The Initial Reaction

From here. I've always felt that the "true believers" of the Right Wing represent about 20% of the population, which was why Bush's approval ratings never dropped below 20%. So it is only reasonable to view the "angry" result as being that of these "true believers" who think that the passing of the Health Bill is the beginning of the People's Democratic Republic of America headed by Chairman Obama.

This is only an initial reaction, however. How people will view this bill will change as time goes by, and I'm not ruling out any movement towards the negative.

Who opposes Health Care Reform?

It's the South:

The WSJ Real Time Economics blog has posted the letters for and against the health care reform bill winding through Congress. The most interesting thing about the lists of signatories is the geographical divide. It was so interesting, I did a fast tabulation (so, don't quote me on it), and what one finds is that of the list in favor, only 2 of 41 economists are affiliated with institutions in the South (defined using the most restrictive definition in this Wikipedia page -- so to be completely accurate, I haven't used the actual Mason-Dixon line). Of the 131 signatories to the against letter, 40 are affiliated with institutions in the South, i.e., essentially 30% of the total.

What if?

One of my great fears is that this current economic crisis will lead to a crash in the value of the US Dollar. This is something I have been predicting since at least 2005 and now seems more certain than ever.

Of course, what prompts me to write this is the recent drop in the US Dollar. Is this the beginning of the end? I honestly don't know. The thing about predicting economic trends the way I do is that the event occurring is more certain than when it occurs. The US Dollar may jump back up to last week's levels in the next 24 hours, but the downward trend is more likely to occur at some point than any time before. It's like geologists making predictions about earthquakes or volcanic eruptions - the signs are all there that it will happen, but the actual time and date is unknown. When it comes to the US Dollar crashing, the same principle is in effect.

So, assuming I am correct, what will happen to America after the Dollar crash?

1. Economic decline - even more.

It's hard to imagine, but the most obvious effect of a currency crash is economic decline. In normal circumstances this would be bad enough, but, if judicious economic and financial analysts are to be believed, America is already facing the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression. The subprime bubble has spread financial contagion all throughout the US. Big companies are going bankrupt, the sharemarket is volatile and unemployment is rising. And that is all happening before a dollar crash.

If and when the dollar crashes, the effects of the crash will reverberate throughout the economy. While the current credit crisis is hitting mainly financial firms while manufacturing and services take some serious collateral damage, a crash in the dollar will heighten these effects. Banks and financial firms that could have been saved from bankruptcy won't be saved. Firms that could've survived battered and bruised will go under. People who would've been able to keep their jobs throughout the original crisis will lose them. A dollar crash will take the damage already done and make it worse.

In terms of official statistics, you can already see GDP reclining. 2008 Q3 will most likely see economic decline when the stats get released in October. Unemployment, already at 6.1%, is likely to increase. But a dollar crash will make these worse. GDP will continue to decline for 2 or more quarters after the dollar crash, and unemployment will continue to rise.

As I have pointed out above, economists and financial analysts see this crisis as being the worst since the Great Depression. This means that unemployment is likely to reach, at the very least, the levels of the early 80s recession - 10.8% in November and December 1982. Now add to this the dollar crash and you can add a few more points to that level. Unemployment of 12% or more is likely.

2. Inflation and the policy problems that follow it.

The most obvious effect of a dollar crash will be a substantial increase in inflation. The United States is a consumer-based economy rather than a producer-based economy. This means that much of America's economic life depends upon the consumption of imported goods. If and when the dollar crashes, the price of all goods and services will increase.

A dollar crash will make imported goods more expensive to import. Americans will therefore find that everything from gasoline to teddy bears will begin to cost more.

Debate still rages over whether this crisis will lead to increased inflation or deflation. The "Deflationistas" - those who believe that prices will drop - argue that a credit crunch of the sort we are experiencing has historically led to deflation, that is, falling price levels. These people are actually correct in a sense, as any economic contraction leads to lower levels of demand for goods and services, which will inevitably lead to downward pressure on prices. Unfortunately, these deflationistas don't take into account something as serious as a crash in the dollar. If the value of the US dollar is ignored in calculations, then deflation is a natural conclusion for those who are studying the current credit crisis. The problem is, though, that recent history - namely the 1997 Asian Economic Crisis and the 1998 Russian economic crisis - shows that any credit crisis in economies with floating currencies (ie, currencies that are traded in the marketplace and change in value accordingly) eventually leads to capital flight - a situation in which people take assets and money out of an economy in order to invest it in another. What happened in 1997 and 1998 was that investors ran from Asia and Russia and invested in the US Dollar.

