« Freakonomics Radio

181. Fixing the World, Bang-for-the-Buck Edition (Rebroadcast)

2015-12-23 | 🔗
A team of economists has been running the numbers on the U.N.'s development goals. They have a different view of how those billions of dollars should be spent.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This podcast dynamically inserts audio advertisements of varying lengths for each download. As a result, the transcription time indexes may be inaccurate.
If you'd like to listen to free economic radio without ads the place to do that is sticker premium. five dollars a month, and you can get a free month trial by going to stick your premium dot com and use a promo code freak. You also get access, all. Our bonus episodes and you'll be supporting our show too, but sticker premium dot com, promo code, freak thanks, Like US listeners unhappy, happy holidays, the episode you are about to hear drawn from our archives is called fixing the World Bank for the buck, additional and is particularly relevant to this time of year, when a lot of us think about our charitable goals, you'll hear how a bunch of economists have teamed up measure, the our ally return on investment for the development goals set by the United Nations. In other words, if you only have a hundred hours or, in the case, the? U N, maybe a hundred billion dollars and you're trying to bite something lake global poverty, what's the best ways
that money. What's the are why, on earlier, education versus job training versus small business subsidies. We this kind of thing. A lot here at for economics, radio, try to measure the our ally on things that aren't so easy to measure We this around and ask you questions what the art I for you and for economics radio. Does that I am you spend listening to the show, make your life. any way better, more pleasurable less bewildering. If you believe it does, The number you put on its value is anything at all north of zero. Well, I hope, then, you will consider making a contribution to w and my see the public radio station. here in New York that produces our show just go to free economics, dot com and hit the donate button. Any and all contributions are appreciated. Although
you, will find the rewards get better as you climb the dollar letter for economic radio, T shirts and mugs autographed books, things like that. and if you decide that this programme isn't worth anything to add. Even five bucks will now will know that too and work harder in the future to make it worth more, but I do hope that you'll go to for economics, dot com to donate thanks a billion hundred billion navigation. my name is, must be online public intellectual, I guess you could say, and I run the cub, Hagen Consensus Centre where we bring together lots of economist and seven about Lawrence. To think about. Where do we spend money and do the most good per dollars spent? Let's say you want to fix the world in some fashion to some degree as daunting, difficult that may be and lets say-
but you have more than a hundred billion dollars a year to spend. This is not a fictional scenario. This is what really happens: development aid, the huge industry. So what kind of problem do we spend money on and how those problem chose focus on a lot of different issues in the world and many of them we focus on because they get lots of attention there in the press. It stories they have lots of Klein KIDS, cute animals but, of course, already what we need to do if we do good to focus where do we do the most good for every dollar spent a long time ago I dabbled a little in this conversation and what should we be focusing on? I was pretty sure somebody must have looked at that. Surely somebody has given us the menu less too, if you will of society's different choices and told us what are the bank for the buck, for these different issues turns out.
