War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Colin Powell and Dick Cheney are in perfect agreement. And the Bush administration won't privatize Social Security.

Powell pulled no punches. "The best formula for development is freedom," he declared. Powell turned to the growing famine in South Africa's northern neighbor, Zimbabwe. Drought and economic mismanagement are surely factors in the famine there, but he also pointed out, "The lack of respect for human rights and the rule of law have exacerbated these factors to push millions of people toward the brink of starvation."

Curiously, it was at this point that the activists started hooting and chanting. It is nearly beyond belief that any reasonable person would support the expropriation of farms by Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, a dictator who is in power because he stole the last election; but the activists did just that. Even UN Secretary General Kofi Annan declared, "There can be no lasting solution to the current problems unless the Government of Zimbabwe implements a phased and fully funded land reform program." Annan added that any land reform program should be "run according to the rule of law."

As for savings, much economic theory argues that people save rationally over their lifetimes for retirement. But behavioral economists show that people systematically procrastinate — they spend today and plan to save tomorrow.

This may seem obvious. But consider how far Social Security privatization has gotten, based largely on the new classical view of rational human behavior. Proponents argue that if people are deprived of Social Security as a safety net, almost all of them will save adequately for retirement, no matter their level of income. There is no basis in human observation or economic history for this conclusion. For many people, especially with lower incomes, saving is very difficult.

"We already regard Ex-Im as the poster boy for the anti-corporate-welfare movement," said Stephen Moore, an analyst at the Cato Institute, a Washington research group that promotes free trade. "It's a huge amount of money that goes to the wealthiest corporations. There is no rationale for the government to be involved in this."

"Is this the best way to create U.S. jobs?" asked Representative Bernard Sanders, the Vermont independent and one of the few Congressional critics. "Absolutely not. Export-Import is generous with taxpayer dollars and we get nothing in return. It's vulgar. At a time when we are having a real crisis in this country and are losing jobs, Ex-Im is sending them overseas. Yet these are the most important corporations in the United States and they get what they want in Washington."

Mud oozed between the village woman's toes, as she made her way between the shanty houses. Not plain mud, but mud containing rotting garbage, human and animal faeces, urine, and years of decaying vegetation. She milked an emaciated cow.

The stench in this small village in north India was appalling. A gaunt man vomited from the window of a dilapidated bus. Children sat in wet dung and urine making dung pats to dry for fuel; a man rummaged in a garbage heap, like the pig and goat nearby, for whatever might be edible.

This sort of poverty is miraculous. Ghastly, but miraculous, and perhaps the most extraordinary accomplishment of modern governments. Poor countries are the world's true "economic miracles", not post-war Germany, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Singapore, Botswana or Mauritius.

Prosperity in such countries is no "miracle". It is the natural outcome of relative economic freedom. If there are "economic miracles", they are backward countries, where governments have succeeded in preventing prosperity. India is a nation of manifestly energetic and enterprising people. If left alone, they would prosper. This was clearly demonstrated when India implemented modest pro-market reforms and the country was rewarded with one of the world's highest growth rates.