Выбор редакции
19 октября, 18:34

I Need Some Muscle Over Here, by David Henderson

  • 0

The title of this post is that now-famous quote from University of Missouri faculty member Melissa Click. It’s her threat to a reporter who was covering a protest on the campus. I thought of it when reading this story about how the FDIC muscled a payday lender and tried to make it look as if the payday lender took the initiative. Here’s a quote from the article: Emails show that FDIC administration officials struggled to figure out how to explain to banks why their institutions should be terminating their relationships with businesses that have not committed any fraud or other illegal activities. Back in 2016, Fortune quoted Obama supporter Larry Summers: The landscape Summers painted in his op-ed is full of broken trade deals, wars, heightened nuclear bomb threats, and a more dictatorial U.S. government. Larry got the broken trade deals thing right. But a “more dictatorial U.S. government?” That’s hard to measure because there are so many dimensions. But I think Obama gave Trump a run for his money. Don’t expect to see Larry ever admit that though. Remember what he told Elizabeth Warren about insiders. (0 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
19 октября, 08:06

One Benefit of Tariffs, by Pierre Lemieux

  • 0

Perhaps one benefit of President Trump’s tariffs and trade war will be to illustrate standard results of trade theory. One general result is that a domestic tariff against imports also increases the domestic price charged by domestic producers of the protected good. There is only one price in the market for a given good (quality being constant). Domestic producers will get the same higher price that foreign producers charge tariff-included on the domestic market. I gave an example of steel prices as reported by the Wall Street Journal in my post “A Simple Illustration of Standard Trade Theory,” July 3, 2018. On Wednesday, the Journal gave another example, this time on aluminum prices: Aluminum prices in the U.S. have climbed this year after the Trump administration imposed a 10% tariff on imported aluminum in March. Although we still don’t have much data, Pittsburgh-based Alcoa is reported, for the third quarter, to have had a net benefit of $27 million from the tariff as a result of higher prices on aluminum it produced in the U.S. Alcoa said its overall price for raw aluminum sold in the quarter rose by 10% a ton. This is why protected domestic companies usually love a tariff. For Alcoa, though, the result is more ambiguous as the company imports part of its aluminum from its foreign smelters, especially in Canada, and  these imports were hit by the tariff. As the Journal says, this “has limited [the company’s] ability to benefit from the tariffs.” (5 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 19:28

What’s good for big tobacco . . ., by Scott Sumner

  • 0

I’m not a fan of laws restricting tobacco use, except in government buildings. So I might be expected to look favorably on a change in FDA regulations that led to a boost in the prices of tobacco stocks. But this particular stock market reaction leaves me concerned: Tobacco stocks surged Wednesday after regulators threatened to pull e-cigarettes from shelves if manufacturers do not control “widespread” teen use. Shares of Altria rose more nearly 7 percent to their best day since November, 2008. Philip Morris International increased about 3 percent. British American Tobacco shares increased nearly 6 percent to their best day since December, 2008. In London, Imperial Brands rose 3 percent. . . . Investors welcomed the regulatory crackdown. E-cigarette sales have threatened Big Tobacco companies. I do realize that stock market reactions can be tricky to interpret, but it seems to me that this stock market response should be viewed as a cautionary signal. While there are some health risks associated with e-cigarettes, the risks are believed to be dramatically lower than for regular cigarettes.  If tobacco stocks soared due to a perception that the FDA’s action would boost cigarette sales, then the action could very well end up harming health (despite lower e-cigarettes sales), as well as restricting consumer choice. Again, I’m not saying that the stock market should drive policy, but I’d be interested in commenter perspectives on why stocks rose in value on this news.  Am I missing something? (5 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
18 октября, 17:20

