March 18, 2013 | 39 comments
How I would lead the World Bank.
(Page 2 of 2)
I believe that wealth can be created when the poor are allowed freedom and opportunity — when there are private property rights, justice and the rule of law, freedom to start a business without oppressive regulation, and freedom to enter into networks of productivity and “circles of exchange.” I believe — in fact, I know — that the poor can create wealth and prosperity for themselves, their families and their communities that no state or international agency could ever create.
I actually believe “the children are the future” and therefore think we should be spending resources to keep them alive and to give them opportunity not to reduce population through abortion, sterilization, and making development assistance contingent upon population control. Unlike Professor Sachs, I prefer economic reality to his claim that the world is “bursting at the seams.” As president of the World Bank I would stop the funding of abortions that have led to the death of millions of unborn children in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and that has led to what Nicholas Eberstadt documents in his article “The Global War on Baby Girls,” and what even the New York Times has described as “The Daughter Deficit” and the Economist has labeled called “Gendercide.” As president of the World Bank I would promote a culture that respects all life — including that of unborn women.
I also believe that the real development professionals are not people like Professor Sachs and certainly not me. I believe the real development professionals are the entrepreneurs and a new generation of local leaders who recognize the creative potential of people. They are the only ones who can create the institutions of wealth creation and long term sustainable development.
On second thought — I don’t really want to be president of the World Bank. In fact, I don’t really believe in the World Bank. It was formed at Bretton Woods with the original intent of rebuilding Europe. When this task was taken over by the Marshall Plan, the World Bank, like any bureaucracy worth its salt, went looking for a new mission because, after all, where else would all those technocrats and development specialists work? The World Bank’s mission “dreams of world without poverty; to fight poverty with professionalism and lasting results.” The best way to fight poverty with lasting results is to allow entrepreneurs and businesses to flourish. I think it would better for everyone if the World Bank were closed down. I am sure there are many fine, dedicated, and well intended people who have worked at the World Bank over the years. Instead of using their talent and knowledge as part of a broken system they could focus on partnering with poor, starting businesses, or maybe become venture capitalists providing investments to help grow local business throughout the developing world.
The developing world doesn’t need another neo-colonial master. They’ve had enough. The poor don’t need another development expert. They need partners and access to markets. As a friend says, “We give aid to Africa, but we don’t do business with Africa.” We’ve had enough development professionals, celebrity campaigns and wristbands — its time for something new. It is time to do business.
Let’s get started.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?