That really nobody has and for a fairly ample reason, because if you are working, a particular area say if you work for education to small, its aren't. You work for nutrition or, if you could work and global warming are saving pandas. Whatever that thing is really want to find out. What's the smartest thing, because there's a good chance is not going to be your thing, but of course we want to I now ass a society because we want to do the most going. So that's discouraging, although obviously you provide an alternative to that. Let me ask you this: even within around whether you're saving pandas rethink about poverty, family education lets them for it's not just the one realm and I'm not going to compare it to all the other projects, at least within my realm. Don't I want to be vigilant, about measuring our ally about seeing what I get for the money that we put into it and very Definitely more of that? If you look, for instance, and to seize the World Health Organisation, has a deceased priorities, project weather
actually looked at once the bang for the back for more than three hundred different diseases, but when you're a doctor and you're out there and your confronted with a specific. Type of patients at your place. So you see malaria or you see she's the surmises. Are you see some other disease? It's real hard to say. Well, maybe I should be somewhere else on the planet doings nothing else. You're going to say, I want to cure this disease, but there's what more we can do for this amount of money. Just to give you one example, you can probably save one person from dying from malaria for about a thousand dollars probably say one person from dying from HIV Aids for about ten thousand dollars now Bolsa good deals, but you have to ask yourself don't we want to. First save ten people from malaria before you say one person from HIV, I'm happy
W and Y see studios. This is free economics, radio, the that explores the hidden side of everything. Here's your house Stephen Dogma, and your mom Borg runs the Copenhagen consensus when it tries to do is tell govern and other non profit, the best way to spend money to solve problems around the world, the best, as in the most useful, most rational way, as opposed to attacking the noisiest problems or the most politically appealing we are very small organization. We re it just the guys who commission all the smart economist around the world to write the papers that actually estimate
what are the costs and benefits we're seven full time employees most of us. haste in Budapest. I live in Prague, pity lives. In Sweden, we have one guy working in Australia, one in the? U S, but mostly we just make sure we find the smartest people on the planet. This modest economist, doing education or doing health are doing global warming and asking them: what can you do? How much will that cost and how much good Will it do we a number of Nobel laureates that look across all these different areas and basically say overall, what's the smell The thing to do was next smartest thing to do the third and so on, essentially rank all the great outcomes that we can look do pay the. Economists for this analysis. Oh yes, Where does the money come from? How much do spend in a given year? Where so many come from? We used to be: funded by the danish government from two thousand for in two thousand and twelve one of things to do if government did not, like
so we said? Yes, global warming is real and it is a challenge, but the typical way that we saw that turns out to be a pretty poor investment resources. and there is a change of government here. We want from the centre right and centre left governments actually cut off funding and we move to the? U S where we get funding from power but individuals and we're trying to find a long term solution for actually getting funding so we're fibre ones, the three or a non profit in the? U s we used to the budget of about two million dollars a year right now, We probably have a budget of a little more than one million dollars a year and we get it from private donations and for those who want to go under the hood of where those donations come from, since the current climate suspects at every donation comes with an agenda attached described for me, the provenance of that money. and if there are strings attached, there's no strings attached. We are very clear and saying we take no money from, fossil fuels, and we do now
let anyone direct what we are going to do so we have- it taken money from private individual foundations that have accepted that, with that said, All of them have wanted to remain anonymous. There are you, like the Kaufmann Foundation, for instance, who accepted to say that they ve the money to us. We ve also got money from ventures foundation from the Randal Foundation and from Rush foundation talk for a minute Bjorn. Let's go back to your book that put you on the map. At least here and I assume there as well the sceptical environmentalist which made a lot of environmentalists optical about you, you to say we talk to me about why you came to the problem of climate change at all: You train is a political scientist. Yes, yes, I'm why you
the prominent what your conclusions were, then in that book I am where they ve gotten to today. Thirteen years later Fundamentally, my book, the sceptical environmentalist- was really a result of my own personal journey. I read an interview with an american economist CALL Julian Simon back, and why I've seen a ninety. Ninety seven and he said, listen you everything's getting worse with the environment, but actually most things better my immediate, reaction was right wing american propaganda, but he said one and really stuck with me, he said: go check the data and so I decided yeah I'm gonna check his data. I'm gonna get some of my smartest students. Together, we gonna have a fun half year. and put them wrong, but, as it turned out, and if you also think about, of course, in many of the obvious parameters, air pollution, water pollution has come down dramatically, we're better fed. We have higher incomes. Live longer. We have better education so most
