Foxes and field mice

(obligatory picture)

The soundtrack to this blogpost is this song

I read a book recently, it's called The Most Good You Can Do, by Peter Singer, and it inspired me to do (and write) this.

Reading this book didn't so much change my mind as it showed me the way further down a path I am walking. My views on personal relationships (<< future linked post coming) are, one could suggest, somewhat radical. I want to extend this so as to make everything personal. Allow me to explain.

--

I recently read another book (bear with me here) called Thing Explainer, by Randall Munroe, which I also very highly recommend. It's all about how to talk about complicated things with simple words (I'll complete this part in this style). But the small piece of smart thinking that I saw that made me go, "ah", was a little thing in this books about the "shape checker" (a padlock).

Bear with me for this part, and if you find it boring or stupid, just skip to the next "--". I will try to say what Randall said with different words, since I don't have his book with me now: The thing that's most interesting about shape checkers is not how they work, but what they mean.

This kind of machine, which include number checkers, other kinds of shape checkers, body-part checkers and talking checkers, try to tell whether a person is part of a group or not. These might be groups like group-that-has-the-right-metal-shape, group-that-knows-the-number, group-whose-body-part-or-talking-sound-the-checker-knows, and so on, and then it allows the person to open it depending on whether they are in the right group. This is something that is very normal for us everyday, but it's only because we got comfortable to the deeper idea of what it means to use a shape checker: if you are not in the group, we don't trust you. Of course, if we did, there would be no reason to have any kind of checker at all. And I don't like this.

As difficult as it sounds (and probably is) I would like to live in a world where there was no need for shape checkers. Where nobody would steal your hand computer or car or food-heating-radio-box, and where there would be no things that are so (valuable) or so (dangerous) that they must be kept away from people by using checkers.

I think the biggest problem that stops this from happening is that some people have a lot of stuff and some people have very little stuff, and they got into groups where the first (small) group is trying to get more stuff while keeping all their stuff, and the other (really big) group is saying "help! we don't have enough stuff." As if that weren't enough injustice, at the same time, all this getting of stuff is making a kind of air that makes our world very hot, which is very bad if we want to live here for a long time, and it's also making a lot of heavy metal and other bad things go to places they are not from (usually where the people that don't have enough stuff live), and making things get sick and die. This happens because we are either: only thinking of a our own small groups, so we can't or don't want to see big problems, or don't think it's our job to fix them, OR (in the case of people with no stuff) we have too many "now" problems to think about the problems of the world.

Sometimes, people teach wrong things to people in their group or the other group to try to make things stay the way they are (which is not good).

I am very lucky that I was born into the group of people with stuff. I have more stuff than I will ever need, and I went to good schools and met good people and did a lot of things that taught me how to be smart, and I will probably continue to make and have more stuff than I can use. So I want to spread the love around a little bit, to make things better for the other group, and also to try to make the world we live on not get very hot and kill us. What I really mean, is that I don't want to think or act like I am in another group. Until the group I am in looks like the group I am not in, I want how I treat people to be the same no matter what group they are or are not in.

It will mean I have less stuff, but I do really believe that I, and most people, can be just as happy with much less stuff than they have now. Peter Singer says something like this in his book, but he says it much better than I do. I found out that it's possible and even easy for me to do this because I know to be happy and in my situation, it's not that hard, at the heart of it. It's not always easy for a lot of people to be happy, but if they learn how, they can do more good and feel more good at the same time.

--

To get back to the doing good part, I won't try to explain or summarise the contents of The Most Good, since Peter Singer is a far better writer than I am, but I will refer to it as necessary while I talk about the steps that I will plan and take. If you disagree with or are confused by anything, good job, your brain is working! This should probably happen since I am trying to condense 211 pages of occasionally complicated and unintuitive reasoning into a single blog post. Feel free to write me, or I also encourage you to get the book and read it yourself!

The first thing I want to do is a declaration. After that, I will write a more detailed specification.

I am going to:

1. Tell you how much money people pay or give me
2. Say how much of it I am going to spend on people-that-are-not-me
3. Talk about who is going to get this money (and what they will do with it)
4. Describe how I will implement everything, and,
5. what is my plan for the future

----

1. Here is all the money flows that point towards me. I have to focus on the recent times, since I don't have all the data from the past and I also have not been completely financially self-sufficient for very long.