So, in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, a dollar crash would inevitably lead to upward pressure on prices- namely, inflation. What these inflationary levels might become depends upon how far the currency crashes - the more the currency crashes, the higher inflation will get.

In the midst of this situation, what can the government do? Very little I'm afraid. The only government institution charged with the task of controlling inflation is the Federal Reserve Bank. Faced with a dollar crash and spiralling inflation, what would the Fed do? Standard monetary policy is for central banks to raise interest rates to control inflation. In the past, the Federal Reserve has indeed lifted rates whenever inflation began to worry them.

The problem with raising interest rates is that, while it ends up controlling inflation, it also acts to dampen economic activity. If the Federal Reserve should raise rates in response to inflation brought about by the dollar crash, the effect upon an already deteriorating economy would be devastating. Yet to keep rates low and to endure inflation in the hope that the economy might be given a chance to recover is a process which has historically never worked - the 1970s, for example, saw central banks all over the world ignore inflation and focus on employment and economic growth. Despite this, neither the economy nor levels of employment nor inflation were ever fixed. It was only until Paul Volcker bit the bullet and killed off inflation with high interest rates in the early 1980s that inflation, economic growth and employment ended up getting fixed. In other words, the only way for central banks to improve economic conditions and levels of employment is to focus solely upon inflation. In our particular situation, with a potential dollar crash looming, the only thing the Federal Reserve Bank could do in response is to raise rates.

I need to reiterate: There is nothing that the President, Congress or the Federal Reserve Bank can do to solve this problem. The only thing they can do is to limit the damage and remove the policies that caused the problem in the first place. As I have mentioned before, the only thing that the Government can do is:

• Cut military spending
• Raise taxes on the rich
• Run a budget surplus and pay off public debt
• Use interest rates to keep inflation low
• Regulate the financial industry with more common sense laws
• Fire Ben Bernanke
  

As I said, none of these things will solve the crisis, but they will give a better grounding for the eventual economic recovery.

I would also add to this list the following:

• Institute a Universal Health Care system, and raise taxes to pay for it.
  

I don't put this here just because I'm a pinko commie subversive, but because it also makes economic sense. The United States of America could cut its total health care costs by one third if it instituted a Universal Health Care system similar to those already in operation in other Western nations. The US spends around 15% of GDP on health care while comparable Western nations spend around 10% of GDP and have the same - if not better - health outcomes. Cutting health care costs by deprivatising and regulating the health industry will have enormous social and economic benefits.

3. A Current Account Surplus as America recovers.

Although I often joke that a dollar crash will be "financial armageddon", I know that things will eventually turn around. Even the great depression ended, although those who suffered through it thought it might never end. The same is true in this case. The current crisis added to a dollar crash will cause some very serious economic damage, but a recovery will naturally follow (although the speed of this recovery might not be as fast as people hope).

One thing that will happen as America - and the world - recovers from an economic disaster and dollar crash is that the US will eventually become a net exporter. Moreover, the United States will eventually end up running a current account surplus. This will be the natural effect of a dollar crash.

If and when the US Dollar crashes, one result will be that American goods and services - even manufactured goods - will become more competitive on the world market. While the dollar crash will naturally hurt every part of the economy, international demand from US manufacturing will increase. America's economic recovery will be in many ways due to an increase in demand for American goods. Instead of being a consumer nation, the US will become a producer nation after the dollar crash.

Moreover, it is also likely that the world's producer nations - especially those who have run massive trade surpluses like Japan and China - will end up becoming consumer nations. This will be because the dollar crash will end up overturning current trade balances. It may seem strange to believe that Japanese consumers might end up buying US manufactured goods, but, if a dollar crash occurs then the natural corollary will be a rise in the value of the Yen and other world currencies. When a currency rises, imported goods become cheaper to buy and exported goods become more expensive to sell.

4. A New International Economic Order.

One eventual result of this crisis will be a new economic world order. I'm not talking conspiracy theories or a one world government here, I'm talking about a more integrated world economy in which trading nations agree to abide by treaties that will determine what sort of policies are implemented in national economies.

Such treaties already exist. Supranational entities like the United Nations, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organisation all exist as a way of creating and developing international co-operation in economic areas. An even more advanced supranational entity - the European Union - has even greater power over how member countries may run their affairs.

For anyone who insists upon national sovereignty, such entities are despicable and evil. For those of us who know just how important common rules and policies are for international economic well-being, such entities are exceptionally important (although certainly not perfect).