The things in the world are actually going in the right direction, especially if you live in the rich part of the world. So we realized Oh wait, there is actually improvement. This does not mean that there are. No problems are still a lot to problems in the world, but it utterly means instead of seeing the world is coming to an end. We can start having a sensible combination of alright. So which of the many remaining problems, should we be most focused on No doubt global warming is real and it is a problem, but if you implement the Kyoto product which back then was sort of the gold standard of what we were trying to do with climate. We could see, we have a huge cost, the economic Eskimos about a hundred and eighty billion dollars a year, and it will have a say we small benefit. We would postpone global warming somewhere between five years by the end of the century? So I merely comparing the fact that it was an interesting fact. You could actually of clean drinking water and sanitation. Every single person on the planet
four hundred and eighty billion knows: what's: isn't it curious to say we could either spend a hundred and eighty billion dollars every year, and family little about global warming. Weren't you spend it once do an amazing amount of good for more than a billion people. That was the start of my point of saying. Well, we should compare different priorities and, of course, I thought somebody else must have made this privatisation less. Somebody else must have looked at last and nobody had- and I thought well some, should, and maybe it should be, our you identified yourself at the top as up Look intellectually also are professor to business school. Correct, yes, with the Copenhagen Consensus project? What's in it for you why? Why are you doing this work? to do king theory, computer simulations, and I was writing papers that probably, if I was lucky, a hundred people would read
in my group- and I act we really really liked it, I'm sort of a nerdy guy, I'm the kind of guy who can download excel it's a Saturday night and actually thing it's really funny. So United I'll. Give you a sense of what drives me, and so I was totally content with living that life but one of the things I also try to do is when you do stuff in academia, you should also huh bring that argument out? So when I done my phd somebody from in his radio actually called like Dr Time Radio one of the most listen programmes and they said. Would you care the talk in our programme for three minutes about your phd. I was smart enough at the time, but somebody said I should have said yeah, that's like one minute per year, and so here I tried to convey what was it that I done, because I think it's important that we give back. If we have all this knowledge and information that should go to society, after healthier, the guys who are paying for us reading good books.
so in some way. What I'm trying to do with the Copenhagen consensus and the arguments that we engage with right here now, is to try and give back that sort of argument so that we can make better decisions and hopefully, at the end of day, will end up making at least slow we better decisions, and so the world will end up being a much better place. Ok, let's talk about, then your current project would start with development aid generally or development goals generally, how much is spent globally in a year, if you can tell me on development in last year, but a hundred thirty four billion dollars of overseas development aid and all kinds of form which in some ways is a monstrous amount in some ways, is really not so much I mean we have to remember. The total global gdp is in the order of eighty trillion dollars. So we're talking about lesson, half a percent but remember most of the money.
That we spend, we spend our ass. Also in the U S, you spend most of your money on the? U S, but to the extent that we care about other people around the planet, I think Grey old love us to spend more, but we certainly want to spend whatever we end up spending on the rest of the world in the best possible way and get me a sense of how that money breaks down actually the? U n. What do you The share of that development aid is what the? U This, actually not all that much much of this either given through direct, Feldman aid like em, USA idea in all the equivalent in their national countries, then there's some that's given to international organizations which you could claim as part the? U N, with where the World Bank units the others and then there's. probably in the order of twenty billion dollars. It goes into the union budget itself. Now that sir,
the? U N is perhaps of outsize influence if for no other reason than the publicity it generates when it decides what's a goal worth going after much. Not yes, yes, if you're successful. Remember the! U n constantly make all these proclamation, I'm pretty sure you didn't know that you were living through the international year of Crystal Lock. Her feet did not, which the union has to sign this year to be, and it's also the decade for family farming, they have a lot of things that he proclaimed that don't actually have a lot of influence, but there's one of goals that have had an outside influence for the? U? N and there, like probably their biggest success and that's the ones that are called the millennium development goals which basically set how a number of very specific targets from two thousand to two thousand fifteen with very specific goal here. Give us a very brief overview of those what they ended up being
eighteen targets and really we only remember nine of them, so they were half the proportion of people living in poverty. Half the proportion of people starving get all kids in school reduce child mortality by two thirds maternal mortality by three quarters and get clean drinking water and sanitation to every and those goals worked out. How they have mostly work out really well, we spend a lot of money and there has been a lot of focus and we reached most of them reason. We well now there's some things, predictably, getting our kids in school. What that was never going to happen, because you can't get the last kittens, but we ve gone from back eight out of ten kids going to school. to about nine, a little more than nine kids out of ten, like as we have seen a dramatic drop in poverty, but again Remember that that's also partly. Of China and, of course, that has very little, if anything, to do with the? U N proclamations, but we,
