When writing about the statist agenda of international bureaucracies, I generally focus my attention on the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Today, let’s give some attention to the United Nations.
Based on this story from the Washington Post, the bureaucrats at the UN have concluded that America is a miserable and awful nation.
…a new United Nations report that examines entrenched poverty in the United States…calls the number of children living in poverty “shockingly high.” …the report, written by U.N. special rapporteur on extreme poverty
and human rights Philip Alston, says the United States tops the developed world with the highest rates of youth poverty… The results of the report are not out of line with a number of others…in recent years by different organizations in which the United States has turned up at or near the top on issues such as poverty rates.
But I’ve learned from personal experience (see here and here) that the United Nations is guided by statist ideology and I should be extremely skeptical of any of its findings.
For instance, when it intervenes in policy (global warming and gun control, for instance, as well as the Internet, the War on Drugs, monetary policy, and taxpayer-financed birth control), the UN inevitably urges more power and control for government.
So let’s take a jaundiced look at some of the assertions in this new report, starting with that dramatic claim of record child poverty in America.
The United States…has the highest youth poverty rate in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)… The consequences of neglecting poverty…
The United States has one of the highest poverty…levels among the OECD countries… the shockingly high number of children living in poverty in the United States demands urgent attention. …About 20 per cent of children live in relative income poverty, compared to the OECD average of 13 per cent.
So is it true that poverty is very high in the USA and is it also true that America has the highest rate of child poverty of all OECD countries? Even higher than Mexico, Greece, and Turkey? And what is the source of this remarkable assertion?
If you look at footnote #51, you’ll see reference to an OECD publication that contains this supposedly damning chart.
But if you look at the fine print at the bottom, you’ll discover that the chart on child poverty doesn’t actually measure child poverty. Instead, the bureaucrats at the OECD have put together a measure of income distribution and decided that “relative poverty” exists for anyone who has less than 50 percent of the median level of disposable income.
In other words, the United States looks bad only because median income is very high compared to other nations.
Which is the same dishonest data manipulation that the OECD uses when exaggerating America’s overall poverty rate (other groups that have used this deliberately dishonest methodology include the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, and the Obama Administration).
The bottom line is that the key finding of the UN report is based on a bald-faced lie.
By the way, I’m not surprised to see that the UN report also cites the IMF to justify statist policies.
In a 2017 report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) captured the situation…, stating that the United States economy “is delivering better living standards for only the few”, and that “household incomes are stagnating for a large share of the population, job opportunities are deteriorating, prospects for upward mobility are waning, and economic gains are increasingly accruing to those that are already wealthy” …A much-cited IMF paper concluded that redistribution could be good for growth, stating: “The combined direct and indirect effects of redistribution — including the growth effects of the resulting lower inequality — are on average pro-growth.”
For what it’s worth, the IMF’s research on growth and inequality is embarrassingly bad.
Here’s another big takeaway from the UN report.
The United States…has the highest…infant mortality rates among comparable OECD States. …The infant mortality rate, at 5.8 deaths per 1,000 live births, is almost 50 per cent higher than the OECD average of 3.9.
I’m not an expert on infant mortality. Indeed, I’ve never looked at infant mortality data. But given the UN’s reliance on dodgy and dishonest numbers in other areas, I’m skeptical whether these numbers are true.
And, according to Johan Norberg, the numbers about high levels of infant mortality in the United States are false.
The UN report contains many other ideologically motivated attacks on the United States.
For instance, America is a bad country because taxes supposedly are too low.
The United States has the highest rate of income inequality among Western countries. The $1.5 trillion in tax cuts in December 2017 overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and worsened inequality. …The tax cuts will fuel a global race to the bottom, thus further reducing the revenues needed by Governments to ensure basic social protection and meet their human rights obligations. …There is a real need for the realization to sink in among the majority of the American population that taxes are not only in their interest, but also perfectly reconcilable with a growth agenda.
While the above passage is remarkable for the level of economic illiteracy, I confess that I chortled with glee when I read the part about how the recent tax reform “will fuel a global race to the bottom.”
As I wrote last year and this year, the fact that other governments will face pressure to reduce tax rates is something to celebrate.
Here’s one final excerpt. The UN report also bashes the United States because we don’t view dependency as a human right.
Successive administrations, including the current one, have determinedly rejected the idea that economic and social rights are full-fledged human rights, despite their clear recognition not only in key treaties that the United States has ratified… But denial does not eliminate responsibility, nor does it negate obligations. International human rights law recognizes a right to education, a right to health care, a right to social protection for those in need and a right to an adequate standard of living.
Needless to say, a problem with this vision of “positive rights” is that it assumes there will always be a supply of chumps willing to work hard so the government can tax away their money to finance all the goodies. But Greece shows us that it’s just a matter of time before that games ends with disaster.
In other words, Thomas Sowell is right and Franklin Roosevelt was wrong.
Let’s close with some good news. As the Washington Post just reported, the UN’s dishonest anti-American screed apparently will prove costly to that bloated bureaucracy.
Alston arrived in Washington last fall on a mission from the U.N. Human Rights Council to document poverty in America. …he was told by a senior State Department official that his findings may influence the United States’ membership in the human rights body. …“I think I was being sent a message.” Two other people at the meeting, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed Alston’s account. …Nikki Haley announced this week that the United States would withdraw from the Human Rights Council.
Good for Ambassador Haley.
Her actions stand in stark contrast to some of her predecessors, who apparently believed in taxpayer-financed self-flagellation.
