Patrick O’Sullivan
Often times when one listens to or reads the arguments of those who make it their job to “overthrow the capitalist system,” one will come across the notion that many of the ills of the status quo (which is invariably labeled as “capitalism”) are due in large part to certain institutions which, it is insinuated, are inherent to a capitalist system. Usually such insinuations are peculiar, as, more often than not, the exact opposite is true. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are two institutions which often take the brunt of the “anti-capitalist” storm, but do they really deserve such treatment?
The IMF and the World Bank are both known for their practice of lending to the cash-strapped governments of developing countries. Both the IMF and the World Bank often use their lending power as leverage in order to encourage participating governments to embrace reforms recommended by the institutions. Such recommendations tend to call for the privatization of government services. This is where those who tend to call themselves “anti-capitalists” point when they say that these institutions are “capitalist.” Just calling for privatization, however, does not necessarily constitute a “capitalist” or “free market” position. A market can only be considered “free” when there is an absence of forceful coercion perpetrated against the individual, and all transactions are conducted in a free and voluntary manner. Many of the privatization efforts called for by these institutions are directly counter to the notion of a market free from coercion; many of the efforts simply call for governments to hand over monopoly control of certain services (water, power, communications, etc.) to large multi-national corporations.
A policy of allowing only one company or group to legally perform a service must necessarily rest on coercion, which runs against free market capitalism. The problem arises when governments enforce monopolies of private industry and shut down entrepreneurs for unauthorized competition with the government-contracted multi-national corporation. One example of this might be when an entrepreneur digs a well and begins pumping and selling water to his fellow villagers for less than the price that the government-contracted multi-national corporation is charging, and as a result the government steps in and stops the entrepreneur’s business activity in order to preserve the corporation’s monopoly. Another example would be when a clever individual begins collecting rainwater in a number of large steel drums that he owns and then begins to sell or otherwise distribute, and the government steps in to preserve the monopoly of the privately contracted corporation which provides the same service. It is not difficult to see how these are not true capitalist or free market situations. Such situations are essentially fascist (or national corporatist) situations, wherein the country is essentially run for and by a few key corporations with control over the state monopoly of the use of force.
In opposition to the above situation is the common view espoused by many libertarians and classical liberals, in which a minarchic state (minimum government) wields objective law-based monopoly over the use of force (police power), without special privilege given to any entity or group. In the most extreme view of capitalism, Rothbardian anarcho-capitalistism, there should exist no entity with such a monopoly on the use of force. After understanding this, it does not logically follow that systems which call for special privilege for none or the absence of any and all coercive interference at all, should be associated with political economies like those seen in the developing countries effected by the policies of the World Bank or the IMF.
The supposition that such institutions are a natural and inherent feature of capitalism is totally refuted by the fact that they were created by states through treaties, and would cease to exist without state funding; they were not and could not have been organic market occurrences. Simply, such institutions are the products of ideas embraced by proponents of state intervention in the global economy. In fact, the creation of government funded development banks, and the centralization and control of credit in state hands, happens to be the fifth of the ten point program of communism given in Karl Marx’s and Friedrich Engels’ infamous work, The Communist Manifesto. It almost seems laughable that anyone could even think to call such a policy “capitalist,” but, indeed, many do so without reservation.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Somalia: No Libertarian Utopia
Andrea Castillo
“Yeah, well, if you think that government is so terrible, why don’t you just pack up your bags and move to SOMALIA!” As a libertarian, I cringe whenever a debate opponent of mine stoops to that certain talking point. Mind you, it’s not that their challenge is particularly witty or even well thought-out; on the contrary, I find myself frustrated by the general lack of understanding about Somalia’s recent history or current political situation. This ignorance seems to be all too pervasive among the college-going populace. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that Somalia’s history during the second half of the twentieth century illustrates that a predatory government was largely responsible for most of the troubles we have come to associate with the country. Because of their ignorance, advocates of a strong state use Somalia’s recent history as a cheap cliché in order to insult anyone who dares criticize our government.
