Is there anyone other than me who suspects that this whole Gleneagles/Live8/Make Poverty History fuss will fizzle out and turn out to have been nothing but an occasion for politicians and rockstars to make some noise?
I have been very nervous of that exact thing happening with these shows. The original idea was so good and so powerful but today it seems diluted. To be honest concerts in general do not hold the pull for me they once did.
This could be attributed to me getting older and losing interest instead of the shows losing their power. EEK! Older?!?!
I do hope this is not the case. It would be great to motivate another generation with really good music and a very humanitarian goal.
Waht bothers me is the joining together of all the great and the good - politicians who talk to rockstars who talk to international bankers who talk to businessmen who talk to NGO and charity leaders who talk to religious leaders who talk to rockstars. You get my point. It's like everyone is being nice to everyone else, everyone is equally nicely for change and equally concerned about the poor African children. I smell the smell of, at best, collective self-delusion. Bear in mind that most of these politicians, bankers, businessmen, etc., were young in the fifties, seventies, eighties - times of protest songs, Concert for Bangladesh, Live Aid, whatever. This may well be the biggest hippies' homecoming in recent history, but there is something about this unanimity that just bugs me. The Pope, thank God, has so far stayed silent.
It's good PR for them, which is probably why so many people are involved. Well, they'll have their fun, raise funds, give speeches, etc., but then, after the concert's over, most people would forget about this. The real test would be if they'll be able to effect real, long-term change. And unless they plan to do some structural change, nothing substantial will happen.
My skepticism is more radical even than that. I doubt whether outside action can seriously alter anything in Africa. Those countries that have become prosperous in the past, from Great Britain in the eighteenth century to South Korea today and apparently China in the near future, have done so through internal, "endogenous" processes - to use a big word. Sub-saharan Africa does not strike me as a very promising ground for swift economic growth.
In particular, I think successful economic growth depends on these factors: the presence of a previously established group of professional and trading skills in everything from banking to medicine to science; the presence of a functioning state structure (preferably but not necessarily free from corruption) capable of efficiently raising tax and spending on clearly defined objectives; and the visible potential for the growth of a middle class capable of developing into a large internal market - in particular, the potential for families to build up capital savings. It is the internal market that drives growth; no country ever grew rich only on exports, but it is easy to quote countries that have been receiving streams of capital for food and raw materials, and yet have grown poorer - think of Argentina - or which, conversely, had to import everything and still grew rich - think of Italy and Japan.
None of these things are visible in sub-saharan Africa, except in South Africa and perhaps Nigeria. These countries mostly entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of social structure, with no such thing as professional or merchant classes - there were some in West Africa, but mostly from intrusive Arabs, Jews, Europeans, or freed slaves - and a state structure, where it existed, built on royal power based on the control of large estates or indeed of the whole country. When Africa was opened to trade, the trade structure was established by European, Lebanese and Indian in-comers; the very skills necessary to open a little shop in the bush were simply unknown to African culture. They have only bedded down in African soil slowly and with great disorder. I do not deny that these things have now gained some sort of purchase in Africa, but it is thin and weak, in societies still largely agrarian and tribal and still dominated by belief in witchcraft. The complete collapse of any sort of settled civilization in countries such as Congo, Liberia and Somalia shows how thin the pattern of a stable society is.
And that being the case, I doubt that even the complete cancellation of all debts will do much for Africa. It can, I suppose, relieve some of the more disastrous situations, where most of state income has to be paid in interest on capital debts that will never be repaid at all, and therefore cannot be reinvested in the country. But Africa will go on suffering from negative trade balance, because most of what it has to sell is food and minerals - raw materials - and most of what it wants to buy is finished materials and services. It will also suffer from a continuing brain drain, because those of its more gifted and educated children who have marketable skills will look for places where they can exercise them more profitably, make more of the profit they make - what is the point of building up savings in Africa if the banking structure is weak and corrupt, opportunities for investment few, and wealth always exposed to raids from bandits or corrupt public powers? - and, indeed, surrounded by less societal ignorance and backwardness. These are things that only the passing of time and the work of many millions of hands can cure; playing around with debt only scratches the surface.