have seen a surprising decline in childhood mortality in nineteen ninety when the targets actually take their starting date. We estimate more twelve million kids died before their fifth birthday today. That number is below. Seven has probably six point six, so we almost half the proportion of kids dying and remember: we actually have slightly higher cohort, so it's a normal achievement, but what is possible managers they actually promised two thirds reduction. So what most people have heard is? Oh, you didn't match. You didn't make because we are we have it, and so that's the risk of setting to ambitious goals, the mole people actually heard up the. U n fail, yes, but we fail on an ink
I hope we ambitious target and we ve actually made an amazing achievement. They need to learn the trick of corporate finance officers who just re forecast whenever they need to re instead of instead of saying it was by two thirds. It was by one third and you get to half in you. You succeed coming up on economics, radio. What you're in Luxembourg Group really hoping to achieve. I like to think of ourselves, is constructing a menu for society. Imagine if you go into really expensive New York, restaurant and you get this wonderful menu, but new prices and sizes on it, and one more thing, if you are new to economics. Radio, newish or just habitually lazy may want to subscribe to it on Itunes or whether you get your. It is free, easy and.
like the finest restaurants. Are you coming today we're talking with you in Luxembourg he trained as a police. scientists, now he teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and he runs a group called the Copenhagen consensus. It tries to measure the best return on investment for development dollars. we're talking earlier about the United Nations Millennium development goals, which were set for completion. It hasn't fifteen there.
Can anyone deny the progress that has been made towards achieving certain millennium development goals? The doors of education have been opened, the tens of millions of children, boys, Andrew new cases of HIV, AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, our down access to clean drinking water, is up around the world. hundreds of millions of people have been lifted from extreme poverty. That is all for the good and it's a testimony to the extraordinary work has been done both within countries and by the international community. Yet we must also face the fact that price Rest towards other goals that were set has not come merely fast in the. U N is choosing a new set of development goals to be met by the year. Twenty thirty Lombards Group clause the millennium goals. But it's trying to encourage the: U N two thin.
about bull setting a bit differently this time around There is actually no good cost, benefit analysis. It was just a number of targets, all sound, really good and generally also think they really are very good, but now the union is going to redo the targets from two thousand feet. Fifteen years onwards and this time, instead of having a very closed argument, it was basically few guys around Kofi Annan, who set out these targets back in two thousand and then everybody adopted them. time. They have said we want to hear everybody's input. Of course that's very laudable, but not surprised. It's also meant that we probably have about fourteen hundred potential targets on the table and so we need to make sure we don't just end up with a whole long list of Chris this trees as they call him and the? U n jargon you just have
everything in you wish for all good things, because they are not likely to be, as effect ok so described. The committee process, the tree aging process within the U N, and particularly the open working group, which you now formed a sort of relationship with much exactly characterized. Our relationship with the union has opened several different fronts. I've asked the public to come in with their priorities, almost more than five million people and now, and so what they think should be some of the top priorities. But, of course, that's more around problems than around actual solutions. They had a high level panel, including the prime Minister for Britain and the President from Sierra Leone and Indonesia, and a number of other high dignitary, who came out with their proposal, then they had the open working group, which is a collection of seventy countries. Remember the union has a hundred ninety three countries, so not every has been heard, but they have gone on for about Sixteen months meeting very regularly and to make their set of goals. The
problem is the first set of millennium development goals essentially had eighteen targets. The high level panel had fifty eight targets, but the poor working group. Their final document came out ahead, a hundred and sixty nine targets, and so my problem if you say you have a hundred and sixty nine priorities, you're in reality have none. That's why We need to find a way to make fewer smarter talk. Ok said the idea. Your idea, then, is to create a cost benefit, now to help an organization like the? U N, in the open working group, decide which global goals to accept or to set based on cost in reality of achievement and impact. So do you feel that more the decision makers in this realm in the. U, n and related agencies are open to pure cost benefit analysis or they, whether out of habit or incentive wed to a more traditional political view. Oh, I think when
talk to them, and I've talked to quite a number of the: u and ambassadors in their staffers. They all If the idea I mean, when we first went round to them, we told them we're gonna. Do this long process where we had all these period papers and they would be coming out this fall and they relate this exciting is anyway. You could have this done by next week with their sort of original inspiration. That was actually why we did a very rough and ready version where we simply went through their list and marked it up with green, yellow and red colors too Kate Weather is a phenomenal or good, fair or poor target think that was very influential in getting them to think about? Oh wait! It's not just! what sounds good and what our country is decided, but is also about costs and benefits, but of course, let's be realistic, it's not like there, somebody during your go out and say: oh, oh, we wrong about that. Won't we'll go for something else, but the world will spend two and half trillion dollars on development aid over the next fifteen years.