As with most controversial or delicate issues, I feel the need to first briefly preface: I do not intend to imply that anarchy in Somalia is preferable to the functioning constitutional republic in the United States, or the governments of many other countries in the world. I’m sure that several of you have either seen photographs or heard anecdotal evidence of some of the tragedies and hardships that may have occurred in Somalia (most likely in the capital city of Mogadishu). Let me assure you: Somalia is hardly a libertarian paradise. In certain areas of the country, competing tribes of warlords are have swarmed to fill the power vacuum in the area, resulting in extreme violence. Not coincidentally, the aforementioned afflicted areas tend to score pretty low in promoting the “protection of property” and “facilitation of justice” that advocates of limited government so value. Despite this, evidence does suggest that Somalia has shown steady economic growth since the collapse of its tyrannical government and shows positive signs for sustained prosperity in the area.
Before we can understand the situation today, we need to review a bit of this country’s history. Prior to the foundation of Western-style government in the twentieth century, Somalis had traditionally lived in family-oriented communities that were governed by decentralized common law Xeer courts. The modern state of “Somalia” became one sovereign nation in 1961 when the representatives of its citizenry ratified and adopted its official constitution. In 1976, the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (the Xisbiga Hantiwadaagga Kacaanka Soomaaliyeed, or XHKS in their native language) seized control of the nation and established themselves as the only political party. The leadership of this party chose to follow what they called “scientific socialism.” The XHKS would hoard power until the Somali state’s eminent collapse in 1991.
While in control, XHKS implemented a series of “land reclamation” reforms premised on nationalization of private property and subsequent redistribution. As a result, thousands of Somalis were displaced and relocated from their families’ ancestral homes at the hands of their predatory government, who would typically dole out the stolen lands to military leaders and political allies. The government also levied unbearable tax burdens on its citizens, extracting most of their personal wealth while spending 90% of its revenue on military and defense, even during the few periods of peace. With all of this background in mind, it’s not very hard to see how the people of Somalia could have a difficult time creating economic growth in order to enjoy general prosperity.
Not content with destroying the domestic economy of their own nation, the XHKS also continually provoked their Ethiopian neighbors with acts of military aggression because of past tribal conflicts over land. This served to weaken the Somali government until its eventual overthrow by Ethiopian forces in 1991. The next few years were met by punctuated unrest, particularly when U.N. or U.S. “peacekeeping forces” provoked further violence after being deployed in the country. Despite these hardships, slowly but surely the Somalis managed to reestablish their economic footing. Since the Somalis had customarily lived under a decentralized system of law that protected and respected individual property rights, small sections of the nation gradually reverted to the old pre-Western way of life even while neighboring provinces were literally under fire. Mogadishu, the former capital, is actually the area that suffers the most persistent violence and disorder since rival warlords continually attempt to revive the Western-style Somali state and assume its power. Outside the capital and its outlying areas, however, there appears to be a kind of unspoken truce that keeps this wounded country functioning while its citizens attempt to better their lives.
Not only is life drastically less violent in the majority of the country than in Mogadishu, but since the collapse of the Western-style central government in 1991, many industries in Somalia have boomed against all odds. According to a 2003 World Bank study, the private sector grew impressively, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services, in addition to the primary sectors, notably livestock, agriculture and fisheries. Agriculture and livestock have proven to be lucrative industries for the Somalis; cattle sales have increased by 400%, goat exports account for 95% of Africa’s total and sheep exports account for 52% of Africa’s total. The private airline industry is prospering and is comprised of 15 different firms, 60 planes, and 6 international routes. Somalia has one of the best telecommunications systems on the continent: several companies such as Golis Telecom Group, Hormuud Telecom, Somafone, Nationlink, Netco, Telecom and Somali Telecom Group provide crystal-clear service, including international long distance, for about $10 a month. Multinational corporations such as Dole, Coca Cola, and DHL have invested in Somalia and several oil companies have expressed interest in establishing operations there as well.
In addition to their sustained economic prosperity, standards of living in Somalia have dramatically improved since the collapse of its government in 1991. In 2005, the Independent Institute found that the death rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, quality of main telephone lines, risk of tuberculosis, and immunization for measles and DTP had risen significantly since their last measurement in 1990.