I think successful economic growth depends on these factors:[...]
Don't forget raw materials - England would never have started the industrial revolution without her coal reserves. It worries me that politicians seem to think economic growth can come from pure trade measures, even when there is little to trade with.
No. England would never have started the industrial revolution without cotton - which it had to import. Coal only served to power the machines that wove the cotton.
I was thinking of the industries that grew up around Coalbrookdale, and wasn't intending my comment as a comprehensive analysis of all the factors contributing to the start of the industrial revolution (particularly the various social/religious factors of which I am sure you are more knowledgeable than I).
I'm curious that you say coal 'only' served to power the machines - isn't that massive increase in energy intensity precisely what separates industrial production from cottage industry?
But power as such does diddly. Otherwise Saudi Arabia would be the leading industrial power in the world today, with Russia and Lybia following. I repeat: look at countries like Italy and Japan, that have to import everything, and still are top industrial economies.
You might as well say that cotton as such does diddly. A manufacturing process requires the raw material to work on, energy required to do the work (food-for-people or fuel-for-machines), a means of converting that energy into useful work (tools or machines), and a working method that enables this to be accomplished efficiently. Take away any one of these factors and the process becomes either impossible or pointless.
While energy and raw materials do not necessarily have to be indigenous (or under colonial control), I find it difficult to envisage the early experiments with very inefficient foundries taking place in an area without sufficient local fuel sources - otherwise the speculative investment in buying and transporting the raw materials would be too risky. Once the basic technology has been proven, it becomes more commercially viable for others to invest in improving the technology or management systems, and to build an economy on adding value to traded commodities.
I suppose I'm wary of this strategy because it depends so much on external factors - the continuing availability of imported materials at a viable price; the continuing low cost of transport relative the the value added; the continuous improvement of skills so industry does not relocate abroad. (This last is possibly slightly less likely with a locally-based company serving an internal market, but in that case there needs to be something exported.)
And I'm not sure how feasible it would be to develop an internal market based on adding value to imports in a country where management and professional skills are inadequate to the task - I'd have thought it safer to build up those skills in a largely-internal market based on largely-indigenous resources.
Personally, I can't see the point of Live8 - people are going to the concerts to hear the music, not primarily to support MPH.
More significant will be the demonstration in Edinburgh tomorrow. If tens of thousands of people do make the effort to come (and they have 30,000 on chartered and registered coaches alone) it does indicate that debt cancellation has popular support, which is the sort of message politicians can respond to. It also means that the issue is getting discussed in the media - yes, it's being pushed by NGOs, but covering 100,000 gathering in Edinburgh is of a different order to responding to an Oxfam press release.
Will it make much difference to Africa? I certainly agree with you that debt relief wouldn't solve the problems overnight; I see it more as a prerequisite for being able to tackle those problems. Maybe even prerequisite is putting it too strongly, but I do think it is more than 'an occasion for politicians and rockstars to make some noice'. And I'd much rather see climate change and poverty reduction on the G8 agenda than a relentless focus on reducing trade barriers with no thought for the poor at all.
Ah, but, my dear, reducing trade barriers is exactly what is at the centre of everything. What all the campaigners, beginnign with Bono, want, is to allow the farmers of Africa and South America to compete with those of Europe, America and Japan on even terms. This, as I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, is not the road to prosperity: no economy becomes rich on exporting raw materials (such as foodstuffs), but on developping its human capital and accumulating wealth at home. And this is not something that cancelling debt can do. Debt will come back like the tide if Africa remains a mere supplier of raw materials and foodstuffs.
It didn't begin with Bono - Jubilee 2000 were happy to take advantage of his access to media and politicians, but they gave him the briefing on debt relief issues. I can't speak to what he's saying these days - not being engaged with mass media I don't hear much about those sorts of people, and I'm more inclined to look to the likes of Oxfam and Sciaf for information on development issues.
