I religiously read just about everything from Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Walter Williams, Tim Carney, and other libertarian-minded experts.
But I also make a point to regularly read non-libertarians such as Desmond Lachman, Will Wilkinson, Dalibor Rohac, and Noah Smith even though I sometimes – or even often – disagree with their policy prescriptions.
What matters is that they generally have intelligent and thoughtful observations on issues that I care about.
But they’re not necessarily accurate. For instance, Noah Smith recently wrote an interesting column for Bloomberg about whether people are poor because of their own behavior or because of external factors.
Here are the passages that caught my attention.
Writing for National Review, Kevin Williamson has already pointed out his errors.
It is indeed strange that so many folks on the left have decided to use an artificial and misleading definition of poverty. One that depends on the distribution of income rather than any specific measure of poverty.
Which is insanely dishonest. It means that everyone’s income could double and the supposed rate of poverty would stay the same.
Or a country could execute all the rich people and the alleged rate of poverty would decline.
No wonder the practitioners of this approach often produce absurd data, such as the OECD’s assertion that there’s more poverty in the United States than in basket case economies such as Greece and Italy.
Shame on Noah Smith. He should know better.
I’ll continue to read his work, so he’s not being kicked out of my club of non-libertarian writers.
But I will add him to list of people and groups who are guilty of peddling fake poverty data. These “poverty hucksters” include the OECD, of course, and also the United Nations, the New York Times, the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, the Obama Administration, and the European Commission.
P.S. A “poverty pimp,” by contrast, is someone who personally profits from administering the welfare state.
But I also make a point to regularly read non-libertarians such as Desmond Lachman, Will Wilkinson, Dalibor Rohac, and Noah Smith even though I sometimes – or even often – disagree with their policy prescriptions.
What matters is that they generally have intelligent and thoughtful observations on issues that I care about.
But they’re not necessarily accurate. For instance, Noah Smith recently wrote an interesting column for Bloomberg about whether people are poor because of their own behavior or because of external factors.
Here are the passages that caught my attention.
Fortunately, I don’t need to explain what’s wrong with Smith’s analysis.…there is at least one rich country where people…work hard, avoid risky, self-destructive behavior and make wise life choices. That country is Japan. And it still has plenty of poverty. …Given all of this good behavior, conservatives might expect that Japan’s poverty rate would be very low. But the opposite is true; Japan has a relatively high number of poor people for an advanced country. Defined by the percentage of the population earning less than half of the median national income, Japan’s poverty rate is more than 15% — a little lower than the U.S., but considerably higher than countries such as Germany, Canada or Australia… This suggests that there is something very wrong with the conservative theory of poverty.
Writing for National Review, Kevin Williamson has already pointed out his errors.
Smith here relies on a useless measure of “relative” poverty, the share of the population earning less than half of the median income. You can see the limitations of that approach: A uniformly poor society in which 99 percent of the people live on 50 cents a day and 1 percent live on 49 cents a day would have a poverty rate of 0.00; a rich society with incomes that are rising across-the-board but are rising much more quickly for the top two-thirds would have a rising poverty rate… It would be far better to consider poverty in absolute terms, but our progressive friends are strangely resistant to that.
It is indeed strange that so many folks on the left have decided to use an artificial and misleading definition of poverty. One that depends on the distribution of income rather than any specific measure of poverty.Which is insanely dishonest. It means that everyone’s income could double and the supposed rate of poverty would stay the same.
Or a country could execute all the rich people and the alleged rate of poverty would decline.
No wonder the practitioners of this approach often produce absurd data, such as the OECD’s assertion that there’s more poverty in the United States than in basket case economies such as Greece and Italy.
Shame on Noah Smith. He should know better.
I’ll continue to read his work, so he’s not being kicked out of my club of non-libertarian writers.
But I will add him to list of people and groups who are guilty of peddling fake poverty data. These “poverty hucksters” include the OECD, of course, and also the United Nations, the New York Times, the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, the Obama Administration, and the European Commission.
P.S. A “poverty pimp,” by contrast, is someone who personally profits from administering the welfare state.
No comments:
Post a Comment