The importance of any future economic agreement rests upon the damage done at present. Although the US is a sovereign nation and its economic downturn is entirely its own fault, the damage that it will create will spread around the globe. No nation linked in with the world economy will escape damage, although it is clear that the US will be the nation most badly affected. Given that this is the case - that one nation's economic stupidity can lead to economic pain for all nations - economic treaties and agreements will be put in place to ensure that all nations who participate in the world economy follow "the rules" to prevent their own contagion from affecting everyone else. One aspect of this agreement may be common monetary policy, whereby central banks will pursue the same goals, such as having common inflation targets. Another agreement may be universal rules applied to financial sectors, which would not only prevent economic problems in one nation, but in all nations who are part of the treaty. In America's case, accounting principles would be better suited following international rules rather than the homegrown American ones.

Conclusion

For some, a dollar crash will lead to financial armageddon. But, just like in the Great Depression, the United States and the rest of the world will recover and learn from the mistakes that were made. Unemployment may sky-rocket and the economy may decline, but they will both recover eventually.

Unfortunately I'm not as confident as I could be at this point. Peak Oil will make it very difficult for economies to recover over the next 10-20 years, while Global Warming won't stop just because humans have had some economic problems. Both of these issues will require much thought and changes in economic and social behaviour - changes which will cost but which are necessary if people's lives are to be saved. Moreover, the economic and social challenges posed by both Peak Oil and Global Warming need a workable economy to be faced.

AAAAAAAAA

A blog post with every single category marked (I'm doing this for scribefire)

Some interesting US poll data

• 57% of Americans think the country is in recession. Source. Obviously people are feeling scared.
  
• 61% of Americans think that some tax cuts should be reversed. Source. This is mainly repealing tax cuts for the rich, rather than the mainstream.
  
• 52% of Americans think that the Democrats are best suited to handle the budget deficit, while 29% think that the Republicans are best suited. Source. The idea that Republicans are good economic managers has been shot to pieces.
  
• 50% of Americans think that illegal immigrants have made no negative impact on their community. Source. A substantial minority do have problems, but I think this shows that many Americans see the issue as being overstated.
  
• 73% of Americans think that Global Warming will be a major problem in 50 years. Source. Obviously they don't think it is a problem now, but believe it will be in the distant future.
  
• 18% of Americans think Iran should be bombed. 73% of Americans think that diplomatic and economic efforts should be used to address problems with Iran. Source. Americans don't want to bomb Iran. They want this fixed up the old fashioned way - by talking.
  
• 68% of Americans oppose the US war in Iraq. 59% believe that neither side is winning. Source.
• 61% of Americans are not too worried about the chances of being directly harmed by terrorists. Source. The further we get from 9/11 without any further terrorist attacks, the safer average Americans feel.
• 81% of Americans are unhappy with the nation's health care. Source. The next president and the 2009 Congress should act on this straight away.
  
• 79% of Americans approve of marriage between blacks and whites, while 15% disapprove. In 1994, the approval rating was 48% and the disapproval rating was 37%. In 1983, 43% approved while 50% disapproved. In 1978, 35% approved and 54% disapproved. In 1972, 29% approved and 60% disapproved. In 1968, 20% approved and 73% disapproved. In 1958, 4% approved and 94% disapproved. Source. More than anything else, this poll, dating back to 1958, shows just how much American society has changed in 50 years.
  
• 70% of Americans are dissatisfied with the country's direction. Source.
• 64% of Americans disapprove of how George W. Bush is doing his job. It has been around this percentage for at least 12 months. Source. The same disapproval percentage is seen with the Democrat controlled Congress. Source. I would argue that the reason why Americans don't like the Democrat controlled Congress is because they haven't made a stand against George Bush.
  
• 53% of Americans would probably vote Democrat in the 2008 congressional elections. Source.
• 50% of Americans have an unfavourable attitude towards Hillary Clinton. Source. This is an important statistic. Obviously there are people out there who can't stand her.
  
• 16% of Americans have an unfavourable attitude towards Mike Huckabee. 33% have a favourable attitude. 33% don't know who he is. Source. Huckabee is suffering because of voter ignorance. Who knows what will happen when he becomes better known?
  
• 53% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Barack Obama. 33% unfavourable. Source. Shows again how much America has changed regarding race.
  
• 36% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Mitt Romney. 30% unfavourable. 20% don't know who he is. Source. Not a good start for a potential Republican candidate.
• 52% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Rudy Guiliani. Source. Obviously he is still held in highish regard after 9/11.
  
• More Americans would vote for John Edwards over Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain or Mike Huckabee. Source. This is interesting since Clinton and Obama don't run as well against these Republicans. It probably shows that Edwards has some level of public trust that other Democrats don't have.
  
• Whichever candidate ends up running, 48% of Americans would probably vote Democrat while 31% would probably vote Republican. Source. Even though lots of people are undecided, such a big spread essentially guarantees a Democrat in the White House in 2009.
  