What all the campaigners, beginnign with Bono, want, is to allow the farmers of Africa and South America to compete with those of Europe, America and Japan on even terms.
It's more that they don't want those farmers to be forced to compete on unfair terms, while their governments are forced to open their economies to overseas companies (particularly when it comes to essential infrastructure such as water supplies).
no economy becomes rich on exporting raw materials (such as foodstuffs), but on developping its human capital and accumulating wealth at home. And this is not something that cancelling debt can do.
It's difficult to accumulate wealth at home when all the wealth generated has to go towards paying debts, or develop 'human capital' (a term I have mixed feelings about) when every day is a desperate struggle to survive. And it's the pressure to repay debts that has forced so many 'third world' economies to be structured around exporting raw materials and foodstuffs rather than developing an economy based on serving local needs.
Which isn't to say that debt relief is sufficient - I seriously doubt the 500 or so organisations that are supporting Make Poverty History will all dissolve themselves if debts are cancelled - but it's the nature of mass campaigning that it's easier to bring people together around an unambiguous and easily communicated message.
It's difficult to accumulate wealth at home when all the wealth generated has to go towards paying debts In my view this is a fallacy born from the confusion between public and private wealth. Through most of the twentieth century, the Italian state was in debt - often massive debt that would cripple an African country. It was continuously supported not only by taxation, but by millions of Italian families buying State bonds. That is because the families were able to buy them, having savings - and State bonds were just about the safest investment there was. Economists at the time decried this diversion of Italian private wealth into supporting government debt rather than investment, but it is not as easy as that. First, bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest, so the capital sooner or later became available again. Second, the bonds themselves were treated like money, passed along as payment for private deals (I saw it done myself) and therefore their value, even when in the State's pockets, was still available to bondholders. Meanshile, and in spite of State poverty and of two disastrous wars, the country as such grew steadily richer. That is because Italian families, individually, did their best to provide for themselves; and that, in turn, depended on an ample and pre-existent pool of professional skills in the society. All of this has very little to do with the State being in debt or not, except to the extent that State services are provided; and a society with a great deal of private wealth available can to a large extent cover up for insufficient State provision - get private health cover, or even private schooling for their children. It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
when every day is a desperate struggle to survive This, I regret to say, is journalistic jargon - froth and wind meaning nothing. When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition. To the contrary, it suited local needs perfectly well. Even in the face of the intrusion of a far more complex economy using skills that African farmers had never heard of, the iron-age farming economy still serves the needs of many Africans well enough. The notion of a "desperate" continent "struggling to survive" erery day of the week is pure nonsense; Africa is not one long slum of beggars not knowing where their next meal will come from. All the famous episodes of famine and starvation have been caused by wars. The point is not that the iron-age farming mindset is inadequate to its time and country, but that it is inadequate to cope with a silicon-age society.
In my view this is a fallacy born from the confusion between public and private wealth.
It's only a fallacy if one excludes private wealth from 'all the wealth', or if you believe that 'trickle-down' effects will result in sufficient development of skills and infrastructure.
The relationship between public and private wealth (and debt) is interesting (but I'm way too tired at the moment to open that huge can of worms).
bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest
Where did the interest come from? Was the State generating wealth to pay it, or was it collecting more in taxes due to economic growth fuelled by private investment? Or...?
It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
Of course, but people in extreme poverty have insufficient wealth by definition, so state provision (or some other means of redistributing wealth internally) is critical for them.
This, I regret to say,
You do? ;)
When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition.
And neither do - or did - I, but whatever the cause(s), both the numbers and proportion of Africans living in extreme poverty (i.e. unable to meet basic needs) rose between 1981 and 2001. That's a lot of people who aren't able to accumulate wealth and whose physical and living conditions are not optimal for aquiring skills.
Yes, I do. I do not like to take up anyone on their style or content where important matters are being discussed. Especially not an ordinarily brilliant writer.
The Italian state paid bonds out of tax income. In the seventies especially this was artificially backed by inflation, but the bonds had to always pay above inflation for savers to buy them, therefore there was always a call on the public income.
