The Root Cause of Indian Reservation Poverty

[star2city]

Un-American Reservations - Lack of Property Rights unfairly burdens Indian economic freedoms

Since the publication of Adam Smith’s "The Wealth of Nations" economists have struggled to find the causes of economic growth. Though the complete development recipe remains elusive, nearly all economists agree that two ingredients are crucial—secure property rights and a stable rule of law.

The importance of these ingredients is no more apparent than on American Indian reservations, which are islands of poverty in a sea of prosperity. ... What explains such big differences? The simple answer is property rights and the rule of law. By comparing reservation economies with and without these institutions, we can get a sense of their importance. Before examining these data, let us consider how property rights and markets fit into Native American history.

One commonly cited explanation for the lack of growth among American Indian communities is the incompatibility between traditional cultures and modern markets. But before Indians ever made contact with modern European cultures, they employed market principles—most notably, property rights and trade. ...

Throughout the continent, American Indians established extensive trade networks indicating their willingness to participate in markets. The best evidence of the extent of these networks is the fact that an axe made and traded by the Lewis and Clark Expedition during its stay in the Mandan village (in what is now North Dakota) in the winter of 1804-05 found its way to the west coast before the expedition itself a year after the trade.

To observe the impact of insecure property rights on reservation economies, you only need to drive through a western Indian reservation. One side of the fence is over grazed, lacks cultivation, and has a substandard house, while the other side is growing an irrigated crop and has well maintained buildings and equipment. You can be sure that the prosperous land is held in fee-simple private ownership, regardless of whether the private owner is Indian or non-Indian.

Not only does trusteeship saddle Indian lands with bureaucratic oversight, it prevents Indians from using their land as collateral for borrowing. An analysis of agricultural productivity across the three tenure categories shows that individual Indian trust lands are 30 to 40 percent less productive than fee-simple lands and that tribal trust lands are 80 to 90 percent less productive.

So in a sense, the United State government unwittingly imposed the idea of a socialist collective upon Indian tribes, which has proven to be a massive economic failure, much like HUD housing in inner cities. Both allow very limited property rights.

What's especially ironic is that the primary beneficiaries of the current system are the Indian leaders, who on each reservation bestow benefits upon their favorites, much like the Kremlin does. With each change in leadership, what was once "owned", may no longer be, creating an impossible situation for commerce and borrowing. It should be no surprise that these same Indian leaders would claim that nicknames are a form of discrimination, almost as a method of justifying their behaviors and lack of progress. That our supposedly intellectuals among us - college professors - should claim that discrimination from nicknames are a cause of poverty just goes to show how detached their ideals are from real economic understanding. Many college professors have socialist leanings, so they thought that Indian reservations have socialist economic policies that are failing miserably is not something they want highlighted.

[lomackman]

Un-American Reservations - Lack of Property Rights unfairly burdens Indian economic freedoms

So in a sense, the United State government unwittingly imposed the idea of a socialist collective upon Indian tribes, which has proven to be a massive economic failure, much like HUD housing in inner cities. Both allow very limited property rights.

What's especially ironic is that the primary beneficiaries of the current system are the Indian leaders, who on each reservation bestow benefits upon their favorites, much like the Kremlin does. With each change in leadership, what was once "owned", may no longer be, creating an impossible situation for commerce and borrowing. It should be no surprise that these same Indian leaders would claim that nicknames are a form of discrimination, almost as a method of justifying their behaviors and lack of progress. That our supposedly intellectuals among us - college professors - should claim that discrimination from nicknames are a cause of poverty just goes to show how detached their ideals are from real economic understanding. Many college professors have socialist leanings, so they thought that Indian reservations have socialist economic policies that are failing miserably is not something they want highlighted.

How did that capitalist stock market crash in 2008 do for you?

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

How did that capitalist stock market crash in 2008 do for you?

Why did the stock market crash? Do you know?

[andtheHomeoftheSIOUX!!]

Un-American Reservations - Lack of Property Rights unfairly burdens Indian economic freedoms

So in a sense, the United State government unwittingly imposed the idea of a socialist collective upon Indian tribes, which has proven to be a massive economic failure, much like HUD housing in inner cities. Both allow very limited property rights.

What's especially ironic is that the primary beneficiaries of the current system are the Indian leaders, who on each reservation bestow benefits upon their favorites, much like the Kremlin does. With each change in leadership, what was once "owned", may no longer be, creating an impossible situation for commerce and borrowing. It should be no surprise that these same Indian leaders would claim that nicknames are a form of discrimination, almost as a method of justifying their behaviors and lack of progress. That our supposedly intellectuals among us - college professors - should claim that discrimination from nicknames are a cause of poverty just goes to show how detached their ideals are from real economic understanding. Many college professors have socialist leanings, so they thought that Indian reservations have socialist economic policies that are failing miserably is not something they want highlighted.

Star: Reservations are an excellent example of what is wrong with socialistic societies. The Sioux nickname/logo debate is just a small part of the overall bigger picture but it still represents a particular battle that is followed closely by the general public.

[STS]

How did that capitalist stock market crash in 2008 do for you?

LOL! Good one!

Wait, that was a joke right?

[bisonh8er]

Obviously you guys don't realize it. The Sioux name is the real source of all reservation problems. Just ask them.

[star2city]

How did that capitalist stock market crash in 2008 do for you?

If you still believed in America and it's promise, the spring of 2009 was perhaps the most opportune ever to invest. You could have been retired now!

Star: Reservations are an excellent example of what is wrong with socialistic societies. The Sioux nickname/logo debate is just a small part of the overall bigger picture but it still represents a particular battle that is followed closely by the general public.

The left battled correctly for civil rights, but those same people have no clue and could care less about property rights, which is just as important ingredient to make economic progress.