• 46% of Americans have a favourable attitude towards Al Gore, while 29% do not. In June it was 34% favourable and 40% not favourable. Source. This shows that Gore's Nobel Prize turned many Americans to favour him.
  

Biological weapon used on Tristan da Cunha?

From the department of conspiracy theories:

Britons living in what is described as the remotest community in the world are seeking help after the outbreak of an acute virus.

Many of the 271 British citizens living on the volcanic island of Tristan da Cunha, in the south Atlantic, have developed severe breathing problems.

They need to ensure that their current medical supplies do not run out.

An international operation to provide help is being led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

BBC world affairs correspondent Mike Wooldridge said the islanders were being affected by what appears to be an outbreak of viral-inducted asthma, which causes severe breathing problems.

Tristan da Cunha's one resident doctor, a South African, has issued an appeal for medical supplies.

The South African Marine Rescue Co-ordination Centre was alerted first and informed British coastguards.

The volcanic island has no airstrip, making getting medicines there difficult.

Tristan da Cunha is a small island group in the South Atlantic. It's quite a bit bigger than places like Pitcairn but much smaller than The Falklands.

It interests me that a severe 'flu should afflict the island. The influenza virus is spread from human to human but will never float thousands of miles in the air - not alive, anyway. Generally, people who live in remote places do not suffer the same viral problems as people who live in built up areas like cities. With no airstrip, Tristan de Cunha's population would be isolated from most viral outbreaks around the world.

Of course, with 271 people on the island, someone could have easily turned up with influenza some years ago, and the virus could have been mutating through a very small group of people before coming to its current virulence. I've never heard of a 'flu mutating amongst such a small amount of people - but then again I'm hardly an expert in microbiology.

The Conspiracy Theory side of my brain has been stimulated by this, though. What if a biological weapon was released on the island to test its effects? With no airstrip and and its remoteness, a deadly viral outbreak on Tristan de Cunha would spread no further than its shoreline. How would it have been released? Simple - a submarine could have sailed there from a nation with access to biological weapons (eg USA, Russia, China, Western European nations), and a person could have gone ashore and "released it" somehow.

Yeah I know... I've seen too many movies. Hopefully this is just a virus that occurred naturally.

But you never know...

Update:
The hospital on the island has a website here. "The situation is under control and there is no emergency". Heh, they would say that wouldn't they?

Stem cells from skin

From the department of yes-you-know-all-about- it-but-you're-dying-to-hear-my- opinion-anyway:

Human skin cells have been reprogrammed by two groups of scientists to mimic embryonic stem cells with the potential to become any tissue in the body.

The breakthrough promises a plentiful new source of cells for use in research into new treatments for many diseases.

Crucially, it could mean that such research is no longer dependent on using cells from human embryos, which has proved highly controversial.

The US and Japanese studies feature in the journals Science and Cell.

As other Christians have commented (like Craig) this discovery is wonderful and can help defuse much of the ethical problems with stem cell research. The fact that cells can now be created via skin, and not through human embryos, means that any potential "production line" of embryos being farmed is now looking less and less unlikely.

Dangerous Quakery

From the department of traditional-cures- and-traditional-death-rates:

The NSW Coroner has found there is sufficient evidence for the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider laying charges against the parents of a baby who died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies.

Gloria Thomas died in May 2002 in Sydney Children's Hospital of sepsis, or bacterial infections.

The nine-month-old, who was severely malnourished, had been suffering from such terrible eczema that much of her skin was split.

The inquest at Glebe Coroner's Court has been told the cracks in her skin caused the baby agonising pain and were a potential source of entry for the bacteria that killed her.

Parents Thomas Sam, a homeopath, and IT professional Manju Samuel treated her with homeopathic remedies rather than her prescribed medication.

State Coroner Mary Jerram terminated the inquest today after finding there was a reasonable prospect the evidence presented to the inquiry could convince a jury to convict "a known person or persons of a serious crime".

There is no doubt in my mind that the rise of medical science has resulted in the loss of traditional remedies that have been used for hundreds of years. However, there is also no doubt in my mind that much of what passes as "traditional" or Homoeopathic medicine has more to do with magical thinking and blind acceptance of the placebo effect as being evidence of its success.

Incidents like the one above - which is not just horrific but also salutary since one of the parents was a trained homeopath (presumably) - show just how dangerous is modern society's reliance upon the unproven, the untested and the well-marketed.

Of course, "Big Pharma" has its own problems, but I would rather take the advice of a trained medical professional over a modern witch-doctor any day.

