hi Sam and platt,
again, jumping into the middle of an argument and debating points that
werent made, but critique of all ideas is good in my mind, wether someone
ment (<- is that the word?) to propose them or not.
Sam's article said this:
> Opportunities for private profit, not government plans, held the
> key to development. Governments had the limited though crucial role of
> protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, treating everybody
> equally before the law, minimising inflation and keeping taxes low.
Elliot:
this role of governement was, in the 1950's to 70's, considered heresy
because in at the turn of the century the "night watchman" state had
failed. The long depression in europe and the great depression in america
showed that state capitalism was nessicary as liberal capitalism collapsed.
State capitalisms programs help keep the poor supplied with enough money to
participate in the economic system, thus allowing it to grow more quickly
(and it ends the pesky posibillity for antagonism from the proletariot).
(I dont have a source for this next part, just paraphrasing from memory,
but i could find a source if there is contestation) Brittan had had the
luxery of taking its time in developing the institutions and environment
nessicary for industrialization. When Germany, not having the same
development towards industrilization, decided to follow brittans steps, it
was clear that it would take far to long. thus a program of government
subsides pumped cash into buisnesses and greatly accelerated the rate of
industrialization. Third world countires dont even have a government with
enough money to subsidize, hence the idea of aid. Waiting for them to
catch up with the first world through natural historical processes would
take a very long time, as it took a long time for the proper environment to
occur in america and brittan. and just one last comment:
the article said:
Nor does Lord Bauer favour population control. Worries about population
growth, he says, reflect a patronising view that the poor are incapable of
making sensible choices about having children.
Elliot:
I agree to an extent. The current ideas of over population do make the
poor out to seem dirty and stupid. However, over population is a real
problem, not in poor countries but in rich ones. Every suburban home is
eqivilant to a medium sized dirt poor african village in its consumption of
resources (which is the problem of over population). Thus ideas of
population control aimed at the poor are just a reaction to first world
hatred of unindustrialized poor countires (people). And his line that the
population explosion is a blessing because it stems from "improvement in
people's
welfare" ignores the real threat of over population. Yes, the poor arent
the problem, but the threat is still there (or here rather) and should not
be considered a blessing.
This Bauer fellow has some good ideas, but at some points neglects
actuality. Large first world countires have an agenda, the thrid world
plays into it. Allowing third world countries to develope at their own
pace would be marvelous, but current ideas of "world progress" prevent it.
Also, the claim (made by Bauer perhaps) that thrid world countries werent
harmed by colonialism is based on faulty reasoning. Because the tird world
is better off now then it was before hand is irrelevant. technology, not
colonialism, has made this possible. the question of quality is not in
comparisson to the past but to what is possible. If the thrid world had
alot of potential before colonialism and has, after colonialism, reached
much less than that or is incapable of realizing its previous potential,
then it has been harmed. This takes alot more analysis than simple "their
better off now" comparisons.
Elliot
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:15 BST