- At my last job, I made €3200 before, equal to €2012.59 after tax, health insurance and social security contributions. This happened for a few months, before immigration issues dictated I stop work. I will probably have another job soon that will pay me a similar amount of money. While it may not seem like a lot, to put this in perspective, that's a few euros ahead of the yearly per-person average (PPP-adjusted) economic productivity of Cambodia.
- I used to make €800 before, equal to €642.38 after, and I will also make donations for this time period
- Every year, there's a little money-swapping ritual in my culture around Chinese New Year. I think I pocket about €1500 each time this happens but I will count it properly next time
- Every time I get a new income stream, I will add it to this list. For example, one day someone might pay me to play my wooden box with six metal lines and make sounds out of my mouth that make people move their body and feel happy (or sad) (or both).

Why did I just do this, since normally people do everything they can not to talk about these sorts of things? Well, simply put, I this we keep this more secret than we have to-- I don't really care or think it should be important, and if it makes someone uncomfortable to talk about it, they're probably doing something of no merit (or even unethical) and getting paid unreasonably much to do it, OR they're a a victim of such people, and doing something really difficult and getting paid unreasonably little to do it.

Also, the reason I am writing this at all is that I want to make it public knowledge, and maybe make you think about considering doing something like this too. Telling you stuff like this lets you know I'm serious.



2. I'm starting small, but plan to increase in the future. I think it's easier to go forward than backward with things like these, and keeping the momentum in one direction is important.

- I am going to donate enough money to get down to 90% of my after-tax income.

Because I might not stay forever in Germany (where I currently am), I am going to write off the health insurance and social security contributions-- that is, not to consider I will ever get any of them back. In the unlikely even that I stay long enough to, I will readjust my numbers to reflect this. In any case, I expect my donation fraction to increase in the future, so this is not a big issue to me.

This means I will keep €578.14 of my low income times and €1811.33 of my higher income times, and give the rest away. While it may not seem like a lot, to put this in perspective, my monthly keep is just a few euros behind the yearly per-person average (PPP-adjusted) economic productivity of Nepal. That's just bananas (bad!). Anyway, what I will implement is effectively a 10% gift, but with a few details:

I'm going to make as much tax-deductible donation (so long as the tax-deductibility does not affect the effectiveness of the donation) as possible to get my after-tax income to the desired level.
Tax systems are basically black boxes, and I am many-parts untrusting of the German government to spend enough on the right or important things, and I am some-parts disapproving of the spending distribution of my taxes paid.

At first, I wrote a very lengthy paragraph here, but let me just cut it down to spending I don't approve of. In principle, I don't believe in regressive spending. This includes infrastructure that disproportionately benefits  higher income people or special interests. Munich, for example, spends a lot on roads and allocates a lot of on-street parking, which are mostly used by car-owners. Public transportation is also too expensive, and does not, I believe, have the social benefits of energy efficiency, air quality, and traffic easing build into the price. I approve of none of this. Also, I don't support any military spending.

I'm basically saying I don't want to give the Germany government more of tax euros than I have to. I want to decide to the furthest extent possible where my tax dollars go. I do use infrastructure, and I think if I work within the tax-deductibility structure, my cost on society will not go unpaid, but really, I don't trust The Man any more with my first single euro cent as I do with my last.

- I am going to donate half of the Chinese New Year money, probably all of it in the near future.



3. The Most Good You Can Do talks a lot about what makes an effective donation. This can be a very difficult question. Let's start with what is good?. I'll go a little fast here if you don't mind.

I think a pretty good answer is, "what increases happiness and what decreases suffering" can be considered to be good. Quite often, these things go together, which I think is very fortunate. The next question is, where can we make the most happiness and get rid of the most suffering? The surprising (or unsurprising) answer is, "it's probably not in a developed country." This begs the clarification, how do I know how much good I'm doing? and the answer to that is that's very difficult to know.

How much happiness to I get from going to a concert? How about to a museum? What if the museum was nicer? How does that compare to how much happiness I get from eating? What if the food is better? What if I'm hungrier? What if the food was really cheap? What if I was blind or had malaria every year?