We'll leveraging a huge amount of money. So if we can just make essential, The, U N, ditch one bad target and put one we're good target in their. Instead, we could do hundreds of billions of dollars worth of good and so wish Where are we going to change a little bit but because we're leveraging so much will actually end up doing a lot of good? When I read this seventeen major categories at the, U N is put forth so far. It strikes me that development goals- what are called development goals, are often very much like macro economic goals. some of them. At least one here is promote sustainable consumption and production patterns, which sounds of economics and quote, promote strong. inclusive and sustainable economic growth and decent work for all. So am I correct to assume these committees that are working within the EU and are full of economists. Or are they not? My understanding is that their full of bureaucrats and they come from a lot of different backgrounds, but there are probably a lot of them. Be political scientist who, like myself but they'll, be
much more tune to what is there we typically focus on so we had a good experience, For instance, when I gave a presentation of the U N on our project people actually congratulated me afterwards for having done the best seminar that they had ever experience and I was really flattered until they told me because nobody fell asleep, but but we were, I can tell you of the: U s you and ambassador, and she was very annoyed that we pointed out one of her favorite targets was not a very good target, and so she said, I really don't like you pointing out that this, bad target, but I, really need to hear it, and I think that's, basically how they feel about it. Yes, I understand the necessity, but its Politicks obviously not always convened What was this target that wasn't so then you're gave it was the idea that we should have gender disaggregated data so the idea is to say if we get more data to support the fact that women get less education that they get less well paid and so on it ll actually help
stimulate the point getting more gender equality is a very nice idea. The problem is hard, economists tell us we actually have enough data to achieve this. You know you speak as though there were dynamic between your group in their group is good and it is an open working group after that called for comment from the public and clean yourselves. But I have to say I would think they hate you out They sit around being there a high minded and kind of holistic- and then you come in and set yeah, that's nice! But let's talk about you know the real world and persuade me that's not the dynamic night. I think Europe capturing part clearly there are life would be easier if there was no one else coming from outside, and it certainly be easy if there was nobody marking up some their text with red. On the other hand,
They also want to help the world they want to leave a lasting legacy, and they know just saying something that sounds beautiful and and looks great and nicely written documents is not the way to save the world, so I think they appreciate that when we say their red for all the other, targets all the ones that their negotiation partners proposed there, ok, that's right! That's what we said, but if Then, when we say one of your own targets is also pretty poor, yes, then they get a little annoyed and at the end of the day, we re nice. This is inevitably going to be a discussion that has lots and lots of other parameters, but if we can push at all a bit towards more efficiency, because where averaging two and a half trillion dollars. We can do a lot of good I'll get so Bjorn. Let's get into the findings of your group. The open working group of the? U N has, according to your room,
or one hundred and sixty nine total targets within more than a dozen major categories that range from poverty and famine to climate change and sustainable industrialization you ranked more two dozen of these targets phenomenal and a slightly smaller number than that poor everything else, the middle to talk generally for a moment about what it takes to turn a guy, all into a phenomenal ranking verses of poor ranking? Well, there's a number of different things: be very clear and it has to be very one directional, so you're not trying to achieve things that are really at cross purposes, but then, mostly, needs to be something that we know how to do, and we know how to do fairly cheaply handled a lot of good and unfair. a lot of the targets that the union has set up turns out to be one of those
why you say: oh all, good things for all good people and we don't quite know how we'll work it out and if we try and do it it'll probably be fairly costly and it will prove we not do as much good. So that's what defines a poor target and, of course we want to push more into phenomenal tokens. Let's get him to some specific wise of a phenomenal versus a poor ranking, let's start with food security, ending mountains tradition in all its forms, including undernutrition micro, nutrient deficiencies and so on. You said the ending is a bad goal. Perhaps gazettes perhaps impossible, but you did rate that phenomenal verses a poor ranking for developing