Alston said he was initially invited by the U.S. government under President Barack Obama to study poverty in America. The invitation was extended again by U.S. officials under then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in 2017, he said. “We look forward to welcoming Mr. Alston to the United States for a country visit this December,” Flacelia Celsula, part of the U.S. delegation at the United Nations, said in a meeting of the Human Rights Council on June 8, 2017.
It goes without saying that Mr. Alston should have the freedom write leftist reports. He also should have the freedom to spread lies in those reports. But I don’t want American tax dollars to finance his ideological bilge.
Which brings us to the obvious takeaway. As seems to be the case with all international bureaucracies, the United Nations wastes money at a prodigious pace. With any luck, Alston’s nonsense will convince American policymakers that deep budget cuts for the UN are long overdue.
[…] condemned the bureaucrats for sloppy and misguided work on taxes (here and here), poverty (here and here), and guns (here and […]
[…] The United Nations […]
[…] today isn’t even the U.N.’s worst publication. That “honor” belongs to the 2018 report that blatantly lied about the prevalence of poverty in the United […]
[…] The United Nations […]
[…] if it means global governance by anti-market bureaucracies such as the United Nations, International Monetary Fund, and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the answer […]
[…] fake poverty data. These “poverty hucksters” include the OECD, of course, and also the United Nations, the New York Times, the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, […]
[…] You can find similarly dishonest ways of measuring poverty from the United Nations, the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, the Obama Administration, […]
[…] You can find similarly dishonest ways of measuring poverty from the United Nations, the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, the Obama Administration, […]
[…] the U.N. doesn’t do the right thing about fighting poverty because it has some people who are very dishonest about the […]
[…] una definición deshonesta de pobreza (que es lo que obtenemos de grupos izquierdistas como la ONU y la OCDE , por no mencionar la Asociación de Igualdad de Bienestar, el Instituto de […]
[…] on my list are the United Nations (UN) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). Many people are surprised the UN […]
[…] choose a dishonest definition of poverty (which is what we get from leftist groups like the UN and OECD, not to mention the Equal Welfare Association, […]
[…] you choose a dishonest definition of poverty (which is what we get from leftist groups like the UN and OECD, not to mention the Equal Welfare Association, Germany’s Institute of Labor Economics, […]
[…] The United Nations. […]
Only “deep budget cuts”?! — don’t go soft on us now, Dan. Defund!
the Marxists in international organizations… [drawing large tax-free salaries… funded in large part by the American Taxpayer…] are socialists…. they are NOT our friends… and the idiot politicians who fund that nonsense year after year… should be tossed out… with the money redirected to help fix entitlements… or for some other cause that will directly benefit the American people…the international Marxist bureaucrats who are dedicated to the cause of global socialism… see our politicians as useful idiots… we desperately need TERM LIMITS… and a serious re-think of how we spend our money….
Gotta wonder why they’r e so mad about us kicking people out who are trying to get into this “bad” country. And from their own words, it seems those held at the border are in better hands than those in poverty. Shouldn’t we just keep them at those mansions at the border rather than release them to a life of sure poverty?
Why are we continuing to support international organizations? We continue to get our teeth kicked in, and we pay by-far the most.
This issue of measuring RELATIVE poverty (e.g., under 50% of median income, as mentioned above) instead of ABSOLUTE poverty is a huge pet peeve of mine. They can be enormously different.
Poor people in ABSOLUTE poverty actually have a low standard of living.
Poor people in RELATIVE poverty may or may not have a low standard of living. Imagine the US continues to grow and prosper, and median income expands to $200,000 (in today’s dollars). This is not far-fetched, and it could be the case a century from now. In that happy future, RELATIVE poverty would include anyone earning less than $100,000 in today’s dollars (50% of median). That is utter nonsense.
ABSOLUTE poverty matters greatly. RELATIVE poverty is just more Marxist class warfare propaganda.
A fundamental aspect of the ‘growth’ vs ‘redistribution’ argument is understanding what rights we really have. We cannot have a right to health care or an adequate living, like the UN says. If you’re not clear on the difference between the rights we have and those we don’t, please read this post of mine:
https://caseforcapitalism.wordpress.com/2018/04/26/what-rights-do-we-have/
I agree. It is time for the U.S. to drastically reduce our support of the United Nations. The organization has become a farce.
There’s another challenge as well, Dan. Per my piece a few days ago at FoxNews.com (See: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/06/20/un-poverty-report-blasting-trump-us-for-hatred-for-poor-uses-data-from-last-year-obama-s-presidency.html):
An even bigger problem with the report, especially given that the organization attacking American policy is the U.N., is that the Census Bureau data for 2016 isn’t accurate and can’t be used to compare U.S. anti-poverty programs with programs in other developed nations.
The Census Bureau makes its annual estimates of Americans’ well-being by sending out thousands of surveys. Many households don’t respond to these random surveys. Of the people who do respond, those who receive federal, state or local government welfare assistance significantly underreport what they receive.
This isn’t necessarily fraud, because the random surveys don’t determine eligibility for government assistance. Rather, it simply shows that when struggling families receive the survey asking what they earned in the prior year and what welfare payments they received, they often simply don’t know.
The problem of inaccurate census survey responses has been known for years and has been studied by both government officials and academics.
A recent study by Bruce D. Meyer and Nikolas Mittag found a huge mismatch between census data and government money spent on behalf of poor people involving four programs in New York: food stamps (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), general assistance and housing assistance.
The study found that census surveys “missed over one-third of housing assistance that recipients received, 40 percent of food-stamp assistance, and 60 percent of TANF and General Assistance aid to recipients.”
That’s an enormous level of errors – making the survey results practically worthless.
Reblogged this on Truth Is Power.