Comments on: Kristof promotes the missionary position

By: JEK

JEK — Tue, 08 Jun 2010 12:54:09 +0000

Mukoma Wa Ngugi response to Kristoff on the pursuit of happiness:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/jun/02/poverty-new-york-times

By: doug

doug — Fri, 28 May 2010 05:06:04 +0000

I agree NK went too far on some things, but why is Nick the only commenter to mention the fact that alcoholism is a serious problem in many poor communities, and that yes, spending money on alcohol that could be spent on medicine or school is not helping anyone??

By: James

James — Thu, 27 May 2010 21:28:44 +0000

“Correlation is not causation.”

But it’s a good reason to look further, and see if indeed there IS causation, is it not? And if I see, here in upper middle class, mostly white America, that my neighbors who spend/overspend their incomes on cell phones, fancy cars, and various other toys have little savings but lots of debt, while I (who don’t even own a cell phone and drive a 10-year old car) have lots of money in the bank, might I not suspect that there’s a general principle at work which transcends race & culture?

“Poverty is a drag and those submerged in it need to enjoy and affirm life too….”

Sure, but does that enjoyment have to involve spending your scarce money on booze, cigarettes, and cell phones?

When I was poor, I found ways to get my enjoyment & affirmation from things that didn’t cost money, like taking a hike in the mountains. Now that I’m (sort of) prosperous, I find just as much affirmation in that hike.

By: ebele

ebele — Thu, 27 May 2010 10:37:13 +0000

Annoying but worthy of a cool rebuttal. I am no economist but –
1. The idea of the undeserving and feckless poor is as old as the trees, and as widespread. It is not, as Kristoff’s suggests, a new or unfashionable truth.
2. Correlation is not causation. Drinking and gambling may be associated with poverty but may not be a cause of poverty in Mont Belo. Where households in Mont Belo with no mobile or drinking wealthier/healthier?
3. Spending 2-6% on education. Perhaps education is cheap or free? Perhaps other needs – food, health care, travel to work – take more than 95% of poor incomes.

Finally, I can’t help thinking of the Congolese ‘Sapeurs’ – those Paul Smith suits must require some existential sacrifice. Poverty is a drag and those submerged in it need to enjoy and affirm life too….

By: Holly

Holly — Thu, 27 May 2010 07:43:50 +0000

Hah, “Savior Feminism Lite that verges on misandry” love it. My sentiments exactly. Though I was surprised to see so little blogging response to the previous article he did on “poverty and the pill” I’d hoped mine would be one of many.

By: Nick

Nick — Thu, 27 May 2010 06:30:03 +0000

But it’s not a stereotype _ it’s true. Come on, “occasionally have a drink?” Alcoholism is one of the great unspoken problems of rural sub-Saharan Africa.

I don’t see why everyone is so pissed off that a columnist said how depressing it is that parents in Congo who could easily afford their children’s very cheap school fees spend the money on booze.

By: Sonja

Sonja — Wed, 26 May 2010 22:23:25 +0000

funny thing about stereotypes: they tend to create facts where none previously existed.

By: Harry Spotter

Harry Spotter — Wed, 26 May 2010 22:06:50 +0000

I actually think the column is spot on. I emailed it to lots of friends. That was universally the response.

Sometimes you just need to speak uncomfortable facts. He does that. They make many people uncomfortable, and those people squawk about “Great White Saviors” and so forth. But, funny thing about facts: They tend to speak for themselves.

By: James

James — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:37:53 +0000

Those of you who think Kristoff’s article is somehow anti-black, colonialist, etc would do well to read the comments, where you will find a goodly number of white Americans (I’m one) who’ve had almost identical experiences in their own lives.

By: Murray Hunter

Murray Hunter — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:25:29 +0000

A really good rebuttal available here: http://wrongingrights.blogspot.com/2010/05/pissed-off-by-kristof.html

“Kristof seems to have done some awfully targeted reading of the article in question. While it is true that Duflo and Banerjee did find that the poor in many countries spent significant sums on alcohol and tobacco, this is in fact what they had to say about spending on education:

[...] The reason education spending is low is that children in poor households typically attend public schools or other schools that do not charge a fee. In countries where poor households spend more on education, it is typically because government schools have fees, as in Indonesia and Cote d’Ivoire. However, mounting evidence, reported below, suggests that public schools in these countries are often dysfunctional, which could explain why even very poor parents in Pakistan are pulling their children out of public schools and spending money to send them to private schools.