food systems that are more productive, sustainable, resilient and efficient. So on talk about the difference between those two, why one is great, my one is really not great. The first one again if we disregard the end, because we will not be able to end this, but what we should be saying as get down to two or three percent male nourishment, which is both reachable and actually would be a phenomenal achievement where we now we're first? percent. I want to say so. We could death Do a lot better. The reality is. We know that that's very keep is essentially making sure that you get especially kids good food for the first couple years, and we know how to do that, thus by making sure they get micro nutrients, which is fairly cheap and we can distributed in the health days that are typical across much Africa and South EAST Asia, and we need to have emergency opportunities to get lots of calories to babies when their severely under FED, both of which are fairly.
Cause. We asked made her child it's about ninety six dollars and the benefit so phenomenal. We know from studies around the world that if you can get better nutrition to kids, the brain, a more they stay longer in school. They learn more, even if they are in a crappy school they'll learn a lot more and actually, if you wiping stunted, which is one of the best ways to show that you been malnourished. You make three times the income when you become an adult so bay you're much much more productive person in society. So we estimate the fervid die are you spend on that very simple way of avoiding malnutrition. You do about fifty nine dollars worth of good the other. target you asked about his sins, we tried to say we should do all good things. There are some of these things. We don't quite know how you would do, but let me just take the sort of oz This contradiction in the one him you want to be environmentally sustainable, which is a great thing which means putting in
fertilizer, less pesticides having less intensive agriculture on the other and you want to get food so that everyone is fed in their FED cheaply with good foodstuffs typically means you need to put in more fertilizer more passes it's more intensive farming and so use actually asking to do both things now: I'm sure there is some ways we can actually develop a target that would still make some for a balanced and actually could be ok. But it's not obvious that this would be more than ok and it's very likely that we could end up just simply taking parts of it and in making it a pretty poor policy. Let's talk about a couple of patient goals and you are in favour- you give a phenomenal ranking to the idea of increasing the proportion of kids were able to access, incomplete, pre primary education, anyone talk for just a second met the returns to that again
Could you say it's not me who are saying that we asked thirty, two of the world's top economists across all these different areas, and this is their evaluation. So that has not because I'm sitting here in saying I think that is a hair. No thank you, but the Economists, looked at education actually shows we I managed to get most kids into primary education but there's a lot of kids. They dont go to pre primary it. Patient preschool, partly it's very cheap because you, need all that much qualifications to teach it's very easily, kids in there, because they don't really compete. If anything else, the parents are not saying, oh, but you could make a living wage instead they are also much more open to having girls. Especially go to these pre schools. So we can do something that cheap and we actually know that this leaves lasting effects and being able to better educate yourself also in the future. Even if you don't get a form education, so
The estimate that the benefits are in the thirties so probably for every dollar spent. You do thirty three dollars worth of good now. Is this it number. Of course it's not it's it's an estimate, but it gives you an indication that this is probably one of those places where you'd get excellent turn on your dollar? Ok, so big return on pre primary education. What about post, secondary college and solve the problem? is the way it's formulae they want to promising. This is typical for these sorts of documents. They want a promise everybody to be able to get into France first, he it's a beautiful idea, but the problem is for most countries. It ends up being away to subsidize rich people's kids to go to college. If you make college free most of the attendees at universities are from the high classes is effectively a subsidy to rich people's kids. Instead, what you you'd be doing is if you want to get more poor kids into a college you should be given.