Although the country has experienced noticeable improvements in the past decade, there is still much unrest in the area. Most people immediately associate Somalia with the recent news about piracy in the waters that surround their borders and frequent clashes between warlords. The constant flow of foreign aid provides a steady stream of income for power-hungry warlords to ensure that they are well-equipped with weapons. Yet somehow, against all of the odds, the people of Somalia have managed to carve out a separate peace for themselves. Though their current situation is hardly a Utopia, it is certainly lightyears beyond the tyranny they had previously suffered at the hands of their pre-1991 government. Upon reviewing the empirical evidence it is clear that Somalia is neither a libertarian paradise nor an example of a society in chaos without the “necessary” structures of a government, but is in a class all of its own.
“Yeah, well, if you think that government is so terrible, why don’t you just pack up your bags and move to SOMALIA!” As a libertarian, I cringe whenever a debate opponent of mine stoops to that certain talking point. Mind you, it’s not that their challenge is particularly witty or even well thought-out; on the contrary, I find myself frustrated by the general lack of understanding about Somalia’s recent history or current political situation. This ignorance seems to be all too pervasive among the college-going populace. Unfortunately, most people do not realize that Somalia’s history during the second half of the twentieth century illustrates that a predatory government was largely responsible for most of the troubles we have come to associate with the country. Because of their ignorance, advocates of a strong state use Somalia’s recent history as a cheap cliché in order to insult anyone who dares criticize our government.
As with most controversial or delicate issues, I feel the need to first briefly preface: I do not intend to imply that anarchy in Somalia is preferable to the functioning constitutional republic in the United States, or the governments of many other countries in the world. I’m sure that several of you have either seen photographs or heard anecdotal evidence of some of the tragedies and hardships that may have occurred in Somalia (most likely in the capital city of Mogadishu). Let me assure you: Somalia is hardly a libertarian paradise. In certain areas of the country, competing tribes of warlords are have swarmed to fill the power vacuum in the area, resulting in extreme violence. Not coincidentally, the aforementioned afflicted areas tend to score pretty low in promoting the “protection of property” and “facilitation of justice” that advocates of limited government so value. Despite this, evidence does suggest that Somalia has shown steady economic growth since the collapse of its tyrannical government and shows positive signs for sustained prosperity in the area.
Before we can understand the situation today, we need to review a bit of this country’s history. Prior to the foundation of Western-style government in the twentieth century, Somalis had traditionally lived in family-oriented communities that were governed by decentralized common law Xeer courts. The modern state of “Somalia” became one sovereign nation in 1961 when the representatives of its citizenry ratified and adopted its official constitution. In 1976, the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party (the Xisbiga Hantiwadaagga Kacaanka Soomaaliyeed, or XHKS in their native language) seized control of the nation and established themselves as the only political party. The leadership of this party chose to follow what they called “scientific socialism.” The XHKS would hoard power until the Somali state’s eminent collapse in 1991.
While in control, XHKS implemented a series of “land reclamation” reforms premised on nationalization of private property and subsequent redistribution. As a result, thousands of Somalis were displaced and relocated from their families’ ancestral homes at the hands of their predatory government, who would typically dole out the stolen lands to military leaders and political allies. The government also levied unbearable tax burdens on its citizens, extracting most of their personal wealth while spending 90% of its revenue on military and defense, even during the few periods of peace. With all of this background in mind, it’s not very hard to see how the people of Somalia could have a difficult time creating economic growth in order to enjoy general prosperity.
Not content with destroying the domestic economy of their own nation, the XHKS also continually provoked their Ethiopian neighbors with acts of military aggression because of past tribal conflicts over land. This served to weaken the Somali government until its eventual overthrow by Ethiopian forces in 1991. The next few years were met by punctuated unrest, particularly when U.N. or U.S. “peacekeeping forces” provoked further violence after being deployed in the country. Despite these hardships, slowly but surely the Somalis managed to reestablish their economic footing. Since the Somalis had customarily lived under a decentralized system of law that protected and respected individual property rights, small sections of the nation gradually reverted to the old pre-Western way of life even while neighboring provinces were literally under fire. Mogadishu, the former capital, is actually the area that suffers the most persistent violence and disorder since rival warlords continually attempt to revive the Western-style Somali state and assume its power. Outside the capital and its outlying areas, however, there appears to be a kind of unspoken truce that keeps this wounded country functioning while its citizens attempt to better their lives.