There are two things at work here. One is that high up the list of needs (where I am) that it becomes very difficult to measure marginal utility. Our options are also much more expensive and complex in their use cases. On the other hand, when we deal with things like life expectancy or health, it's often much more (but not completely) straightforward to measure efficiency. Unfortunately, the problems that you usually fix in these cases exist where healthcare is really, really bad. It is also, as a feature, really really cheap.

Here's a couple of examples:

Aravind
Against Malaria Foundation

The staple of calculating the efficiency of a donation is the Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY). This is the monetary value of the burden of some kind of condition that affects both quality and length of life, and by that definition also the cost of an intervention that solves the problem. One QALY is equivalent to one year of healthy life.

Now, it starts to get fuzzy when we talk about non-health interventions, since we'll be stabbing at vague and small numbers (how much would I benefit from a free subscription to a magazine? 0.01 QALY per year? you see how it gets weird). But what about education? That's a legitimately effectual but also very difficult to calculate intervention.

I think it's best to start with health and life expectancy. The most efficient work produces 34 QALYs (about the length of healthy adult life in most developing countries-- it should shock you how little that is), for about $3000. If your impact is important to you, and you're looking at less than this, it's probably worth a good long think about.

Now you are probably thinking, but what about the arts? but who will pay for the museums?. Here's what I think.

While there are people suffering in the world, the least fortunate are always the most deserving of help, and I will not donate to any cause that does not help the most of them the most efficiently. I have my after-donation income that completely belongs to me, and I will go to museums and concerts, but I fix my priorities for the amount that I have set aside for the purpose of creating positive change for those who are unable to effect it themselves.

But what about the environment? I think most climate initiatives are fundamentally broken. I like a few of them, but I think the biggest thing they miss is that to fix the atmosphere, the cost of everything MUST INCREASE. Energy is way too cheap and this is the single reason why we use so much of it. Renewables cost more for the moment, and it doesn't work to force divestment from coal and oil while keeping electricity and gasoline prices the same, driving the same amount, traveling as far, etc. Everybody wants the world to be saved but very few people are willing to change their behaviour for it.

I think that by improving life outcomes for the lowest income, least educated, most fertile part of the world, hopefully, we'll have fewer people around and more people making more sensible demands for fixing the planet. Because we'll all be in the same group (see group theory above). For the moment, I'll try to fly as little as I can (I'm already a car-sharing, bike riding hippie so I don't know how much further I can push this other edge of the envelope)


Why isn't this my job? Well it used to be! But here's the rub:

I wasn't very effective. I could have been-- if I'd studied more relevant things, got more relevant degrees, and so on. Coming in inexperienced and unqualified meant that I was kept to the shallow end of tasks I could take on. While I could be quite effective in the right job, the overhead to reach it was big, my chances slim, and I also burned out living in Ghana.

On the other hand, I am reasonably financially productive where I am now, and for the present arrangement of things, I produce much greater impact donating a fraction of my earnings than working in the industry of making impact.



4. I have decided to use Givewell to help me find the most effective initiative to donate to. I really want to get the most good for my euro, so I am going to give to the Against Malaria Foundation. I believe this represents as good as the highest efficiency for lives saved per $/€/£/¢, worldwide.



Each year, I will tally my donation amounts and send them off in the 1st week of January. Taxes happen in April, so I'll have all my receipts by then. After that, I will write a report to this blog.



5. I realise that 10% doesn't sound like a lot, and it's not my final goal. There are of course people who donate much more than that. My number will go up, and here are some considerations:

- I need to know how much I can stably handle. I've been a little bit iterant for the last years of my life, and it's nice to have a little bit of a safety net when moving jobs and countries.
- It's just as important to give as to enjoy it. Making a sacrifice is not the point, and suffering to give is unsustainable and an unrealistic plan to do any kind of good. I'll probe this boundary slowly.

I used 10% as a suggestion from the book, which does a few little income-breakdown exercises. I chose to use the model for someone earning roughly the same amount of money living in the Boston area, and adjust it a little bit, considering that my expenditures and tax rate and welfare allocation are a little different. I will reevaluate this on a regular basis, perhaps at each donation period, and with luck get to a higher number soon.

I realise that 10% doesn't sound like a lot, but so few people in this world are doing even close to this, and so little of this money is actually going to somewhere it will make a difference. Hopefully, by doing what I reason to be effective, and talking about it, I can both do something and convince some people to do something to.