scholarships! That's a much cheaper, much more directed way to make sure that you get a better so economic profile in college, but less kid ourselves. This is not what makes productivity drama the rise in the first thirty or fifty years of development that much more back, getting everyone educated, so they can read or write me. Ask you about a phenomenal and a poor ranking the Copenhagen Consensus Center has given for two goals in the climate change arena. Phenomenal mark goes to the proposal, to quote by two thousand and thirty phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, but a poor bark to the proposal. To quote of all the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by twenty thirty at first blush. Those might seem to be contradictory. Explain why one gets fan while the other poor, most people talk about a certainly when we reaching out to an american audience will think that fossil
subsidies are something of the first world. It's actually not by far the majority You're, fossil fuel subsidies come in third world countries where many com Teresa subsidizing, their basic provisions like bread and also gasoline as a way to keep. The population choir I ran spends almost seventy five billion dollars, which is a huge proportion of their national budget. Likewise, with Egypt, some of the other big ones are rush China, India Sawyer, baby and that actually helps destabilize anything else, those powers can do because, fundamentally, they can't afford to provide France and better health care or better education. Many of the other things, because suspending a huge amount of their resources on fossil Subsidies, of course, here also at the same time encouraging over use of fossil fuel and thereby more emissions of co2, and also, of course, difference in subsidized gasoline you're, basically helping people who can afford it
our which will typically be the rich people so in reality, cutting these subsidies has benefits all those different accounts and will probably leave this day. much better able to do the things that he should? Actually be focusing on, namely, for instance, education and health, and so on. When you talk about getting more green energy, something a lot of us in the rich West like we want to have more solar panels and wind turbines? The problem is for most people. and the poor world it's about getting access to electricity and That access is mostly not always, but mostly much cheaper with fossil fuels. Some estimation from the scent of global development DC that looked at Obama pledge to help electrify Africa and tat. He was probably gonna spend about ten billion dollars. Things of that very wonderful, but if you spend it, Obama will probably do mostly
on renewables, they estimate you can help about. Twenty million people come out of darkness, and hence poverty but if you spend the same, ten billion on gas you could live ninety million people out of darkness and poverty, so the fundamental Here's to say you can do much much better, and so unless you are very careful with your subsidies to green energy, you'll actually end up. Doing pretty. Only in very likely actually lesson. One dollar back in that all there's one set of numbers here that is so astonish I just want to run them by you and ask you to briefly comment the costs associated with domestic violence, our over an order of magnitude higher than the costs of civil war. Two hundred and ninety million kids are beaten every month at a cost. of eight trillion dollars the one hundred and seventy billion dollar cost of civil wars. It's a great outcome of the study, and this is the first time they put numbers to what's the cost of domestic violence and clean
This is only an approximate number. It basically takes what's the cost of Venice in the? U S and then scale it so that it now if you only make one tenth what the? U S makes the key stop that assault is also one tenth, but even and because there are so many kids, as you mentioned two hundred and ninety million kids that are abused each month and theirs. almost as many women that abused every year, it some much much bigger number, even though all our tv overflow, This was Syria, and I rack, and this definitely serious issues it actually much less so then the problem of domestic violence so as both M kids, that sum up to eight trillion, also about nine percent of global GDP. Are, let me ask you this, then economists, however, a saying they lake they'll, say that. Oh, that sounds great in practice, but does it work in ray, and that's because economist love, fury and analysis and math all that is often much more elegant them
