Thursday, May 05, 2005
The rich get richer, the poor get a little less poor
Every so often the World Bank reminds us that things are just fine:
"Developing countries grew at their sharpest rate for three decades last year, faster than wealthy nations, the World Bank said yesterday... Even sub-Saharan Africa, which includes some of the world's poorest nations, became wealthier last year, helped by soaring commodity prices - the region is rich in oil and metals."
I can already hear the host of apologists for capitalism, crowing: India & China used to be poor countries, and now they're becoming richer - thanks to capitalism. You anti-capitalists are hurting the poor people you claim to represent. Capitalism is slowly but surely making the world better, and all we have to do is wait for the market to wave its magic wand.
Problem #1) These are only part of the facts. By 'human development' indices i.e. looking at social development beyond how much money is earned in an entire country, poor countries are doing worse than they were 20 years ago. Debt continues to be a crushing burden, according to Oxfam, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.
Problem #2) Wealth is distributed unfairly. This argument assumes capitalism = development i.e. that the only way to end poverty is by creating private wealth, which will then trickle down to the poor in the usual fashion. No sane anti-capitalist is against development; they're just against capitalism i.e. a particular kind of development.
Capitalism is a way of organizing production. We all work and create wealth together. But only a few people get the benefits. So capitalism develops unevenly. It concentrates great wealth in a few hands, while leaving vast numbers of people desperately poor. Whatever capitalists 'give' the working class, they reward themselves immeasurably more.
Anti-capitalists are asking, "All that money comes from our labour. Why does it go to the rich? Shouldn't it be shared among those who made it?" The American military budget this year is over $420 billion. Imagine that money, plus the billions lost to overproduction every year, spent on real development: hospitals, renewable energy, etc - democratically chosen by the people it affects.
Growth is going to happen regardless (unless the ruling class decides to bomb somewhere or close factories - but that's another story.) The question is: what kind of growth do we want? An economy where the richest 500 own as much as the next 3 billion (true, by the way) and some of that money trickles down to us, if we're lucky? Or where the vast wealth generated by human activity is put to good use, not siphoned off for profit?
Today's music: Serge Gainsbourg, Ford Mustang
"Developing countries grew at their sharpest rate for three decades last year, faster than wealthy nations, the World Bank said yesterday... Even sub-Saharan Africa, which includes some of the world's poorest nations, became wealthier last year, helped by soaring commodity prices - the region is rich in oil and metals."
I can already hear the host of apologists for capitalism, crowing: India & China used to be poor countries, and now they're becoming richer - thanks to capitalism. You anti-capitalists are hurting the poor people you claim to represent. Capitalism is slowly but surely making the world better, and all we have to do is wait for the market to wave its magic wand.
Problem #1) These are only part of the facts. By 'human development' indices i.e. looking at social development beyond how much money is earned in an entire country, poor countries are doing worse than they were 20 years ago. Debt continues to be a crushing burden, according to Oxfam, and the gap between rich and poor continues to widen.
Problem #2) Wealth is distributed unfairly. This argument assumes capitalism = development i.e. that the only way to end poverty is by creating private wealth, which will then trickle down to the poor in the usual fashion. No sane anti-capitalist is against development; they're just against capitalism i.e. a particular kind of development.
Capitalism is a way of organizing production. We all work and create wealth together. But only a few people get the benefits. So capitalism develops unevenly. It concentrates great wealth in a few hands, while leaving vast numbers of people desperately poor. Whatever capitalists 'give' the working class, they reward themselves immeasurably more.
Anti-capitalists are asking, "All that money comes from our labour. Why does it go to the rich? Shouldn't it be shared among those who made it?" The American military budget this year is over $420 billion. Imagine that money, plus the billions lost to overproduction every year, spent on real development: hospitals, renewable energy, etc - democratically chosen by the people it affects.
Growth is going to happen regardless (unless the ruling class decides to bomb somewhere or close factories - but that's another story.) The question is: what kind of growth do we want? An economy where the richest 500 own as much as the next 3 billion (true, by the way) and some of that money trickles down to us, if we're lucky? Or where the vast wealth generated by human activity is put to good use, not siphoned off for profit?
Today's music: Serge Gainsbourg, Ford Mustang