(talk to me, talk to people about this!)
----

Well, that's all for now, gentle readers! I'll see you again in the future!

all photos: Laura Stupin

Awesome biscuits from Africa

Notorious BRB

There's been a small drought of blog posts out of me lately. I know I promised a blog about work but it's surprisingly hard, after long days in the hot sun followed by reports about what happened on long days in the hot sun, to write blogs about long days in the hot sun. Even though I'm enjoying this job more everyday.

It's hard to take photos that would go well on blogs when I'm focused on taking detail photos of pumps and trying to fit whole gardens into my viewscreen, like in this exciting little number!

I'll try to sneak in some photos of farmers gardening or kids playing or something.

Anyway, more extra exciting things are happening at work and I'm so excited that I just might write about them. So don't worry about the title of this post, it's not that I'm taking a hiatus from writing this, all will come in its own time. Meanwhile, here's a short list of things on my radar:

-

In no particular order:

1. Lee Kuan Yew is "officially" out. I think this is a very good public step, albeit after firmly establishing the Lee Dynasty in Singapore government, and it's uncertain what he will do "despite" being out of office.

2. On a related note, Singapore just had its "most upsetting" election recently. I say "bout damn time". Everyone on "both sides of the government" is talking about how the political climate in Singapore is changing and that's a good thing. Singapore has a very uncommon but also quite nuanced political situation, and it's hard to recommend a good source that will describe the whole picture.

I found quite a few neat places to get very sharp, objective opinions and information about it, a couple of articles I really liked are here at molly meek and here at the online citizen. They might be a bit dense if you don't already know some about Singapore politics, but they get my super snobby stamp of approval.

Unfortunately, most Singaporeans would prefer to read utter drivel from Xia Xue (who I only just found out about before the elections). I wrote in a very polite comment to clarify five thousand factual mistakes she made but she predictably wouldn't let it go up, so maybe when it rolls around to "that time of the month" I'll write a heartfelt blog about why Xia Xue is the worst blogger in the entire sphere.

3. Since this has been so many words (and so much about politics!) and I have resolved to give more pictures and fewer words, I'll only add...huh, well maybe that was it. Well, this isn't news, I found out that the King of Thailand is a super amazing awesome jazz musician poet writer olympic sailor and apparently a really great guy to boot. And there's a huge controversy about the death of his brother (originally chosen to be king), and that Thai politics are quite brutal and sad but also very interesting and occasionally inspiring.

-

4. I'm also getting pretty decent at the guitar, learning about keys and intervals and chord structures as I learn how to play un-tabbed songs by ear and transpose them around. I think that this extra music knowledge might help me learn the piano again.

High rate of compression

For my next feat, in a single haiku I will summarise the United States of America, Singapore, Timor Leste, and many other countries around the world. Here we go:


Inequitable
Socioeconomic
Stratification


I realise this is a real brain twister, so I will elaborate each word into its own haiku:


Inequitable

Unfair or partial:
Of treatments, situations
In society


Socioeconomic

About matters of
Wealth, income, and resulting
Structure or order


Stratification

I refer here to
The distinct separation
Of social classes

Them there lies

Have you ever heard a politician say something like ”It is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of doing what is right.” ?

Chances are, you have. And the overwhelmingly high chance is that they are lying. I'm picking on one Republican Senator with this quotation, but promises and assertions like these are part of every politician's rhetoric.

Corresponding with a friend of mine about a recent blog post, I was reminded of a concept I learned in an economics class about state and local government and financing.


It's called the "short time horizon". What it meant in the context that I learnt it was that politicians are motivated by many things "within their time" (funding, publicity, base of support, re-election) when the things we want them to care about are often "outside their time" (legislation, project completion, long term city/state wellbeing, and often, good policy*).

The lesson there was that politicians cannot be trusted to make decisions that are in the absolute best interest of the communities and counties they serve, and that legislation must provide ways for them to be accountable for their actions, and overridden if necessary.

*(let's take an undisputably good policy, like ending tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans)



What I realised after some pondering is that all people have short time horizons.

What the afore-linked oktrends article points to, I believe, is simply how we focus on personal gains that are close to us in time and space (because of our mortal limitations) and so make decisions that benefit us now, that are not optimal for the long run (or for society at large). It's pretty elementary psychology and economics.