Meritocracy Without Borders: Sowell Edition, by Bryan Caplan

  • 0

In recent years, Thomas Sowell has been a staunch advocate of stricter immigration policies.  Which is ironic, because this passage from his Compassion Versus Guilt has stuck with me for thirty years: When I travel through California’s vast agricultural areas, the people I see working in the fields under the hot sun are usually Mexicans.  So are many of the people who clean the hotels.  But when I have been approached by a panhandler in San Francisco or Los Angeles, it has never been a Mexican. Almost invariably, the panhandlers have been young, healthy-looking whites with middle-class accents.  These men remind me of the old English expression, “sturdy beggars.” One nicely dressed young woman with a well-modulated voice looked so different from the image of the panhandler that I was already past her before I realized that that was what she was.  But I have seen her again.  She works one of the better business districts of San Francisco. All I can do is walk past such people.  To give them money would be to say that they are somehow better than the Mexicans who have to earn their living by helping to feed the rest of society and by keeping hotels and offices clean.  How these young, middle-class people get the nerve to ask a black man (whose mother was a maid) for money is beyond me. Many, probably most, of the Mexicans Sowell is talking about would have entered the U.S. illegally.  But back in the 1980s, he didn’t care about their immigration status.  He looked past our oppressive regulations to judge people on their merits.  And it wasn’t a hard call, either. I’m just starting my next book, Poverty: Who To Blame.  But when the book finally comes out, you should definitely expect Sowell’s wise words contained therein. (5 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
17 октября, 23:21

Richard Nixon’s 1968 Campaign for President, by David Henderson

  • 0

The first thing that Martin did for Richard Nixon—one of the first things—it’s dated July 4, 1967—is to make the argument for abolishing the military draft and moving to an all-volunteer armed force. This is my Hoover colleague Annelise Anderson reminiscing about how she and her husband, the late Martin Anderson, got involved in Richard Nixon’s 1967-68 campaign for president of the United States. Obviously, for those who know my view on the draft, this was my favorite segment of the 1.5 hour discussion on C-SPAN. It’s titled “Richard Nixon’s 1968 Victory,” and was shown on September 21, 2018. The whole thing is way more fascinating than I expected it to be. The moderator is Geoffrey C. Shepard and the 3 other panelists, besides Annelise, are Kenneth L. Khachigian, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Dwight L. Chapin. All 3 were in the Nixon campaign and then the Nixon administration. Chapin later went to prison for lying to a grand jury. I’ll get to some highlights but first I’ll do my own reminiscence of the Nixon election. I was 17 years old that fall and had just started my second year of college. I had recently self-identified as a libertarian, once I knew what the word meant, and the 1968 election was the first one I followed at all closely, but not nearly as closely as I do now. Although I was no fan of Nixon’s Democratic opponent, Hubert Humphrey (witness the fact that in November 1969 I confronted him about his views on the draft—a story I tell in The Joy of Freedom: An Economist’s Odyssey), I didn’t like the fact that mainly student groups throughout the country were shouting Humphrey down at many of his campaign speeches. “Dump the Hump” went the chant. It was pretty ugly. But I was so naive about politics that when I read Ayn Rand’s endorsement of Nixon and her highlight of some small criticisms he had made of the FCC and Social Security, I thought he would abolish those within months of becoming president. There’s a lot I didn’t know, to put it mildly. On the evening of November 5, 1968, my fellow libertarian and University of Winnipeger Don Redekop and I took a bus to Clancy Smith’s place where, along with some other libertarians in their early 20s, we watched the election results. At around 1 p.m. Central time, Clancy drove us home with our still not knowing who won. I got up late the next morning and found out that Nixon had won. I was euphoric. I shouldn’t have been. Again, there’s a lot I didn’t know. Little did I know that less than 5 years later, I would be working in the Old Executive Office Building less than 200 yards from where Nixon worked. Fast forward to about August 1993. My wife, daughter, and I were in coach on a United Airlines flight from Newark to LAX. Nixon was in first class with one Secret Service guy. His wife, Pat, had died 2 months earlier. I wasn’t a big fan of Nixon’s, to put it mildly. I thought, back when I was working for him in the summer of 1973, that he should be impeached—over price controls. But I always appreciated, and still do, his role in ending the draft. I’m a pretty spunky person and so I thought I would take my daughter, who was 8 at the time, to the first class section, introduce her to him, and thank him for his role. Then I remembered an interview with him that I had read in the Oakland Tribune in 1980. Asked what his biggest policy mistake was, he answered “ending the draft.” The hell with him, I thought, and that was the end of it. In retrospect, though, I should have taken my daughter to meet him. Now to the highlights: 13:40-15:30: Writing a book on Nixon’s policy proposals. Got the request on Sunday, put it together, and had books on Friday. 32:25: Mentions Peter Flanigan. I remember being at some event that Ralph Nader spoke at, sometime in the late 1970s, I believe, although it might have a speech he gave at UCLA in 1974 or 1975. Ralph referred to Flanigan as the most evil man in Washington. But I had independent evidence that suggested otherwise. When I was  a summer intern at the Council of Economic Advisers in 1973, I got copies of all of Sam Peltzman’s memos and read them all. What I remember is that whenever Flanigan’s name came up, he was on the economic freedom side of the issue. Years later I met Flanigan and told him (a) what Ralph had said and (b) what I thought. 38:50: Nixon’s pithy explanation for why Rockefeller dropped out: “It’s the girl.” 42:50: After Martin Luther King is murdered, Nixon goes to visit his widow and Martin Luther King, Sr. 56:10: Hunter S. Thompson says that Nixon will be president of the United States because of the 15 minutes of ugly clash between protesters and cops. 1:05:40: Late in October, Pat Buchanan says we’ve lost Michigan and we’re down 43 to 40. Nixon’s watching the Oregon Ducks vs. USC football game and says thanks and goes back to intently watching. 1:12:10: Roger Ailes tells Nixon he needs to make television his friend. 1:15:00: Sun lamp. 1:18:40: Bryce Harlow. 1:24:20: Russian collusion in 1968 election? 1:28:00: Chapin says that Nixon’s convention speech in Miami was a “work of art.” This has certainly motivated me to look at it. Final comment: In researching Martin Anderson’s role in helping end the draft, which I’ve written about on EconLog, I came across this, which I hadn’t seen before. HT2 Marlon Bateman (4 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
17 октября, 21:30

