficial purposes with negligible risk to human health. The challenge is to sanitize it so that disease-carrying organisms are eliminated.”
If cleaning the streets is more important than spraying DDT, in long-term control of malaria in India, then we’ve by-passed the regulatory problems associated with the chemical altogether.
In this case, as in others, activities that have a direct effect on the eco-system or the human organism (DDT) and activities that don’t (housing subsidies) can’t really be yoked together in analysis without problems. I tend to think that using the same model of reasoning for both, then, doesn’t yield correct answers, because it’s a function of a certain degree of ideological fundamentalism or literalism.
Everything is always a matter of interpretation.
Update:
In much the same way, I’d argue that the corrupt culture in Wall Street has to change before bans on this or that financial instrument are considered (that is, if one were to even concede that bans were necessary). Which is why the market-reform movement and the prosecution of crime come first, before changes in regulation.
Update:
The government of India’s rather optimistic schedule is to achieve its sanitation goals by 2010 and it’s using economic incentives to get there. ($48 for each installed toilet in Haryana).* It isn’t likely to get there that fast, but the program does suggest one area in which you can invest confidently – sanitation technology.
*I’m not endorsing this or any other government program, I’m merely noting it.
Reader Dan Scott sends this:
Are You Scheduled For Government Interrogation If Senate bill 3081 Is Passed?
On March 4, 2010, Sen. John McCain introduced S. 3081, The “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.”
Under S.3081, an “individual” need only be Suspected by Government of “suspicious activity” or “supporting hostilities” to be dragged off and held indefinitely in Military Custody. Government will have the power to detain and interrogate any individual without probable cause. Government need only allege an individual in detention, is an Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent suspected of; having engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. The obvious question: how does one prove to Government they did not purposely do something? Definition for Unprivileged Enemy Belligerent: (Anyone Subject to a Military Commission)
At least under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needed probable cause to detain a person indefinitely. Passage of S.3081 will use mere suspicion to curtail an individual’s Constitutional Protections against unlawful arrest, detention and interrogation without benefit of legal counsel and trial. According to S.3081 Government is not required to provide detained individuals U.S. Miranda Warnings or even an attorney.
Similar to fascist laws in other countries, S.3081 if passed will frighten Americans from speaking out. S.3081 is so broadly written, it appears any “individual” who writes on the Internet or verbally express an opinion against U.S. Government or its coalition partners might potentially be detained on the basis he or she is an “unprivileged enemy belligerent”, “supporting hostilities against U.S. Government.”
See McCain Senate bill S.3081:
http://assets.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/ARM10090.pdf
FYI: below is enclosed a copy of “Hitler’s Discriminatory Decrees signed February 28, 1933.” Although the Nazi Decrees are written differently than S.3081 they bring America to the same place trashing free speech and personal liberty. Note how the Nazi Government similar to U.S. S.3081 has in Section (1) and (4) suspended personal liberty and shutdown Free Speech, to intimidate Citizens speaking out against Government:
See Section 1
“Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
Similar to McCain’s S. 3081, but using different wording the Nazi Government in Section (4) see below, suspended Constitutional rights ordering the arrest of Citizens for any Act that might incite or provoke disobedience against state authorities. McCain’s S. 3081 instead mentions detaining and prosecuting Individuals for “supporting hostilities” against U.S. Government. S.3081 is so broadly written anti-war protesters might be arrested and detained just for attending demonstrations.
See Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Some members in the Obama Government appear bent on curtailing Citizens’ rights especially Free Speech and Opinions. In the run up to Sen. McCain’s introduced S. 3081, it was reported Top Obama Czar Cass Sunstein Proposed Infiltrating all ‘Conspiracy Theorists’ in a paper prepared in 2008—that apparently expressed: Government should infiltrate and spy on Americans, their groups and organizations to obstruct Free Speech, disrupt the exchange of ideas and disseminate false information to neutralize Americans that might question government. See news story: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121884
Also in 2008 perhaps coincidence: “The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act”, was introduced by Rep. Jane Harman. The bill appeared to mirror a number of Czar Cass Sunstein’s spying proposals on lawful Citizens and interrupting groups without evidence of wrongdoing. Harman’s bill called for investigating and tracking Americans and groups that might be prone to supporting or committing violent acts of domestic terrorism. Harman’s bill had the potential of driving lawful political and other activists underground. Perhaps creating the domestic terrorists Bush II said Americans needed to be protected from. Rep. Harman’s “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act” when closely examined, defined “homegrown terrorism” as “any planned act” that might use force to coerce U.S. Government or its people to promote or accomplish a “political or social objective.” No actual force need occur. Government would only need to allege an individual or group thought about it. Rep. Harman’s bill was often called the “Thought Crime Bill.”
McCain’s S.3081 like Harman’s bill, mentions “non-violent acts” supporting terrorism in the U.S. and or emanating from America against a foreign government or “U.S. ally.” “Non-violent terrorist acts” are covered in the Patriot Act to prosecute Persons that support “coercion to influence a government or intimidation to affect a civilian population.” However U.S. activists and individuals under S.3081 would be much more vulnerable to prosecution, being (charged with suspicion) of “intentionally providing support to an Act of Terrorism”, for example American activists cannot control what other activists might do illegally they network with domestically and overseas. Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement generally needs probable cause to detain or prosecute someone. But under S.3081, law enforcement and the military can too easily use “hearsay” or informants to allege “suspicious activity” to detain an individual. Since 9/11 federal government established across the nation a large number of Fusion Centers. Fusion Centers were originally established to improve the sharing of anti-terrorism intelligence among different state, local and federal law enforcement agencies. (But since expanded to pursue all crimes and hazards); considering that, it is problematic under S.3081 that detained individuals not involved in terrorism or hostile activities, not given Miranda Warnings or allowed legal counsel will be prosecuted for ordinary crimes because of their alleged admissions while in military custody.