I seriously doubt the 500 or so organisations that are supporting Make Poverty History will all dissolve themselves if debts are cancelled Of course not. Bureaucracies replicate themselves.
Nothing makes entertainment celebrities feel more consequential and deserving of praise and adoration than when they do constructive things... like play a lot of music and make commercials about how consequential and worthy of respect they are. I find it strange that hundreds of entertainment millionaires and billionaires can't see their way top parting with some of their own millions and billions in order to solve the problems they ask the average taxpayers to have the government "fix".
Politicians love this crap because they get to hang out with rock stars and cater to a younger audience (read: "future and potential voters").
Young kids and teenagers and college students love this crap because then they get to see their heroes (read: "rock and film stars") being "effective" and "pressuring" polticians into action. It's all smoke and mirrors, but they're too young, generally inexperienced, impressionable and awestruck to realise it. After the concert and when the press coverage dims down to nothing, they'll go back totheir parties, back to their video games, and on to the next cause.
Cancelling debts for Africa will only make room for more debts to be incurred, and then that will lead to another damn concert. It's a cycle, people, and it's a natural one, perpetuated by greed, stupidity, lack of foresight, ignorance (maybe willful) of hostory, envy and arrogance.
I don't particularly care about any of the people performing. They're all has-been bags of hot air who want one last shot at remaining relevant. And as someone pointed out, people aren't going to support the efforts at removing debt in Africa: they're going to see the bands they like.
Whatever happened to the performers who kept their altruism tucked up their sleeve and did good not to achieve the fame and adulation of doing good, but because it was good?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
You are not alone
Date: 2005-07-01 10:04 am (UTC)This could be attributed to me getting older and losing interest instead of the shows losing their power. EEK! Older?!?!
I do hope this is not the case. It would be great to motivate another generation with really good music and a very humanitarian goal.
Re: You are not alone
Date: 2005-07-01 10:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 10:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 12:04 pm (UTC)In particular, I think successful economic growth depends on these factors: the presence of a previously established group of professional and trading skills in everything from banking to medicine to science; the presence of a functioning state structure (preferably but not necessarily free from corruption) capable of efficiently raising tax and spending on clearly defined objectives; and the visible potential for the growth of a middle class capable of developing into a large internal market - in particular, the potential for families to build up capital savings. It is the internal market that drives growth; no country ever grew rich only on exports, but it is easy to quote countries that have been receiving streams of capital for food and raw materials, and yet have grown poorer - think of Argentina - or which, conversely, had to import everything and still grew rich - think of Italy and Japan.
None of these things are visible in sub-saharan Africa, except in South Africa and perhaps Nigeria. These countries mostly entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of social structure, with no such thing as professional or merchant classes - there were some in West Africa, but mostly from intrusive Arabs, Jews, Europeans, or freed slaves - and a state structure, where it existed, built on royal power based on the control of large estates or indeed of the whole country. When Africa was opened to trade, the trade structure was established by European, Lebanese and Indian in-comers; the very skills necessary to open a little shop in the bush were simply unknown to African culture. They have only bedded down in African soil slowly and with great disorder. I do not deny that these things have now gained some sort of purchase in Africa, but it is thin and weak, in societies still largely agrarian and tribal and still dominated by belief in witchcraft. The complete collapse of any sort of settled civilization in countries such as Congo, Liberia and Somalia shows how thin the pattern of a stable society is.