Not only is life drastically less violent in the majority of the country than in Mogadishu, but since the collapse of the Western-style central government in 1991, many industries in Somalia have boomed against all odds. According to a 2003 World Bank study, the private sector grew impressively, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services, in addition to the primary sectors, notably livestock, agriculture and fisheries. Agriculture and livestock have proven to be lucrative industries for the Somalis; cattle sales have increased by 400%, goat exports account for 95% of Africa’s total and sheep exports account for 52% of Africa’s total. The private airline industry is prospering and is comprised of 15 different firms, 60 planes, and 6 international routes. Somalia has one of the best telecommunications systems on the continent: several companies such as Golis Telecom Group, Hormuud Telecom, Somafone, Nationlink, Netco, Telecom and Somali Telecom Group provide crystal-clear service, including international long distance, for about $10 a month. Multinational corporations such as Dole, Coca Cola, and DHL have invested in Somalia and several oil companies have expressed interest in establishing operations there as well.
In addition to their sustained economic prosperity, standards of living in Somalia have dramatically improved since the collapse of its government in 1991. In 2005, the Independent Institute found that the death rate, infant mortality rate, life expectancy, quality of main telephone lines, risk of tuberculosis, and immunization for measles and DTP had risen significantly since their last measurement in 1990.
Although the country has experienced noticeable improvements in the past decade, there is still much unrest in the area. Most people immediately associate Somalia with the recent news about piracy in the waters that surround their borders and frequent clashes between warlords. The constant flow of foreign aid provides a steady stream of income for power-hungry warlords to ensure that they are well-equipped with weapons. Yet somehow, against all of the odds, the people of Somalia have managed to carve out a separate peace for themselves. Though their current situation is hardly a Utopia, it is certainly lightyears beyond the tyranny they had previously suffered at the hands of their pre-1991 government. Upon reviewing the empirical evidence it is clear that Somalia is neither a libertarian paradise nor an example of a society in chaos without the “necessary” structures of a government, but is in a class all of its own.
Economics and Happiness
Thomas Laughlin
We as Americans are blessed with the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Our prosperity affects everyone at every level of society. We can send metal tubes filled with sophisticated machinery to visit and return from a laboratory in perpetual freefall over the earth. We have the knowledge and tools to eradicate plagues that once exterminated entire populations of humans. And even more important, any person in the United States can go to a local deli or supermarket and pick up the ingredients for nearly any meal they want to have that night, regardless of season or their proximity to where that ingredient was produced.
There are people still alive today that lived in a time when none of this prosperity comprehendible. Americans just a hundred years ago lived in what today would be considered a third-world or developing nation. The source of our rapid growth and development is by no means a mistake, but it was not planned. Modern economists take a more realistic point of view and by looking at the political and economic differences of many nations, they have come to identify the key ingredients to prosperity and happiness.
For the last decade, The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation have worked together to produce an Index of Economic Freedom which provides extensive statistics and data based on their research of economies all over the world. By comparing economic institutions among many countries, they have listed ten components necessary for any economy to flourish. The essential idea is that the freedom of a person to own property and trade with as little interference from government or other entity that leads to 2 overall economic prosperity. The conclusion is that such factors including per capita income, political stability, economic growth, environmental protection and the elimination of poverty and disease are all consequences of a liberalized, or unrestricted, economy.
Some would argue that such measurements are problematic because some cultures and peoples of the world just interact differently than we do and as a result that economic institutions may need to be different. While this is an old argument, its ignorance is evident if we just take real world examples from the various cultures and peoples around the globe. China’s economy has only experienced significant growth after the implementation of certain free market ideas like private property rights. Cuba, once a playground for the wealthiest people in the world, now suffers from an extremely depreciated standard of living compared to that of just sixty years ago. And perhaps the most telling example is the difference between North Korea and South Korea. These are basically the same people with shared language, history, religion and culture and yet South Korea is a modern, developed nation while North Korea experiences regular shortages, famines and blackouts.
If more people paid attention to the Index of Economic Freedom, widespread problems such as poverty would be much easier to alleviate. Ultimately, it is the free market that creates the most happiness for the most people.