Does Immigration Shrink the Welfare State?, by Bryan Caplan

  • 0

People normally assume that immigration will expand the welfare state.  The lazy version says (a)  immigrants are net beneficiaries of the welfare state, and (b) people vote their self-interest.  The better version says that immigrants’ countries of origins favor more redistribution than natives – and immigrants’ bring their political culture with them. Both stories, however, ignore the effect of immigration on natives’ support for the welfare state.   Researchers – most of whom look kindly upon both immigration and the welfare state – often fear that immigration will sap natives’ support for redistribution by undermining their  sense of national cohesion.  If they’re right, immigration could easily, on balance, shrink the welfare state rather than expand it. So what’s the real story?  I honestly don’t know, and after reading Soroka et al.’s “Immigration and Redistribution in a Global Era” chapter in Globalization and Egalitarian Redistribution (Princeton University Press, 2006), I’m less sure than ever. Soroka et al.’s ultimately agree that immigration restrains the welfare state, though the effect is so moderate that it merely slows its rate of growth rather than actually making it smaller: International migration does seem to matter for the size of the welfare state. Although no welfare state has actually shrunk in the face of the accelerating international movement of people, its rate of growth is smaller the more open a society is to immigration. To the extent that spending growth is inescapable, mandated by the aging of populations in industrial societies, specific parts of the welfare states—especially the parts that redistribute from rich to poor or from the old to the young—may truly have shrunk in the face of migratory pressures. Whatever the details, the typical industrial society might spend 16 or 17% more than it now does on social services had it kept its foreign-born percentage where it was in 1970. [emphasis mine] But check out these major caveats: How seriously should we take these propositions? It is an awkward fact that the biggest apparent effect of immigration is in the estimation with the weakest basis: data from two time points in 18 countries. It does seem appropriate that estimated cumulative impact is greater for an implicitly low-frequency estimation than for very high-frequency—annual at the extreme—modelling. But we do feel diffident about the point estimate in our simple cross-sectional estimation. Our anxiety is only increased by that estimate’s vulnerability to inclusion or exclusion of particular cases. Of the cases we include, the USA and the Netherlands carry a heavy burden. If we tell single-country stories, the USA provides an internally consistent one that requires no reference to external migratory pressure. Gilens (1999) argues that Americans have become more resistant to welfare, in particular to programs for the poor, as welfare policy has come to be increasingly racialized in its media presentations. The racial focus is mainly on African Americans. But we also know that immigrants also figure in that country’s discourse. And we can supply no obvious purely domestic story to cover the Netherlands case. An implication of the US and Netherlands role, however, is that modest increments in the foreign-born share carry much less proportionate charge than big ones. The case we exclude, Switzerland, is difficult to discuss because of idiosyncrasies in measurement of the scale and scope of its welfare state. If we are forced to include it, then the immigration-welfare spending relationship disappears. My main takeaway: If you think you know the effect of immigration on the welfare state, you’re overconfident.  Immigration’s effect on the welfare state is too hazy to clearly detect one way or the other.  So regardless of your views on the welfare state, you should evaluate the effects of immigration on other grounds.   (5 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
17 октября, 02:51

