Skip to main content

Thoughts...


To me a recent discussion I got into raises some questions that might make a nifty study to undertake. Such a study might ask;


  • What share of the populations of what developing countries work either making things that are exported to the developed world or are employed by developed world companies?
  • What alternatives to this work are available?
  • Are the old ways pre-employment still available?
  • Over what time scale have people's material circumstances changed?
  • How have those circumstances changed?
  • And what are the likely future trends for such people?


Those are crucial questions in identifying who is living under what circumstances and to correctly identify the reasons for those circumstances. But since a £40k grant from a major university hasn't just fallen into my lap I ain't going to be doing any such thing.



DEATH

Some basis for claims about how many people die worldwide for what reasons every year;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate

A graphical breakdown of total 20th Century mortality by cause;
http://infobeautiful3.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/03/iib_death_wellcome_collection_fullsize.png

I don't see where the correlation between large numbers of annual human deaths on Earth and the existence of capitalism rests. Everywhere it's been tried there is a weak correlation but it's negative - that is capitalistic places see less death, at least after a few decades' worth of economic development off the back of that same capitalism;



SPREADSHEET LIVING

Humans are heterogeneous, human actions are heterogeneous, and land and capital are heterogeneous.

Therefore totting up quantities of stuff - and of, say, people in poverty or numbers of people who die of starvation per year - that exist on Earth and saying one of these aggregates can alleviate the other does not represent the real-world challenges of implementing such a solution - otherwise central planning would work.

Otherwise such things would have been solved by charitable giving and government foreign aid by now.



POVERTY

A report on the effects of Zimbabwe's socialist land reforms on agricultural productivity - that is, actual production of food that humans can eat. One of the sub-articles deals with the on-the-ground consequences for food production and mass starvation of imposing a commons in land;
http://www.cgdev.org/page/scorched-earth-zimbabwe-and-after-satellite-photos

A fabulous news story elucidating the same point as the link just above;
http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/news/zimsit_agriculture-tale-zimbabwes-sleeping-giant/

Poverty rate lower than ever because of capitalism, including in Africa - will be extinct in 25 years tops absent WW3;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/10/05/for-the-first-time-less-than-10-percent-of-the-world-is-living-in-extreme-poverty-world-bank-says/

Dambisa Moyo explains why government to government aid is a non-starter - points out that $1 trillion has been spent on it to no long-term positive effect at all;
http://dambisamoyo.com/publications-articles-videos/books/dead-aid/
http://www.cfr.org/world/aid-dead-discussion-dambisa-moyo-foreign-aid-development/p34548



ESCAPE

M-PESA offers an easy way for farmers in Kenya & Tanzania to get access to credit to improve their farms through eg. fertilisers and machinery;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa

The European Union Common Agricultural Policy is one of the biggest obstacles to more productive agriculture in Africa;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Agricultural_Policy#Anti-development

Clearly any attempt to turn the continent into a commons ain't going to work QED Zimbabwe farming commons;
http://www.cgdev.org/page/scorched-earth-zimbabwe-and-after-satellite-photos

Africans are not somehow magically different from other people. They will escape poverty in their own ways ('their own ways' meaning each person will find their own way) and the best thing an outsider can do is;
a. let them by leaving them alone
b. donate to a charity that doesn't interact with Western or African governments
c. invest in African enterprise



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Private Ownership and the Emergence of Field-based Agriculture

Quick update: There is a nicer, fancier article on this very subject on another blog. If for some reason you read my article below, treat yourself and partake of properal's piece too . ~~~ There is a paper by Samuel Bowles and Jung-Kyoo Choi called 'Coevolution of farming and private property during the early Holocene' and it is wonderful. It leaves a few stones unturned and its thesis needs to be empirically verified or falsified but it really begins to clarify the intimate relationship between the form of agriculture that we refer to as farming on the one hand and private ownership on the other. Their thesis is that technology was not the driver that led to long-term (inter-generational) farming, but also that farming did not follow some moment where the folks in a society all said "hey, let's all have private property now!" Rather, what they posit is that farming and private property actually coalesced, ad-hoc and over a multi-generational time-fram...

I AM AN AUSTRIAN

Is it so wrong? Really? Just humour me, dudes and dudettes. I am an Austrian. I am a Libertarian. I am an Austro-Libertarian. I'm evidently also a hypocrite, as I've used most of these words without capitals in past posts. Oops. I've made Austrian economics my home because it accords better with certain concerns of mine; why have a subjective theory of value and then lump desires and capacities into aggregates? Why declare that economic facts can be gleaned from the movements of particular markets at particular times in the past? Rothbard sums up the problem with both phenomena in a way that no mainstream economist ever would, since to do so would be to admit that there are entire fields of modern economics that are, at best, pointless, and at worst, harmful. NOT MAINSTREAM? Why is Austrian economics not mainstream? It rejects the efficacy of aggregates and mathematical formulae to arrive at economic truths. According to the Austrian worldview,...

1318 - The Evil Capitalists Own Your Mom!

The New Scientist ran a piece  on the economic relationships between the 43,060 transnational corporations in the world as of 2007. It turns out that 147 of 'em are thick as thieves, which each of those 147 entirely owned by one or more of the others within that clique. Naturally some anti-capitalists have decided that this proliferation of tight interconnections constitutes the proof that not buying what someone's selling will fail to put that seller out of business. Takes all sorts to make a world, brah. Is concentration scary in itself? No; John Driffill of the University of London, a macroeconomics expert, says the value of the analysis is not just to see if a small number of people controls the global economy, but rather its insights into economic stability. Concentration of power is not good or bad in itself, says the Zurich team, but the core’s tight interconnections could be. As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable . “If one [compan...