We as Americans are blessed with the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. Our prosperity affects everyone at every level of society. We can send metal tubes filled with sophisticated machinery to visit and return from a laboratory in perpetual freefall over the earth. We have the knowledge and tools to eradicate plagues that once exterminated entire populations of humans. And even more important, any person in the United States can go to a local deli or supermarket and pick up the ingredients for nearly any meal they want to have that night, regardless of season or their proximity to where that ingredient was produced.
There are people still alive today that lived in a time when none of this prosperity comprehendible. Americans just a hundred years ago lived in what today would be considered a third-world or developing nation. The source of our rapid growth and development is by no means a mistake, but it was not planned. Modern economists take a more realistic point of view and by looking at the political and economic differences of many nations, they have come to identify the key ingredients to prosperity and happiness.
For the last decade, The Wall Street Journal and The Heritage Foundation have worked together to produce an Index of Economic Freedom which provides extensive statistics and data based on their research of economies all over the world. By comparing economic institutions among many countries, they have listed ten components necessary for any economy to flourish. The essential idea is that the freedom of a person to own property and trade with as little interference from government or other entity that leads to 2 overall economic prosperity. The conclusion is that such factors including per capita income, political stability, economic growth, environmental protection and the elimination of poverty and disease are all consequences of a liberalized, or unrestricted, economy.
Some would argue that such measurements are problematic because some cultures and peoples of the world just interact differently than we do and as a result that economic institutions may need to be different. While this is an old argument, its ignorance is evident if we just take real world examples from the various cultures and peoples around the globe. China’s economy has only experienced significant growth after the implementation of certain free market ideas like private property rights. Cuba, once a playground for the wealthiest people in the world, now suffers from an extremely depreciated standard of living compared to that of just sixty years ago. And perhaps the most telling example is the difference between North Korea and South Korea. These are basically the same people with shared language, history, religion and culture and yet South Korea is a modern, developed nation while North Korea experiences regular shortages, famines and blackouts.
If more people paid attention to the Index of Economic Freedom, widespread problems such as poverty would be much easier to alleviate. Ultimately, it is the free market that creates the most happiness for the most people.
Chinese Devaluation and American Protection
Hunter Carter
A couple weeks ago the New York Times ran an article entitled, “China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage.” At first glance one might assume such actions by the Chinese to be grossly unfair. American politicians and academics argue that China’s devaluation of its currency does not allow other countries a fair opportunity in the global trade arena. Is this really the case? Or is China simply using its economic might in the same way that both Britain and the United States have in the past?
China’s advantage is that it efficiently produces goods that consumers abroad want and can afford to buy. The Times article actually backs up such logic: “China had a $198 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year, with its exports to the United States outpacing imports by more than four to one” [emphasis mine]. This brings to mind the economic Law of Comparative Advantage. China has established itself as the world leader in efficiency while the rest of the world tries to compete directly, rather than finding a profitable niche market untapped by China. This is not to say companies in other countries cannot make a profit, they do every day. China simply enjoys circumstances such as a low cost of labor that helps it produce goods at a lower cost.
In order to combat China’s advantage, the U.S. government has taken a page from the protectionist playbook and proposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods to the Chinese and their devalued currency. This may appear good at first glance, but economics is not about first glances. Economics is an art. As Henry Hazlitt defined it in his book Economics in One Lesson, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy…” In this case a 25% tariff is horrible in the long term. Perhaps our emotions are appeased by “sticking it to China”, but imagine the consequence to the American consumer, already struggling to pay bills, if the price of every Chinese good increases 25%. Presently, low priced Chinese goods are enabling lower and middle class Americans to enjoy higher standards of living despite a sluggish economy. The government, under the pretense of help and protection, is about to promote a policy that will hurt the very people it uses to justify the tariff in the first place.
On top of the consumer issue, a 25% tariff is simply a crutch that the U.S. government gives to competing American companies. This crutch makes it easier to compete with Chinese firms. Why, though, should they stay in business if they cannot compete? We should approach this issue with logic rather than emotion. Free up those currently idle resources and allow more profitable, entrepreneurial firms an opportunity to show what they can do.