Fusion Centers now pursue for analysis not just criminal and terrorist information, but any information that can be derived from police, public records and private sector data about Americans. Fusion Centers increasingly involve components of the U.S. Military in addition to other government entities to spy on Citizens. “The centers heavily rely on local “informants” for information that is shared with Local, State, and Federal police agencies.); historically it is foreseeable under S.3081 erroneous informant information will be used under S.3081 to detain innocent Individuals. Other governments have used lying informants to imprison their political opposition. Recently the Department of Homeland Security began sharing more classified Military information with local Fusion Centers, perhaps a mistake, not all local police keep secrets.
Fusion Centers circumvent Fourth Amendment Constitutional protections that prohibit illegal search and seizure, by taking advantage of ambiguous lines of authority to manipulate differences in federal, state and local laws to maximize information collection. Increasingly (private security companies and their operatives) work so closely with local/federal law enforcement and Fusion Centers—providing and exchanging information about Americans, they appear to merge with police. That is what happened in Germany during the 1930’s when a private-Gestapo merged its operations with German Federal Police. Subsequently Germany in 1939 placed all German Police agencies including the Gestapo under the control of the “Reich Main Security Office” the equivalent of U.S. Homeland Security. Notably, McCain’s S.3081 mandates merging Federal, State and local police and subsequently the U.S. Military to detain and hold Individuals in the U.S., even without probable cause. Interestingly a Rand Report prepared for the Army, recently made public, appears to suggest that U.S. Government develop a Local, State and Federal U.S. “National Police Stabilization Force merging State law enforcement with the Feds. What would happen to State Rights and what laws and Jurisdiction would be used to charge state Citizens arrested by a National Police Stabilization Force? A National Police Force could potentially be sent by the President into any State with the approval of its governor, against the wishes of its Citizens? To clarify the Rand Corporation report visit:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122533
It should be expected under S.3081 that government would use an individual’s phone call and email information to allege without probable cause “suspicious or hostile activity.” It does not appear U.S. Government will slow down wiretapping Citizens’ electronic communications. Just recently Pres. Obama’s signed Executive Order EO 12425 that put INTERPOL above the United States Constitution. Obama’s Executive Order authorized INTERPOL to act within the United States without being subject to 4th Amendment Search and Seizure laws. It would appear INTERPOL may now tap American phones and emails without a warrant. And that U.S. Police can use INTERPOL to circumvent the Fourth Amendment to arrest Americans and or forfeit their property by bringing INTERPOL into a criminal or civil investigation. Government can too easily take an innocent person’s hastily written email, fax or phone call out of context to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause an arrest or Civil asset forfeiture.
DECREE OF THE REICH PRESIDENT FOR THE PROTECTION OF
THE PEOPLE AND STATE
Note: Based on translations by State Department, National Socialism, 1942 PP. 215-17, and Pollak, J.K., and Heneman, H.J., The Hitler Decrees, (1934), pp. 10-11.7
In virtue of Section 48 (2) of the German Constitution, the following is decreed as a defensive measure against Communist acts of Violence, endangering the state:
Section 1
Sections 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124, and 153 of the Constitution of the German Reich are suspended until further notice. Thus, restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press, on the right of assembly and the right of association, and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic, and telephonic communications, and warrants for house-searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.
Section 2
If in a state the measures necessary for the restoration of public security and order are not taken, the Reich Government may temporarily take over the powers of the highest state authority.
Section 4
Whoever provokes, or appeals for or incites to the disobedience of the orders given out by the supreme state authorities or the authorities subject to then for the execution of this decree, or the orders given by the Reich Government according to Section 2, is punishable—insofar as the deed, is not covered by the decree with more severe punishment and with imprisonment of not less that one month, or with a fine from 150 up to 15,000 Reichsmarks.
Who ever endangers human life by violating Section 1, is to be punished by sentence to a penitentiary, under mitigating circumstances with imprisonment of not less than six months and, when violation causes the death of a person, with death, under mitigating circumstances with a penitentiary sentence of not less that two years. In addition the sentence my include confiscation of property.
Whoever provokes an inciter to or act contrary to public welfare is to be punished with a penitentiary sentence, under mitigating circumstances, with imprisonment of not less than three months.
Section 5
The crimes which under the Criminal Code are punishable with penitentiary for life are to be punished with death: i.e., in Sections 81 (high treason), 229 (poisoning), 306 (arson), 311 (explosion), 312 (floods), 315, paragraph 2 (damage to railroad properties, 324 (general poisoning).
Insofar as a more severe punishment has not been previously provided for, the following are punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with imprisonment not to exceed 15 years:
1. Anyone who undertakes to kill the Reich President or a member or a commissioner of the Reich Government or of a state government, or provokes to such a killing, or agrees to commit it, or accepts such an offer, or conspires with another for such a murder;
2. Anyone who under Section 115 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious rioting) or of Section 125 (2) of the Criminal Code (serious disturbance of the peace) commits the act with arms or cooperates consciously and intentionally with an armed person;
3. Anyone who commits a kidnapping under Section 239 of the Criminal with the intention of making use of the kidnapped person as a hostage in the political struggle.
Section 6
This decree enters in force on the day of its promulgation.
Reich President
Reich Chancellor
Reich Minister of the Interior
Reich Minister of Justice