And that being the case, I doubt that even the complete cancellation of all debts will do much for Africa. It can, I suppose, relieve some of the more disastrous situations, where most of state income has to be paid in interest on capital debts that will never be repaid at all, and therefore cannot be reinvested in the country. But Africa will go on suffering from negative trade balance, because most of what it has to sell is food and minerals - raw materials - and most of what it wants to buy is finished materials and services. It will also suffer from a continuing brain drain, because those of its more gifted and educated children who have marketable skills will look for places where they can exercise them more profitably, make more of the profit they make - what is the point of building up savings in Africa if the banking structure is weak and corrupt, opportunities for investment few, and wealth always exposed to raids from bandits or corrupt public powers? - and, indeed, surrounded by less societal ignorance and backwardness. These are things that only the passing of time and the work of many millions of hands can cure; playing around with debt only scratches the surface.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:06 pm (UTC)Don't forget raw materials - England would never have started the industrial revolution without her coal reserves. It worries me that politicians seem to think economic growth can come from pure trade measures, even when there is little to trade with.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 11:34 pm (UTC)I'm curious that you say coal 'only' served to power the machines - isn't that massive increase in energy intensity precisely what separates industrial production from cottage industry?
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 04:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 11:34 pm (UTC)While energy and raw materials do not necessarily have to be indigenous (or under colonial control), I find it difficult to envisage the early experiments with very inefficient foundries taking place in an area without sufficient local fuel sources - otherwise the speculative investment in buying and transporting the raw materials would be too risky. Once the basic technology has been proven, it becomes more commercially viable for others to invest in improving the technology or management systems, and to build an economy on adding value to traded commodities.
I suppose I'm wary of this strategy because it depends so much on external factors - the continuing availability of imported materials at a viable price; the continuing low cost of transport relative the the value added; the continuous improvement of skills so industry does not relocate abroad. (This last is possibly slightly less likely with a locally-based company serving an internal market, but in that case there needs to be something exported.)
And I'm not sure how feasible it would be to develop an internal market based on adding value to imports in a country where management and professional skills are inadequate to the task - I'd have thought it safer to build up those skills in a largely-internal market based on largely-indigenous resources.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:00 pm (UTC)More significant will be the demonstration in Edinburgh tomorrow. If tens of thousands of people do make the effort to come (and they have 30,000 on chartered and registered coaches alone) it does indicate that debt cancellation has popular support, which is the sort of message politicians can respond to. It also means that the issue is getting discussed in the media - yes, it's being pushed by NGOs, but covering 100,000 gathering in Edinburgh is of a different order to responding to an Oxfam press release.
Will it make much difference to Africa? I certainly agree with you that debt relief wouldn't solve the problems overnight; I see it more as a prerequisite for being able to tackle those problems. Maybe even prerequisite is putting it too strongly, but I do think it is more than 'an occasion for politicians and rockstars to make some noice'. And I'd much rather see climate change and poverty reduction on the G8 agenda than a relentless focus on reducing trade barriers with no thought for the poor at all.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-01 04:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 12:20 am (UTC)What all the campaigners, beginnign with Bono, want, is to allow the farmers of Africa and South America to compete with those of Europe, America and Japan on even terms.
It's more that they don't want those farmers to be forced to compete on unfair terms, while their governments are forced to open their economies to overseas companies (particularly when it comes to essential infrastructure such as water supplies).
no economy becomes rich on exporting raw materials (such as foodstuffs), but on developping its human capital and accumulating wealth at home. And this is not something that cancelling debt can do.
It's difficult to accumulate wealth at home when all the wealth generated has to go towards paying debts, or develop 'human capital' (a term I have mixed feelings about) when every day is a desperate struggle to survive. And it's the pressure to repay debts that has forced so many 'third world' economies to be structured around exporting raw materials and foodstuffs rather than developing an economy based on serving local needs.