The Government is NOT the Public, by David Henderson

  • 0

There’s a proposition on the November ballot in my area to study having a government agency use eminent domain to take over a private regulated water monopoly. I won’t say anything about the merits because this blog cannot legally take a stand on a ballot issue. But I will discuss something I learned last night that I found incredibly interesting. A friend texted me and asked me how she should vote on the proposition. I texted back to tell her and I gave some brief reasons. She texted back and said that that was her thinking also but that some friends of hers were surprised when she said that the study was about having the government take over the private company. They had understood the proposition to be about having the public, not the government, take over the private company. That’s somewhat understandable. One of the main slogans of the government takeover group is “Public Water Now.” In other words, her friends distinguished between the government and the public. I distinguish between the government and the public also. In my writing, I make sure not to talk about the two as if they’re interchangeable. But I have many libertarian and economist friends who use the words interchangeably. This latest discussion suggests that it’s more important to make that distinction than many have thought. Sidenote: That’s part of why I have never been thrilled that the study of incentives in government is called Public Choice. (15 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
17 октября, 02:35

A Fatal Flip, by Bryan Caplan

  • 0

Suppose you receive the following option. You flip a fair coin. If the coin is Heads, you acquire healthy immortality. If the coin is Tails, you instantly die. The expected value of this option seems infinite: .5*infinity + 0 is still infinity, no?  Even if you apply diminishing marginal utility to life itself, it’s hard to imagine that the rest of your natural life outweighs a 50% shot of eternity… especially if you remember that many of your actual years are unlikely to be healthy. Nevertheless, I suspect that almost no one would take this deal.  Even I shudder at the possibility.  So what gives? (54 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
16 октября, 19:10

Pro-business but not pro-market, by Scott Sumner

  • 0

Left wing places often have laws that are hostile to business. This is the case in my own state of California. Right wing places are often pro-business, but at the expense of being anti-market. For instance, many states protect car dealerships from competition in the form of direct sales by manufacturers.  Consider the list of states that will not allow Tesla dealerships: It’s hard to pin down exactly how many states truly don’t want Tesla to open dealerships. Sixteen states have laws on the books that would prevent that . . . Here are those states: Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Texas. Interestingly, 14 of those states voted for Trump, while only Connecticut and New Mexico voted for Clinton.  So what’s a free market fan to do?  Ideally you’d want to find some place with right wing views on capitalism and idealistic views on public policy.  Unfortunately, those places are few and far between.   Maybe somewhere like Utah or New Hampshire?  Any other suggestions? (7 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
16 октября, 12:30