South Africa's AIDS toll

From the department of shrinking-populations:

South Africa is in danger of losing the battle against HIV/Aids, the United Nations children's agency has warned.

Unicef's South Africa representative Macharia Kamau said that infection and death rates in the country are outpacing treatment.

This was having a devastating effect on children whose parents die of Aids and sent out a dire message for the future.

Mr Kamau said if present trends continued there could be five million orphans in South Africa by 2015.

South Africa is one of just nine countries worldwide where infant mortality is rising - from 60 deaths per 1,000 births in 1990, to 95 deaths today.

The main reason, Unicef says, is HIV/Aids.

The average infection rate is almost 30% of the population - in some regions it is closer to 50%.

South Africa's population has been shrinking for some time. The CIA World Factbook shows a birth rate of 17.94 births / 1000 people and a death rate of 22.45 births / 1000 people. Most of the AIDS in South Africa is spread via heterosexual sex. I expect South Africa's population to shrink for some years before the effect of AIDS is reduced.

George Michael won't test himself for AIDS

From the department of you've-gotta-have-faith:

Pop star George Michael has asked for an interview in which he discusses his fears of having HIV to be removed from a forthcoming BBC programme.

The BBC has confirmed the interview will no longer feature in the documentary, Stephen Fry: HIV and Me.

Michael's former partner, Anselmo Feleppa, died of an Aids-related illness in 1995.

"On reflection, he felt it was too close and too personal a journey," said a spokesman for the singer, 44.

He added: "It was too personal for Anselmo's family to revisit."

When the documentary was launched in July, the BBC revealed details of Michael's interview.

"George says he does not believe in tests," said producer Ross Wilson.

"He says he finds the wait for results too harrowing and that he hasn't had a test since at least 2004 due to his fears it might be positive."

The two-part programme will examine how HIV is spreading and show Fry taking an HIV test himself.

Michael is still set to appear in this year's festive edition of Catherine Tate's BBC comedy programme.

In June, he became the first singer to perform at the new Wembley Stadium, nearly seven years after the last concert at the London venue.

One day before the gig, he was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and banned from driving for two years after pleading guilty to driving while unfit.

The star blamed "tiredness and prescribed drugs" for the offence.

Alcohol and Violence in NSW

From the department of the-importance-of-prevention:

New South Wales Police Force welcome the findings of a landmark study that reveals the startling financial cost to alcohol-related incidents - the state’s biggest single crime factor.

The survey estimated that 8.2% of all police officer time is spent dealing with alcohol-related issues. That represents a cost of $50 million a year, or the equivalent of employing 1,000 full time constables.

From a purely economic viewpoint, it is obvious that measures to prevent alcohol induced violence need to increase. $50 million per year is $50 million too much. If the NSW government could spend $10 million more per year advertising safe and responsible drinking, the effect will (hopefully) be a reduction in the cost of alcohol induced violence.

UNICEF reports that child mortality is improving

From the department of I-always-thought-that the-UN-was-trying-to-destroy-the-world:

Global efforts to promote childhood immunisation, breast-feeding and anti-malaria measures have helped cut the death rate of children under age five since 1990 by nearly a quarter, according to UNICEF.

Strong improvements in China and India helped drive a decline in worldwide child mortality, but children still died at very high rates in large regions of Africa south of the Sahara, United Nations Children's Fund figures showed.

UNICEF said 9.7 million children under the age of five died worldwide in 2006. Nearly half, 4.8 million, were in Sub-Saharan Africa where the AIDS virus hampered progress, said UNICEF chief of global health, Dr Peter Salama.

Worldwide, the death rate for children under age five was 72 per 1,000 live births in 2006. Dr Salama said that despite the recent progress, two-thirds of child deaths worldwide could be prevented using currently available health measures.

"We're below 10 million deaths for the first time," he said.

"It could be, really, that this is the tipping point - that we now see a dramatic decline from here on in."

UNICEF itself should be congratulated for this report. Obviously the increasing living standards in poor countries are a result of many factors, but the efforts of UNICEF in reporting these changes and doing the statistical analysis, as well as providing expert advice to world governments, means that they should share in the plaudits.

The Red Plague resurfaces

From the department of hundreds-dead-yet-again:

An outbreak of the deadly Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo has killed at least five people says the World Health Organisation.

Blood samples from the southern province of Kasai were sent to laboratories specialising in haemorrhagic fever.

More than 100 people have died and many more have fallen sick in a recent fever epidemic in central DR Congo.

Scientists say some deaths could have been from a bacterium called Shigella.

Three months ago, people started falling sick from a mystery virus in several villages around Kananga, the capital of West Kasai region.

Emergency response teams are now being sent to DR Congo to try to contain the outbreak.