Indeed, we likely "have less choice than we think we do, about our principles, beliefs and ideologies" -- the things we believe in most strongly. Certainly when it comes to politics anyway.


Perhaps I finally realised that "politicians are people too" or perhaps more cynically that "we are just like them".

Is you is or is you ain't?

I had a little blink of insight while thinking about this article:

If a person's socio-economic situation is the biggest determinant of political views, are political outcomes (who gets elected, what laws get passed) due mostly to the social make-up of a country?

rephrased:

If a person's socio-economic considerations dominate their ideals, outlook and perspective with regard to politics, do countries pass laws and elect leaders with people making decisions based more on their situations and less on what actually makes good leaders and good policies?

The answer is likely not "yes" or "no", but it could well be "more than we would like to believe".

Does this also mean that we have less choice than we think we do, about our principles, beliefs and ideologies?






(PS, watch the video, it's good)

A side question: if all this is so, why are Americans not more resistant to irrational rubbish spouted by people like Glenn Beck? Perhaps there needs to be a variable in this equation for gullibility and propaganda.

Being politically conservative is one thing-- the simple opposite of liberalism and no bad thing itself, but conservatives in America (the speakers and their massed followers) are simply ridiculous, and have managed to be offensive, subversive and regressive.

Unforeseen protractedness

A blog in four parts, that is much longer than I had initially intended
Cake will be awarded for guessing the title theme


The End
My last days in Cambridge were a storm of good times and good people: playing ultimate frisbee for the last time, going out to Gwyn Jones's in Carlisle again (this time by train), seeing all of my favourite people in town, going to a couple of great milongas (tango dances), Bikes Not Bombs, and Daf and Laura conspiring to bake me a birthday cake (it was a really sweet surprise-- it's never happened to me before).

Life was so grand I almost didn't get on that aeroplane.


Carry That Weight
Singapore is as weird as ever. Aside from the excellent food (which I keep hearing is stolen from Malaysia, and is better there anyway), there's not a lot to like about it here. I've always found it a socially/culturally trying place, and have a hard time doing all the things I want to do, that I can do in a place like Cambridge (for example, get around by bike. Singapore is a TERRIBLE biking city).

Leaving my personal life out of the equation, I compiled a short list of reasons to hate Singapore. Whilst these don't (or rather, have not yet) affected me, I have an intense philosophical and principled problem with them.

One party system: If you've ever looked at (for example) the democrat/republican squabbling in the US and thought to yourself, "hey, what a bunch of fools," get this: Singapore has had ONE party in pretty much absolute and dominant power, since its independence. It's called the PAP and its priorities are, in no particular order, control, stability, and image (trading for it the human rights enjoyed in most high-GDP highly educated countries). Hence, all the counter-critic action, all the population control laws (see below) and all the gerrymandering (the government routinely changes voting district boundaries in order to ensure its MPs are elected) and regulations on smaller opposition parties to ensure that they will never be able to compete with the PAP.

Freedom of assembly: Singapore used to limit-nay-deny the freedom of assembly by requiring a police permit for gatherings of more than five people. In 2009-ish, it changed to require a permit for any outdoor gathering that was related to any cause. In January, 2009 they arrested a two-man protest of the unfair treatment of and earlier protest of the Myanmar government during their whole constitutional referendum debacle.
Get this: the new bill also allows police to stop people from filming law enforcement "if it could put officers in danger." This is the worse confusion of reason I've ever heard used to create an unconstitutional policy.

Freedom of speech: Singapore has severely restricted freedoms of speech. It's got a speaker's corner, modeled on the famous one at Hyde Park in London, but be damned if you think you can speak your mind there. Here's a fun little article that demonstrates how absurd things can be.

Freedom of press: Follows freedom of speech as abysmal. Examples are pretty easy to find on the internet

Black Bagging: Singapore's Internal Security Act allows the government to arrest and detain individuals indefinitely without warrant or trial. This piece of legislation is a relic of 1960, where it was written to control communists (which is unconstitutional in and of itself, might I point out). It was used more liberally in the 1960s through 80s to control social activists and opposition parties (which is grossly inethical, might I point out). It has even been used as recently as June 2010. Whilst the details of the recent case are unclear, I must point out that there is absolutely no reason to detain anyone at all without trial. It is against any constitution and every human right.