I admit that such talk by professionals, when mentioned to the emotionally in-tune economic layman, is often viewed as a “wrong against [insert certain group of people].” There is one problem with such a response. Economics, like nature (think gravity), has set laws that cannot be changed, regardless of current wishful thinking in politics.
A couple weeks ago the New York Times ran an article entitled, “China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage.” At first glance one might assume such actions by the Chinese to be grossly unfair. American politicians and academics argue that China’s devaluation of its currency does not allow other countries a fair opportunity in the global trade arena. Is this really the case? Or is China simply using its economic might in the same way that both Britain and the United States have in the past?
China’s advantage is that it efficiently produces goods that consumers abroad want and can afford to buy. The Times article actually backs up such logic: “China had a $198 billion trade surplus with the rest of the world last year, with its exports to the United States outpacing imports by more than four to one” [emphasis mine]. This brings to mind the economic Law of Comparative Advantage. China has established itself as the world leader in efficiency while the rest of the world tries to compete directly, rather than finding a profitable niche market untapped by China. This is not to say companies in other countries cannot make a profit, they do every day. China simply enjoys circumstances such as a low cost of labor that helps it produce goods at a lower cost.
In order to combat China’s advantage, the U.S. government has taken a page from the protectionist playbook and proposed a 25% tariff on Chinese goods to the Chinese and their devalued currency. This may appear good at first glance, but economics is not about first glances. Economics is an art. As Henry Hazlitt defined it in his book Economics in One Lesson, “The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy…” In this case a 25% tariff is horrible in the long term. Perhaps our emotions are appeased by “sticking it to China”, but imagine the consequence to the American consumer, already struggling to pay bills, if the price of every Chinese good increases 25%. Presently, low priced Chinese goods are enabling lower and middle class Americans to enjoy higher standards of living despite a sluggish economy. The government, under the pretense of help and protection, is about to promote a policy that will hurt the very people it uses to justify the tariff in the first place.
On top of the consumer issue, a 25% tariff is simply a crutch that the U.S. government gives to competing American companies. This crutch makes it easier to compete with Chinese firms. Why, though, should they stay in business if they cannot compete? We should approach this issue with logic rather than emotion. Free up those currently idle resources and allow more profitable, entrepreneurial firms an opportunity to show what they can do.
I admit that such talk by professionals, when mentioned to the emotionally in-tune economic layman, is often viewed as a “wrong against [insert certain group of people].” There is one problem with such a response. Economics, like nature (think gravity), has set laws that cannot be changed, regardless of current wishful thinking in politics.
On the Lighter Side
Liberia Begins Monumental Engineering Project, Gives Up Minutes Later
G.T. Johnson
MONROVIA— Hoping to stimulate its flat-lining economy, President Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia announced last week the construction of a transcontinental zip-line that would span from the coastal capital of Monrovia to the bustling shores of America. 150 highly-motivated workers commenced construction of the project Monday morning in front of a cheering crowd of starving yet optimistic Liberian citizens. After 15 minutes of trying to tie a rope to the top of a tall tree, the laborers gave up and went home. “This doesn’t make any sense,” muttered lead engineer Ndudi Akoiwala, looking down at the blueprints he had scribbled on his napkin a few days ago.
A quick glimpse of the blueprints revealed a curvy line connecting Monrovia to an unspecified point near Miami, inexplicably going around the western coast of Cuba. Small trees were sketched at each end of the line, but there was no indication about what sort of device would be used to traverse the path. Liberia’s Power lines were apparently expected to connect the countries, as their entire power grid was taken down and dragged by hand to the coastal city. Some laborers such as Sheriff Abdullai complained about the dangerous work. “It was scary climbing to the top of the poles and yanking at the power lines,” said a visibly frustrated Sheriff. “Now I’ve been told we have to climb back up there and put them back. This is really gay. I’m so hungry.”
The enormous undertaking, intended to bring Liberia’s economy into the 21st century, was expected to cost around 95 billion Liberian dollars. With the estimate far exceeding the country’s pathetic GDP, Monrovia sent a letter to Washington asking for a loan after spelling out why the expensive project would be in America’s self-interest. “We have all sorts of exotic coffee and rice that you might like,” the letter read. “We could send fine Liberian products to you on the zip line, and in return you could send something to provide us with a few fleeting seconds of joy.” As of today the White House reports it has not seen the letter; it was posted a week ago on the wall of a Barack Obama Facebook page.