Ebola is untreatable and almost always fatal.

It is thought to be transmitted through the consumption of infected bush meat and can also be spread by contact with the blood secretions of infected people.

DR Congo's last major Ebola outbreak killed more than 200 people in 1995 in Kikwit, about 400km (249 miles) west of the current outbreak.

The last major incidence of the disease was in Uganda in 2001 when more than 400 cases were reported and more than half of the patients died.

Update:
160 dead so far.

South African health minister sacked

From the BBC:

Aids activists and opposition parties have criticised the sacking of South Africa's deputy health minister, after she went to a Spanish Aids conference.

"This is a dreadful error of judgement that will harm public healthcare," said the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC).

It is believed that President Thabo Mbeki did not authorise Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge's trip to Spain.

She has previously clashed with her boss, the controversial Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang.

Dr Tshabalala-Msimang is known as Dr Beetroot after urging those with HIV to eat beetroot and garlic, while the government has been condemned for not providing enough anti-retroviral drugs.

Some 5.5m South Africans are HIV-positive - more than in any other country.

Sacking a minister for going to an AIDS conference - hilarious. Only in South Africa...

Mahjong causes epilepsy

From the BBC:

A study by doctors in Hong Kong has concluded that epilepsy can be induced by the Chinese tile game of mahjong.

The findings, published in the Hong Kong Medical Journal, were based on 23 cases of people who had suffered mahjong-induced seizures.

The report's four authors, from Hong Kong's Queen Mary Hospital, said the best prevention - and cure - was to avoid playing mahjong.

The study led the doctors to define mahjong epilepsy as a unique syndrome.

Why sort of conditions could other games cause? Ingrown toenail from Monopoly? Alzheimer's from Trivial Pursuit?

Decline in HIV in South Africa?

From the BBC:

The South African government says that for the first time, there may be signs of a reduction in the prevalence of HIV, the virus that causes Aids.

A government survey found that HIV prevalence among pregnant women across the country had dropped by one percentage point.

South Africa has one of the world's worst infection rates, with an estimated 5.5m people HIV-positive.

Last year 29.1% of pregnant women were HIV-positive compared to 30.2% in 2005.

29.1% is still a huge, huge, HUGE amount. I suppose any improvement should be welcomed. South Africa is one of the few countries whose death rate (22.45 per 1000 people) exceeds its birth rate (17.45 per 1000 people), which means that the nation is shrinking.

RFID Chips in HIV positive Papuans

The ABC Reports:

A doctor says lawmakers in the Indonesian province of Papua are mulling the selective use of chip implants in HIV carriers to monitor their behaviour in a bid to keep them from infecting others.

John Manangsang, a medical doctor who is helping to prepare a new health care regulation bill for Papua's provincial Parliament, says unusual measures are needed to combat the virus.

"We in the government in Papua have to think hard on ways to provide protection to people from the spread of the disease," Dr Manangsang said.

"Some of the infected people experience a change of behaviour and can turn more aggressive and would not think twice of infecting others," he said, adding that lawmakers are considering various sanctions for these people.

"Among one of the means being considered is the monitoring of those infected people who can pose a danger to others.

"The use of chip implants is one of the ways to do so, but only for those few who turn aggressive and clearly continue to disregard what they know about the disease and spread the virus to others."

But Dr Manangsang says a decision is still a long way off.

The head of the Papua chapter of the National AIDS Commission, Constant Karma, reportedly slammed the proposal as a violation of human rights.

"People with HIV/AIDS are not like sharks under observation so that they have to be implanted with microchips to monitor their movements," he told the Jakarta Post.

"Any form of identification of people with HIV/AIDS violates human rights."

I gotta say... this concerns me.

Lack of Doctors in Hunter Valley

This annoys me. From the ABC:

Hunter New England Health in New South Wales is urging people with non-threatening ailments to see their local GP before presenting to local emergency departments.

While many doctors have closed their books and will not take new patients, the service says people should keep trying to make an appointment because emergency departments are not doctors' surgeries.

Obviously these bean counters have got no idea. I just cannot find any doctors to go to at a moment's notice. If people take a day off work because they're sick they can't book an appointment for a few day's time and expect to get a doctor's certificate (for sick leave reasons).

I know a few doctors in this part of the world - quite a few go to our church. They are well aware of the issues sympathise with patients. Basically our health system is stuffed because of government inaction. Doctors are less likely to work in places like the Hunter Valley and need financial inducements to live and work here.

Aids in Africa

Infection rates are still outpacing treatment. For every AIDS sufferer that is helped with antiretroviral drugs, more become infected.

South Africa's population is shrinking now because of AIDS. It will only get worse.