Here's the icing on the cake:
Charismatic churches (pastor disaster, ha ha!): In recent times, Singapore has experienced a bloom of swanky churches, where mass / service is attended by a highly unrepresentative population of, on average, extremely wealthy people. They donate (as is recommended by the bible, and I hear, quite well enforced by the church) a tenth of not just their salary --Chinese businessmen are too savvy for that-- their net income, from assets and from paycheck. Their pastors drive Mercedeses and BMWs, live in big houses and often own a number of others. I don't know how they can go along with churches that are basically donation clubs for rich Singaporeans, let alone trust their BMW driving pastor's guidance.
A recent investigation uncovered extremely sneaky means by which church leaders are able to circumvent laws and regulations to benefit from these donations. It involves the church making large donations to other churches, outside the jurisdiction of Singapore law, such as in the Philippines (as an example, and not to pick on them in any way), with the catch that they must invite the pastor to speak at their church, for which the fee is, say, half of what that large donation was (Singapore can't force the church in the Philippines to hand over information on the transaction). And for the church in the Philippines of a million dollars is a lot of money, and half is better than nothing, eh?

and, I almost forgot- put this in your pipe: Singapore has one of the highest income disparities in the world, on par with many African (politically corrupt, might I add) countries. Its neighbours on the big list? Burundi, Kenya, Iran and Nicaragua. I guess this is not so far off from the USA, where taxes and other policies that have favoured the rich for generations. From recent Singapore newspaper articles I've read, the poorest people here are starting to find that they make less than a living wage.


It's clear that my ideologies differ from the leadership's in some pretty fundamental ways, but is this the kind of place anyone would want to live in? If they had a choice? If they were well informed? All the information I used to write this (besides floating in my head) is easily available in open channels, and on the internet. I think that people are on the whole well suppressed and well misled, coddled with a bit of comfort and had the wool pulled over their eyes.
Singapore's really well developed economically, but really needs to wake up and grow socially, culturally, intellectually, and all the other -allys they've missed.


Through the Bathroom Window
Singapore's got a great little theatre scene, in which they make fun and jest of and generally celebrate the precious little culture of and little big news and happenings around Singapore, sometimes even poking fun at the government. And it's surprisingly good, with loads of original music and lots of Singapore in-jokes. It usually makes me smile and laugh.

Living inside Singapore's great little theatre scene is Singapore great little gay theatre scene.

In a country where not only is same sex marriage not lawful, but where there is still an "unnatural sex" law that prohibits homosexual sex explicitly and homosexual relationships implicitly, there is a thriving gay club scene, as well as a gay theatre scene where some very gay plays (featuring some very prominent local celebrities) take on the issues of being gay in Singapore in really big ways. Often funny, sometimes very poignant and sad.

I'm super proud and appreciative that they dare do this in Singapore, and that they pulled it off so well. Every show I've been to has been packed.


Majesty
What really earns Singapore a special place in my heart (at this moment, as much as I hate to admit it) is the tango. Tango in Singapore has been so much fun: people have been really friendly and welcoming, and dance very well. Singapore is also one of those rare places that (I know from personal experience) men will dance with men (it's quite common for women to dance with women, it seems/I hear). Why is this important to me? I started to write but it got long, I'll explain this another time.

When I dance in Boston, I usually never stay til the end of a milonga, but the first night I went out dancing in Singapore, I stayed out til two in the morning (way way past my bedtime). It was just great-- I couldn't leave.

Why is this important? It's a hint that I can find something I like doing, and something that makes me happy, anywhere, even in Singapore.

pots and kettles

I was at Chicago O'Hare airport on my way to Singapore when I saw a political ad on the telly accuse Obama's administration of policies that destroyed jobs and favoured large corporations over small businesses (what I thought was a classically republican move).

Every other word I hear in democrat AND republican propaganda alike is "jobs", and the other word(s) is(are) "small businesses." So, does this mean that both republicans and democrats are trying to create jobs and to spur the growth of small businesses? Whilst they accuse the other party of destroying jobs and small businesses?

Are either of them doing anything other than slinging charged words at each other? Will we ever get to the bottom of this?