Desperate for funds, President Sirleaf resorted to forcing her great nephew Emmanuel to begin printing money by making photocopies of a Liberian dollar. Emmanuel has been working tirelessly at the copy machine for 48 straight hours without sleep and Sirleaf plans to inform him of the project’s cancellation eventually.
The resilient little country has already started planning their next project which reportedly involves two empty cans and a piece of string.
G.T. Johnson
MONROVIA— Hoping to stimulate its flat-lining economy, President Ellen Sirleaf of Liberia announced last week the construction of a transcontinental zip-line that would span from the coastal capital of Monrovia to the bustling shores of America. 150 highly-motivated workers commenced construction of the project Monday morning in front of a cheering crowd of starving yet optimistic Liberian citizens. After 15 minutes of trying to tie a rope to the top of a tall tree, the laborers gave up and went home. “This doesn’t make any sense,” muttered lead engineer Ndudi Akoiwala, looking down at the blueprints he had scribbled on his napkin a few days ago.
A quick glimpse of the blueprints revealed a curvy line connecting Monrovia to an unspecified point near Miami, inexplicably going around the western coast of Cuba. Small trees were sketched at each end of the line, but there was no indication about what sort of device would be used to traverse the path. Liberia’s Power lines were apparently expected to connect the countries, as their entire power grid was taken down and dragged by hand to the coastal city. Some laborers such as Sheriff Abdullai complained about the dangerous work. “It was scary climbing to the top of the poles and yanking at the power lines,” said a visibly frustrated Sheriff. “Now I’ve been told we have to climb back up there and put them back. This is really gay. I’m so hungry.”
The enormous undertaking, intended to bring Liberia’s economy into the 21st century, was expected to cost around 95 billion Liberian dollars. With the estimate far exceeding the country’s pathetic GDP, Monrovia sent a letter to Washington asking for a loan after spelling out why the expensive project would be in America’s self-interest. “We have all sorts of exotic coffee and rice that you might like,” the letter read. “We could send fine Liberian products to you on the zip line, and in return you could send something to provide us with a few fleeting seconds of joy.” As of today the White House reports it has not seen the letter; it was posted a week ago on the wall of a Barack Obama Facebook page.
Desperate for funds, President Sirleaf resorted to forcing her great nephew Emmanuel to begin printing money by making photocopies of a Liberian dollar. Emmanuel has been working tirelessly at the copy machine for 48 straight hours without sleep and Sirleaf plans to inform him of the project’s cancellation eventually.
The resilient little country has already started planning their next project which reportedly involves two empty cans and a piece of string.
Upcoming Events
-The Center for Participant Education: Weekly Meetings – Thursdays 8PM @ Oglesby 303K
-Young Americans for Liberty: Dr. Randall Holcombe will be speaking on “"From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government" – April 1st 7PM @ HCB 216
-"We The People" Rally in Tally. Thursday, April 15, 2010, 4pm-7pm. Front steps of Florida's historic capitol (corner of Monroe/Apalachee). Speakers, Live Music, and More! Bring a sign, a love of liberty, and a friend. For more details, visit: www.WeThePeopleRally.us
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/RallyInTally
Find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rallyintally
*If you would like us to announce an organization’s events please contact us. If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response. We are always looking for different perspectives.
-Young Americans for Liberty: Dr. Randall Holcombe will be speaking on “"From Liberty to Democracy: The Transformation of American Government" – April 1st 7PM @ HCB 216
-"We The People" Rally in Tally. Thursday, April 15, 2010, 4pm-7pm. Front steps of Florida's historic capitol (corner of Monroe/Apalachee). Speakers, Live Music, and More! Bring a sign, a love of liberty, and a friend. For more details, visit: www.WeThePeopleRally.us
Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/RallyInTally
Find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/rallyintally
*If you would like us to announce an organization’s events please contact us. If you would like to respond to any article please go to thefreepressfsu.blogspot.com or e-mail us with a 300-400 word response. We are always looking for different perspectives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)