Lessons from the Human Development Index

I love looking at this document.(pdf file, 129kb) It's essentially an attempt by the United Nations to quantify living conditions around the world. It's based on a number of different things, including GDP per capita, literacy, child mortality rates and so on.

Each nation (mostly) has been investigated since 1975 and given a 3 digit number expressed in decimal points. Australia, for example, has a HDI value of 0.957 and is third on the list (Norway is 1st with 0.965). The poorest nation, Niger, has a HDI value of 0.311.

Essentially, any growth in the number over time reflects an improvement in that nation's standard of living. "High Human Development" nations are those with HDI values of 0.800 and over, and could be classed as "first world" countries (although, looking at that list I would probably define "first world" as any value over 0.900). "Medium Human Development" nations are those with HDI values between 0.500 and 0.799, and could be classed as "second world" countries. "Low Human Development" nations are those with a HDI value of 0.499 and lower, and could be classed as "Third world" nations.

What's so great about this document is that it can actually identify which countries have been doing well over time, and which ones are going backwards. Changes in the HDI can also reflect major events in the life of that country.

China, for example, had a HDI of 0.527 in 1975 and a HDI of 0.768 today. This means that, back in 1975, China was barely out of being described as a third world nation, but today is approaching first world status.

Another interesting example is Australia. Back in 1975 Australia's HDI was 0.848 (very high for 1975). By comparison, nations today around that HDI level include Uruguay, Croatia, Latvia and Qatar. This means that people living in these four nations have the same standard of living as Australians did back in 1975. For me, who grew up as a child in the 1970s, this gives a good point of comparison.

Historical events affect the HDI as well. Here's a few I've chosen.

Rwanda
As many of us know, over 800,000 people were killed in the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Strangely, The HDI index doesn't seem to reflect this. The 1990 HDI figure is 0.339 while the 1995 figure is 0.337 - only a slight drop in the nation's (abysmal) standard of living between 1990 and 1995, yet with a genocide occurring in between.

There are obviously statistical anomalies here. The study would have only applied to living people so the loss of 800,000 Rwandans did not overtly affect the (albeit poor) living conditions of the 6 million or so who survived. The 1994 genocide was also preceded by a civil war, which began in 1990.

But what's interesting about Rwanda's HDI figure is not the comparison between the 1990 and 1995 figures, but the 1985 figure - 0.401. What this indicates is that there was a massive drop in the standard of living between 1985 and 1990, a drop which preceded the civil war and the eventual genocide. There's no doubt in my mind that Rwanda's drop in the standard of living was at least partly responsible for the civil war and genocide that followed. What this shows is a link between civil unrest and living standards.

In 2004, Rwanda's HDI figure was 0.450. The highest it has ever been. Let's hope and pray it continues to improve.

Russia
Because of the closed nature of its politics, Russia's HDI figures only begin in 1990 where they show a HDI figure of 0.818. These stats were taken in between the period when Russia was rejecting communism and the eventual end of the USSR in December 1991. Many of us know that in those years a great deal of hardship was endured by the Russian people (as they have always done in their history unfortunately) and this is reflected in the 1995 HDI figure of 0.771. The political turmoil in those years naturally eroded people's standard of living. The HDI figure for 2000 was 0.785 and in 2004 it was 0.797, which shows that in the decade or so since 1995, life for ordinary Russians has improved, but has yet to reach the standard set in the last days of the Soviet Union.

South Africa
South Africa is a shrinking nation. According to the CIA World factbook, South Africa's population is shrinking at an annual rate of -0.46%. While the birth rate is high (17.94 births per 1000 people) the death rate is even higher (22.45 deaths per 1000 people). With people also leaving the country faster than people come in, South Africa appears to be doomed.

It was not always so. We all rejoiced when Apartheid collapsed and Nelson Mandela was elected president in 1994. Yet since then there has been a rising tide of violence and economic misery - hardly the sort of thing you'd like to see in a nation that successfully overthrew a system of government that was immoral. In fact, given the sad state of affairs, it would seem understandable for white South Africans to praise "the good old days" - after all, they had a better standard of living.

South Africa's HDI index in 1990 was 0.735, and in 1995 it was 0.741. A slight rise but a rise nonetheless. Since then it has all been downhill. In 2000 it was 0.691 and in 2004 it was 0.653. The 2004 figure is important because the 1975 figure was also 0.653. This means that the standard of living amongst South Africans has gone backwards by 30 years.

