Consistently Inconsistent…

Recently I have been keeping track of the events in the USA’s economy and the attempts that are being planned and/or made to “bailout” their economy. Apart from the fact that these events in and of themselves are fascinating and do in fact have global repercussions, it is the USA government’s response that I find the most fascinating.

Over the years the USA has been at the forefront of the development of and advocating for a global (free-market and/or capitalist) economy as well as numerous efforts to bring democracy to various corners of the globe. What I find interesting though is the limited and very selective applications of these ideologies at times – with the one consistency some would argue is that the USA is better off. What am I talking about? Although the USA brought democracy (to some degree) to different countries they, with the assistance of other countries, have prevented a true global democracy – I’m once again referring to the existence of the veto power of the UN Security Council. There are other, some would say debatable, examples where it has been ensured that introduced democracies are USA friendly, but that’s something I’m not going to go into right now.

Then there is the $700 billion proposed bailout of the USA economy. It is being sold as something that is good for the world, but it has to be argued that it also attempts to ensure the USA maintains its position as a global economic leader – a position that is coming under threat more and more from the EU, Chinese and Indian economies. Then there is the irony of taking an arguably socialist action in an attempt to shore-up a falling economy. Some say that the number don’t lie and while I don’t always agree with this the fact that this bailout could free the entire African continent from its foreign debt 3.5 times over is definitely eye-opening and at the very least this has to cause us to question the USA’s claims of benevolence. I’ll close of with two comments I came across recently regarding this plan-of-action. Allan Chernoff (CNN, Senior Correspondent) said that this plan is “throwing capitalism on its head” and a US Senator Jim Bunning said that this is “socialism and it is un-American”.

On this day in 2008; yes TODAY…

Today, across the USA and possibly parts of the world too people are remembering the tragic and arguably preventable events which occurred on Tuesday, 11 September 2001 and which resulted in the deaths of nearly three thousand people. Without a doubt many of us remember those images of the Twin Towers and perhaps even remember where we were when we first heard.

But I thought I’d take on this opportunity to remember another tragic and preventable occurrence taking place today – the death of 16,000 children due to poverty, hunger, malnutrition and everything else that goes with it. But I guess that’s not really news-worthy, not to mention that those children are somewhere else out of sight so probably out of mind, not so?

Anyway, I just wanted to get that off my chest and air this sense of frustration I feel with the systematic impoverishment of those who don’t seem to matter. Some might ask me what I’m doing about this. Well, nothing directly at the moment but I guess I’m increasing my awareness; I’m educating myself, for now. But, for now I’ll close with something from a well-known (and occasionally controversial) 21st century leader…

"where you [are from] should not decide whether you live or whether you die..."

PS: There will be another 16,000 tomorrow…

Thoughts on Poverty ... postscript

Although I took a different look on the idea of poverty in my last entry, something that was by no means an original idea, there is a fiscal reality worth looking at again. In an entry called “The World at (not so) Large...” I mentioned the changing ratio between the world’s richest and it’s poorest. The reason I mention this again is that recent history shows that while the “lords of this (global) manor” may appear well-intentioned at times, even the fiscal facts vehemently contradict their promises and apparent intentions.

Thoughts on Poverty...

Following my recently blog entries I have been thinking about the issue of poverty – the alleviation of which is often cited as a reason for economic development in developing countries. This is the kind of thing I hear at times here in Cusco and I also heard it while I was living in London – sometimes these things are said in an implied way, although there is at times the unspoken idea that those saying that want to be able to make their own profits in the process too.

The problem is that I believe ‘poverty’ is at best misunderstood and at worst that misunderstanding is (mis)used for financial gain. What do I mean by this? I look at Cusco – the developing tourism sector, the resultant foreign investment, not to mention the scale of urban-ward movement. It’s all justified at times on the basis that it’s developing the economy, although the foreigner-led profit hunt is never denied. While I haven’t seen any figures I think it’s a safe bet to guess that there is considerably more money flowing through this region now that say 20 years ago, but I doubt that everyone is better off.

Back to poverty… In a world where decisions (both personal and perhaps political) are often made primarily based on the fiscal impact it’s interesting to note that poverty is mostly defined in terms of fiscal factors – even the United Nations has universal poverty line determined in monetary terms. The problem I have with this is that I don’t believe that it’s a true and holistic picture (some people I have spoken to agree with this but don’t see any way out). While it’s possible to look at issues such as the so-called “culture of poverty” or the “cycle of poverty” among other things I want to focus on one idea.

Not too long ago a hypothetical “Paolo” may have been living below the UN-determined poverty line but in his community where forms of bartering were still central cash was not a central issue. He was living not too far from Cusco and as the changes took place in the town and surrounding areas he move into the city to find the “better life” everyone was talking about. Jump forward a few years… He’s a grandfather and his kids have more cash-in-hand that he did (even relatively speaking), but he and many like him are now second-class citizens in their home country/region. Why second-class? Because, fiscal responsibility says that the tourist-dollar is priority; that is what matters. He and others like him have money and perhaps a job of some sort, but are they better off or are they perhaps (in some non-fiscal way) actually poorer?