Which isn't to say that debt relief is sufficient - I seriously doubt the 500 or so organisations that are supporting Make Poverty History will all dissolve themselves if debts are cancelled - but it's the nature of mass campaigning that it's easier to bring people together around an unambiguous and easily communicated message.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 05:22 am (UTC)In my view this is a fallacy born from the confusion between public and private wealth. Through most of the twentieth century, the Italian state was in debt - often massive debt that would cripple an African country. It was continuously supported not only by taxation, but by millions of Italian families buying State bonds. That is because the families were able to buy them, having savings - and State bonds were just about the safest investment there was. Economists at the time decried this diversion of Italian private wealth into supporting government debt rather than investment, but it is not as easy as that. First, bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest, so the capital sooner or later became available again. Second, the bonds themselves were treated like money, passed along as payment for private deals (I saw it done myself) and therefore their value, even when in the State's pockets, was still available to bondholders. Meanshile, and in spite of State poverty and of two disastrous wars, the country as such grew steadily richer. That is because Italian families, individually, did their best to provide for themselves; and that, in turn, depended on an ample and pre-existent pool of professional skills in the society. All of this has very little to do with the State being in debt or not, except to the extent that State services are provided; and a society with a great deal of private wealth available can to a large extent cover up for insufficient State provision - get private health cover, or even private schooling for their children. It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
when every day is a desperate struggle to survive
This, I regret to say, is journalistic jargon - froth and wind meaning nothing. When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition. To the contrary, it suited local needs perfectly well. Even in the face of the intrusion of a far more complex economy using skills that African farmers had never heard of, the iron-age farming economy still serves the needs of many Africans well enough. The notion of a "desperate" continent "struggling to survive" erery day of the week is pure nonsense; Africa is not one long slum of beggars not knowing where their next meal will come from. All the famous episodes of famine and starvation have been caused by wars. The point is not that the iron-age farming mindset is inadequate to its time and country, but that it is inadequate to cope with a silicon-age society.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-03 12:32 am (UTC)It's only a fallacy if one excludes private wealth from 'all the wealth', or if you believe that 'trickle-down' effects will result in sufficient development of skills and infrastructure.
The relationship between public and private wealth (and debt) is interesting (but I'm way too tired at the moment to open that huge can of worms).
bonds were redeemed at the end of their cycle, and paid generous interest
Where did the interest come from? Was the State generating wealth to pay it, or was it collecting more in taxes due to economic growth fuelled by private investment? Or...?
It is when private wealth is insufficient that State provision becomes critical.
Of course, but people in extreme poverty have insufficient wealth by definition, so state provision (or some other means of redistributing wealth internally) is critical for them.
This, I regret to say,
You do? ;)
When I say that the African economy entered the twentieth century in an Iron Age sort of condition, I do not say that it was a desperate condition.
And neither do - or did - I, but whatever the cause(s), both the numbers and proportion of Africans living in extreme poverty (i.e. unable to meet basic needs) rose between 1981 and 2001. That's a lot of people who aren't able to accumulate wealth and whose physical and living conditions are not optimal for aquiring skills.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-04 06:00 pm (UTC)Yes, I do. I do not like to take up anyone on their style or content where important matters are being discussed. Especially not an ordinarily brilliant writer.
The Italian state paid bonds out of tax income. In the seventies especially this was artificially backed by inflation, but the bonds had to always pay above inflation for savers to buy them, therefore there was always a call on the public income.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 05:23 am (UTC)Of course not. Bureaucracies replicate themselves.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-03 12:33 am (UTC)Now, that's not what I meant, and you know it. :)
no subject
Date: 2005-07-03 04:32 am (UTC)Smoke and Mirrors and Money
Date: 2005-07-01 04:40 pm (UTC)Politicians love this crap because they get to hang out with rock stars and cater to a younger audience (read: "future and potential voters").
Young kids and teenagers and college students love this crap because then they get to see their heroes (read: "rock and film stars") being "effective" and "pressuring" polticians into action. It's all smoke and mirrors, but they're too young, generally inexperienced, impressionable and awestruck to realise it. After the concert and when the press coverage dims down to nothing, they'll go back totheir parties, back to their video games, and on to the next cause.
Cancelling debts for Africa will only make room for more debts to be incurred, and then that will lead to another damn concert. It's a cycle, people, and it's a natural one, perpetuated by greed, stupidity, lack of foresight, ignorance (maybe willful) of hostory, envy and arrogance.
Pardon me for my cynicism, but I get it honestly.
no subject
Date: 2005-07-02 01:56 am (UTC)Whatever happened to the performers who kept their altruism tucked up their sleeve and did good not to achieve the fame and adulation of doing good, but because it was good?