Climate Agnosticism Vs. Insurance Companies, by Pierre Lemieux

  • 0

Perhaps like many of the readers of this blog, I am a climate agnostic. Given the politicization of environmental issues and the unfounded scares of the last few few decades (see Paul Sabin’s book and my review of it at the Library of Law and Liberty), I am not sure that disastrous climatic changes are occurring nor that human activity is responsible or to which extent. I haven’t looked at the climate models that serve as a basis for the dire warnings. As much as I am willing to defer to a consensus among people who know things that I don’t, I also realize how forecasting models are uncertain, whether in economics or in a chaotic field such as climate science (remember that it is a meteorologist, Edward Lorenz, who discovered chaos theory). And even if climate change were to cause serious problems to a portion of mankind, these costs would be at least partly compensated by weather benefits for another portion. More important, we should forget that individual liberty is the most endangered species in the world and should not be sacrificed to the “visible fist” of the environmentalist state, to borrow an expression that Murray Rothbard opposed to the invisible hand of the market. In standard (and narrower) economic terms,  reducing the forecasted temperature rise by reducing carbon emissions may cost more than the climate change itself, or reduce the cost by only a small proportion. Our co-blogger David Henderson recently discussed this point in relation to the work of recent Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus and of Texas Tech’s economist Robert Murphy (see “A Nobel Economics Prize for the Long Run,” Wall Street Journal, October 8, 2016). If climate change were an imminent danger, one would expect the corporations for which money is at stake to take notice. Apparently, they are now taking notice, which seems to contradict part of my climate agnosticism. In 2016, an unprecedented forest fire in the oil-sands region of Alberta (a Canadian province) roared over an area larger than Delaware, burned down a large part of the town of Fort McMurray forcing its evacuation (see picture), and caused $3 billion in damages. The Wall Street Journal explains how this natural catastrophe is leading the insurance industry to reevaluate the risks of climate change: “Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate,” runs the title of the story. Speaking about one of the insurance companies hit by the damage, Avila PLC, the Journal writes: Aviva studied the incident and concluded the wildfire was an example of how the earth’s gradually warming temperature is changing the behavior of natural catastrophes. Aviva increased premiums in Canada as a result. The effects of the planet’s slow heating are diffuse. Predictions of the fallout are imprecise, and the drivers are debated. But faced with the prospect of a warming planet, the world of business and finance is starting to put a price on climate change. Instead of whining (which is a more prevalent behavior among environmentalists and at the highest levels of the state), insurance companies are trying to find a way to price the risk and sell coverage: “It takes a lot of premium, a lot of margin, to account for this increased uncertainty, and I’m not sure we’re doing a good job of reflecting this and charging appropriately for it,” said Marc Grandisson, chief executive of insurer Arch Capital Group Ltd., at an industry conference … “What we call the protection gap is still huge,” says Edouard Schmid, group chief underwriting officer at Swiss Re. “We of course want to offer solutions around risks, including climate risks.” As insurance companies are incited to correctly price the risk of climate change, their customers will be incited to take steps to reduce their insurance costs by taking efficient actions of their own–moving installations threatened by possible rising sea level, for example. Such private solutions are certainly preferable to coercive state intervention. We can expect markets to calculate costs more efficiently than politicians and bureaucrats. (24 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
16 октября, 00:57

Niskanen Center Ignores William Nordhaus, by David Henderson

  • 0

Decades ago, Nordhaus’s work provided a set of tools that should have appealed to market-minded politicians as a way to tackle greenhouse gas emissions. Yet American conservatives chose denial instead. And because the right ignored Nordhaus (and those who picked up on his work), it seems unlikely that this country will take the “unprecedented” actions that the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said this week are necessary to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. This is the second paragraph of David Bookbinder and Joseph Majkut, “Nobel laureate William Nordhaus provided tools to fight global warming. It’s tragic conservatives ignored him.” Washington Post, October 12, 2018. Bookbinder and Majkut are chief counsel and director of climate policy respectively at the Niskanen Center. As you can see in the quote above, Bookbinder and Majkut are claiming that ignoring Nordhaus makes it unlikely that the United States will act to hold global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But it’s Bookbinder and Majkut who are ignoring Nordhaus. Nordhaus found that sum of the present value of damages and costs for the “do nothing” option was $22.59 trillion; for his optimal carbon tax was $19.52 trillion; and for the 1.5 degree Centigrade limit was $37.03 trillion. In other words having no carbon tax gives results much closer to those of Nordhaus’s optimal policy than limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Centigrade. Getting to that temperature increase would cost an extra $17.5 trillion. So if anyone should be accused of ignoring Nordhaus, it would be the authors at the Niskanen Center. The authors published their piece before an interview with Nordhaus ran in the New York Times. But Nordhaus’s response on an important question doesn’t exactly add clarity where it’s needed. Here’s the relevant part of the Q&A: Do we have enough time to avoid the warming that will bring severe and damaging effects of climate change? It’s not going to happen in time for 1.5 degrees. It’s very unlikely to happen for 2 degrees. We’d have to be very pessimistic about the economy or optimistic about technology for 2 degrees. If we start moving very swiftly in the next 20 years, we might able to avoid 2 degrees, but if we don’t do that, we’re in for to changes in the Earth’s system that we can’t begin to understand in depth. Warming of 4, 5, 6 degrees will bring changes we don’t understand because it’s outside the range of human experience in the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Nordhaus should have said, not “It’s not going to happen in time for 1.5 degrees,” but rather “We shouldn’t try to impose a policy that keeps the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees because such a policy would have way more costs than benefits.”   (26 COMMENTS)