real world Willie as it is, will allow. So let me ask the opposite. What you're doing by constructing a cost benefit analysis of these development goals is sounds great in theory, but what about in practice? How do you translate? you ve learned to the real world and make it actionable, make it worth while, in other words, is anyone going to listen to you and act on it? Why thing alone, people are listening as we talk about before. We are not the only impulse, to this conversation, but if we just part of that input, it becomes harder to ignore really really great opportunities and becomes harder to ignore that some of the proposed targets are not very good. we like to think of our senses, constructing a menu for society. Imagine if you go into really expensive New York, restaurant and you get this wonderful You put their new prices and sizes on our leisure Very good expense account. You can feel uncomfortable ordering, but what
we try to do as we put prices and sizes on those different menu points, doesn't mean that the champagne o the caviar might not be your first choice anyway, but at least now you know that you can afford less for dessert. So in some sense, what we try to do is we give people a sense of proportion This is not the only thing they gonna use, but if they are just use a little bit of chances will end up with a slightly less inefficient if you will outcome and that still great
Freedom of trade it is produced by w when my c studios in Dublin productions. This episode was produced by Jewel, Werner David Herman Gregg resolve ski gretta, cone, Caroline English Susie, Lichtenberger and Chris Bannon. Our staff also includes ervic Gunjay Jake, how it merit Jacob Christopher Worth Alison Hockenberry and cash, a mile of it if you ve, made it this far to the very end of the credits. Shrubby also come visit us at for economics. Dotcom greekan find our entire podcast archive for free, and you can make it
tradition to w and my c to help keep this free cod cast going and one more thing: puck s listeners. We want to hear from you for new episode working on its about handwriting seriously. Handwriting is either a central to our brains. Learn particularly for conceptual questions. Laptop note, takers did significantly worse than students who took notes, longhand or handwriting is a completely obsolete practice, the teaching of which borders on torture he was having to stay and every single day for recess of second grade because
he got his jeez backwards. So we want to hear what you think about writing by hand when you do it and why or why not use whatever voice mammal app is on your phone to make a brief audio recording brief, I said and email the file at radio at for economics. Dot com, please be, should include your name where you live in what you do know, pen or paper necessary, and thanks hither. Stephen Dublin again one more thing if you like for economics, radio, I think you'll also like the latest episode of people, I mostly admire the podcast hosted by
fr economic spreading co, author, Steve Levin, here's what it sounds like a guest today, Sue bird. She collects championships As for W Nba championships, five euro, the best about championships too, and see a championships for international basketball federation, world cups and four olympic gold medals. I'd love to talk about the economics of professional basketball, so the average player in the NBA made eight point three million dollars in two thousand and nineteen. In the W Nba the average with eighty thousand is frustrating just now, I think actually, If you look at twenty twenty, our minimum is now higher, but we all but in the same amount of work. So is it a heart
swallow knowing that somebody else's work is being rewarded at times by I live in reality. I understand business and economics. Some people look at us as like charity. The goal will help them out like an it in a terrible what sense? Not unlike this business, investment way everything do look at us as an investment immediately its talked about how we don't make money, and it's like fifty years, about the NBA did either, but people are willing to make that investment get behind it and growing its people I mostly admire you can find it on your favorite podcast app, here, there Stephen dubbing again one more thing: if you liked the episode you just heard, we think you like something else in the freedom of trade. Work look for this interview on the new podcast people. I mostly admire with host
Steve Letter on my guest today Sue Bird, she collects championships, she's fine or w NBA championships. Five euro, the best about championships, to end C h, championships for international basketball, federation, world cups and four olympic Gold medal. I would I think that, in order to be the player you are, you would have to be a person who acted gets better under pressure rather than worth well. Obviously, there are people, who are known for hitting big shots are known for playing while in big games that exists for sure, but I think we kind of frame it. There why it's not that you're gonna make nine out of ten. It's that you might make three at it but somebody else is making zero its Andrews. most successful. It's like who's the most successful of the least successful. That is people, mostly admire you can find it on your favorite podcast app subscribe now, so that you don't miss single episode,
Transcript generated on 2021-01-29.