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?
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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)