Выбор редакции
15 октября, 22:30

Escaping Poverty, by Bryan Caplan

  • 0

Lant Pritchett’s new working paper, “Alleviating Global Poverty: Labor Mobility, Direct Assistance, and Economic Growth” should be required reading for every Effective Altruist.  Bottom line: Virtually all poverty reduction comes from economic growth and migration – not redistribution or philanthropy.  The evidence will be fairly familiar to EconLog readers, but the framing is novel and powerful: So think of two ways to help the global poor. One is for rich people (in a global sense) to give a dollar and get roughly a dollar’s worth of benefits for the poor. The other people is for rich people to allow people who would like to work at the prevailing wage of their country to do so and not deploy active coercion to prevent this—which reflects the person’s contribution to product and hence is (or can be made to be) zero net cost to the host country. Of course, a dollar for a poor person could produce vastly more human well-being than had the richer person spent the money as the marginal utility was much, much higher for the poor person, but this redistribution effect is the same for both options. This means, at least in current conditions, the least you can do—just increasing the freedom of people who want to work and people who want those people to work to carry out that mutually beneficially transaction across national borders—is better than the best you can do of trying to directly help people in poverty but without allowing them to move to opportunity. The best anti-poverty programs are better than nothing, but compared to the size of the problem, they’re a drop in the bucket.  Here’s Pritchett’s analysis of the much-touted “Ultra Poor Graduation” program: The average income gain for the “treated” households in year 3 of the program is $344 dollars (this is the “intention to treat” effect). What did that program cost? The five country average NPV of costs per household of the 24 month program was $4,545. Economists often argue that in-kind redistribution is bad because the recipients don’t appreciate what they receive.  According to Pritchett, this simple insight is even more empirically important than it seems: When many people think of philanthropy they often don’t think of cash or incomes, they think of giving specific items or treatments that improving people’s lives directly—like food, or scholarship for school, or a bed net in malarial areas or building a toilet. But roughly the same logic applies here as it would be very hard to give someone a specific good in a way that makes them better off in their own evaluation than just having the equivalent amount of cash. Dupas and Miguel (2016) review studies of the Take-It-Or-Leave-It (TIOLI) purchase rates—the fraction of people who will purchase something at various prices—of various health promoting items from vitamins to soap to latrine slabs to bed nets. They find that purchase rates—which are the revealed preference indicator of the consumer’s valuation — are very low even at a small fraction of the costs. For instance, a water filter in Ghana that cost $15 elicited only a 10 percent purchase rate even at the highly subsidized price of less than $6. A $15 dollar latrine slab in Tanzania had only a 20 percent purchase rate at $6. Even I was surprised, though, to learn about this semi-ethnographic study: Empirically, their own initiative is how most people report escaping poverty. As part of a massive exercise of participatory assessment of how people’s well being had changed over a 10 year period we held village meetings in 14 countries and three states of India (Narayan, Pritchett, Kapor 2009). In a ranking exercise people ranked the level of living of households today and their level 10 years ago. This identified almost 4000 people who, by their village neighbor’s assessments, had moved out of poverty. We then interviewed them and asked them what they thought the primary reason for their move out of poverty was. This is of course subject to all the subjectivity biases about how people narrate the story of their lives but 87.7 percent of them reported their own initiative (60.1 percent an initiative outside of agriculture, 17.4 percent in agriculture, 4.7 percent accumulation of assets, and 5.5 percent hard work). Only .3 percent (12 people of 3,991) who moved out of poverty named NGO assistance as the cause. Overall, a great read for laymen and experts alike.   (13 COMMENTS)