This might be worth reading.

pow wow

I just spent an hour listening to the Habeas Schmabeas episode of This American Life. It's superbly well done (won a Peabody Award) and incredibly moving.

I must require that if you have not already, you must listen to it, here.

Habeas Schmabeas tells of the unbelievable atrocities committed by the US government on the premise of national security in places like Kandahar and Guantanamo, from extensive research and firsthand from detainees and volunteer attorneys.

----

A few weeks ago, I also saw Jacqueline Novogratz of Acumen Fund speak, and she was super awesome. She's a hero I don't have time to worship.

Acumen Fund is doing really awesome stuff supporting innovators and entrepreneurs in developing country, both by investing in them and by providing them with top notch advice and consultation. And I haven't even begun to describe how effective and amazing what they're doing really is.

If you have time, you should watch all of her TED talks.

Where there is no government

Alright, so India does have a government. The problem that India faces is one of too much politics and too little government.

(I reserve judgment on two party politics, and billion-dollar campaigns)

India has eight national parties, forty five state parties and literally hundreds of small registered parties, all vying for votes. I believe in diversity, and in the difference of ideas that such a system would encourage. Free thought and speech and freedom to form and elect leadership sound like a good way forward for effective government. It sounds like perfect logic but-

I attended a talk by a prominent economist Paul Romer in May, during the (awesome) Millennium Campus Conference. In a style he acknowledged as uncharacteristic of economists, he introduced a differential equation – stunningly simple and cutting – which I’ll explain without algebra. Paul Romer asserts that:

1. When human capital is high, increasing democracy brings increasing social good

2. When human capital is low, increasing democracy does not bring increasing social good.

This is precisely India’s problem.

This area is at a cusp of development. The village that I live in is not wrestling with poverty, and neither is it surviving hand-to-mouth. There are problems with finances, but those are caused by another equally insidious breed of social problems. Public works and services are a little shaky, and living conditions are not five-star, but there is enough to eat and drink and most people sleep with roofs over their heads.

Families and communities are looking for the next step. Village folk are putting their children on buses and bicycles to send them to school. Sometimes, I’m filled with optimism when I think about the potential for development, and filled with joy when I take the five thirty bus from the lab, half full of children in their tan-and-brown school uniforms, or walk past the bus stop by the temple, a sea of students.

And then, I heard that some minister was visiting a neighbouring village to distribute free televisions and my gall bladder jumped into my throat. First, these people do not need televisions as much as they need more schools with reliable teachers, drains that are not filled with waste water so foul mosquitoes refuse to breed in them. They need shoes on their feet. They need clean streets and the information and interest not to litter, or let their children and cows use the street as their toilet. They need electricity that does not come and go as it damn well pleases.

Fat lot of good a TV does if you can’t watch it.

Every day I walk past a house and watch a very young girl help her family collect water in the morning, wearing her school uniform and solemn face, and do housework in the evening (the only one I never see with an open book). She does not need a television. She needs time to do her homework.

Of course, (and absolutely to no fault of theirs) if these village folk were better educated, more aware and certain about the roles and responsibilities of government – if human capital was higher – they would have saw straight though this blatant appeasement and purchase of favour by distribution of a crack-good like television.

Yes, I’m biased against television, and I won’t argue that each household deserves to watch if they want to, but there are more pressing problems that TV only serves to distract them from, that can be identified without embarking on a philosophical debate about quality of life, and television.

--- Begin ramble proper:

I do believe that diversity in politics is a good thing because choice is important in government, but the way they are ruthlessly vying for popularity with a public that is not well equipped to choose will not lead this country anywhere. Not to mention plain bad policy: the glut of public ministries - sixty three of them. And the bloated civil service - 21 million out of 35 in the formal economy in the 450 million strong work force - (practically) none of which can be demoted or sacked under the constitution.

The methods these parties choose tend not to weed out weak and unsuitable ones but breed unproductive competition. In the cities, where people beg, and people do sleep in the streets, do live from hand to mouth, trying anything at all to make a rupee, every wall is plastered with political campaign propaganda.

What I'm trying to say is,

Take your TV back and s-

Sheepface

In India, there are two cows for every three people.

40% of people registered as below the poverty line have paid a bribe for it.



One rough guide. Two skirts. Three pairs of underwear.

See you in India.



Okay, four pairs.