South Africa's death rate is the fifth worst in the world. South Africa also has the 5th highest AIDS rate in the world - 21.5% of the adult population. When you factor in AIDS amongst infants, it is no wonder that the HDI report shows that a South African infant has a 43.3% chance of not surviving to age 40. With death figures and infant mortality rates currently so high, South Africa's HDI index will probably continue to drop. Given the example of Rwanda above - where a drop in living standards led to political turmoil - expect to see the "New South Africa" undergo some pretty bad times ahead.

Zimbabwe
We are all concerned about Zimbabwe, especially under the infantile and destructive rule of Robert Mugabe. We've heard stories of land grabs, hyperinflation and mob violence. Things are bad. Do the HDI figures match this scenario? They sure do, but they tell more to the tale.

Robert Mugabe is undoubtedly to blame for Zimbabwe's decent into the darkness, yet he was once not so universally disliked. Mugabe was instrumental in Zimbabwe overthrowing its own form of Apartheid back in the 1970s, and was actually much like Nelson Mandela in being a freedom fighter turned president.

The impression I had was that Zimbabwe's ills really only started about 5-6 years ago when he started to turf white farmers out of their farms. But the HDI figures show much more than that.

In 1985, Zimbabwe's HDI reached a peak of 0.642. In 1990 it dropped to 0.639. In 1995 it dropped to 0.591 and in 2000 it dropped to 0.525. In 2004 it had dropped down to 0.491. Under Mugabe's reign, Zimbabwe, once one of the more respectable African nations, is now considered a third world country.

Mugabe has led Zimbabwe since 1980, first as Prime Minister and then as President. Before Mugabe, Ian Smith, a white, ruled over Rhodesia (as it was then called) from 1964-1979. Smith's government ran a similar form of apartheid to South Africa. Despite the fact that Smith and the Whites ruled unjustly, living standards did rise between 1975 and 1980.

The HDI figrues show that Zimbabwe's descent did not start in 2000, but in the early 1980s. Obviously Mugabe's desire to dismantle the social and economic infrastructure of the previous white government has led to poverty for all - whites and blacks. Once a fairly respectable developing nation, Zimbabwe has been going backwards for over 20 years.

And like South Africa, Zimbabwe has a massive AIDS problem, but without the economic resources that South Africa has. The HDI study shows that only one infant in three is likely to survive to the age of 40.

Say what you will about Apartheid, the experience of both South Africa and Zimbabwe show that racist paternalism is far better than ignorant anarchy. We in the west should be proud of our efforts to rid these two nations of their immoral governments, but we should be ashamed that our lack of fortitude and will has led these nations to a far worse fate.

The United Kingdom
Tony Blair has been in power for nearly ten years. The Labor Party, supposedly the worker's friend, has been in control since that period as well. But let's look at the historic HDI figures and compare them to the politics of the time:

Date HDI Party in control Change in HDI
1975 0.851 Conservative -
1980 0.859 Labor +0.9% +8pts
1985 0.868 Conservative +1.0% +9pts
1990 0.889 Conservative +2.4% +9pts
1995 0.927 Conservative +4.3% +38pts
2000 0.939 Labor +1.3% +12pts
2004 0.940 Labor +0.1% +1pts

The first thing to note is that Britain's standard of living has been going up for years and is one of the highest in the world. We need to remember that fact as we examine what is going on here.

The next thing to note is that the Conservative party seems to be more able to raise the standard of living than the Labor party. Note that the "party in control" is the political party responsible for the previous 5 years of statistics. Margaret Thatcher is credited with much of the turmoil which went on in early 1980s Britain with her economic reforms ("Thatchernomics"). The HDI figures show that the reforms she put in place between 1980 and 1985 had little effect at the time, but obviously led to some good results for the ten years after that.

Yet when you look at Labor - specifically the Blair government - the figures seem to stagnate. Part of the problem with this is that the HDI figures will never go above 0.999 so the higher the fgures get the harder it is to improve them (the UN may have to re-jig the entire formula in the future). Yet it is interesting that Britain's standard of living only increased by 0.001 between 2000 and 2004. What it might indicate is that economic reforms either dwindled out under Labor or had simply reached their limit. It also might indicate a growth in wealth amongst the rich while the poor are left out, which would result in higher GDP per capita figures but increasingly lower standards of living amongst ordinary people. This is where "trickle down economics" is probably trickling down from the super rich to the rich only.

Whatever the reasons for the current situation, the fact remains that economic growth did improve Britain's standard of living from 1985 to 1995, and that much of that growth did have its basis in Thatcher's Reforms. I would argue, however, that it is a combination of a gutless Blair Labor party and a failure of the "trickle down" theory begun by Thatcher that is probably to blame for the current malaise.

© 2007 Neil McKenzie Cameron, http://one-salient-oversight.blogspot.com/

FAQ about the author





This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.