« More steam power .... | Main | Responding to hatred »
July 12, 2005
A moral argument or yet another anti-enterprise stunt?
I have no doubt that Bob Geldof and his fellow "artistes" meant very well and do feel very strongly about what they see as the "immorality" of the "Developed World" and the poverty in Africa. What they simply refuse to acknowledge is that it is a far more complex issue than simply "fair trade", whatever that may be, or "making poverty history"! I do find it very interesting that here are a group of people whose fortunes have arisen from their ability to earn obscene amounts of money from their "talents" in our rather effete and self-indulgent society, who seemingly honestly believe that they and their vast wealth can be sustained while everyone else must pay the price of transfering wealth from our societies to those, they seem to be saying, that we have "stolen" it from.
There seems to be a belief that all trade is inherently unfair, that enterprise, that wealth generation, is somehow at the root of all the world's problems. It is this simplistic approach which sees our benefit-subsisting "rent-a-mob" beseiging the G8 summit and deliberately seeking to disrupt the lives and the towns they descend upon in order to disrupt the meeting of this important group. Mind you, it must also be recognised that the members of the G8 Group have contributed to this sort of anarchist approach by creating a political system in which, once they are elected, they feel they can safely ignore all the voices in the electorate.
What I find most disturbing about all of this is that the moralism of the Pop Culture is, at best, shallow and based on assuaging personal guilt feelings. These pop stars feel that they are above the common herd and, as a result of their transient popularity, also feel that they can speak for their adoring fans. Well, let them give back to their fans the obscene wealth they strip from ordinary wage earners with the inflated prices of their concerts, records, tapes, and CDs. Let's see them give some of the vast fortunes that allow people like the Beckham's (Posh Spice and her footballer husband) to own several mansions in several countries, to earn obscene amounts of money for entertaining "the masses".
Why do I detect the reek of the last days of ancient Rome in this? There, too, in the closing days of the Roman Empire, the gladiators suddenly became the "pop stars" earning huge fortunes and buying up huge estates from impoverished families.
Frankly, the circus of rent-a-mobs that go around the world these days attempting to prevent/disrupt or simply create mayhem on the grounds that they wish to point out the "immorality" of the G8 and that "globalisation" is an abuse of our much vaiunted "freedom" of expression. This shower of cretins would not have the liberty nor the "dole-in-pocket" to do this if we were not the affluent society we are.
Yet there is also a warning here, one our so-called leaders are reluctant to admit. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, now so often portrayed by the liberal left as having "enslaved" the "working classes", each subsequent generation has been able to look forward to a better standard of living to that enjoyed by their parents. That is no longer the case; the trend is now inexorably reversing. My children will, in all probability (unless they can pull off a meteoric transition to pop stardom or become - God forbid - politicians!) enjoy a lower standard of living to that I have enjoyed - and worked damned hard for in the face of stiff opposition from the likes of Mr Blair and his fellow "Socialists!". They, in their turn, will almost inevitably also enjoy a better standard of living to that their children can expect. One reason for this is almost certainly the fact that there are now far too many people chasing too few real jobs and too few opportunities for improvement.
Basically, if you are born into one of the small number of global families who control 70% of the world's wealth - you're OK. If not, you're on a slippery slope which will only get worse as the likes of Bob Geldof and his well-meaning fellow musicians grab the attention of the politicians (who now have a nice niche in controlling access to and retention of wealth) and devise new ways to strip the hard working and tax-paying population of as much as they can to "redistribute" it into the Swiss Bank accounts of all the tinpot dictators such as Mugabe.
Personally, when I see the Swiss Bank accounts of these thieves who masquerade as "Presidents" and their cronies emptied and the money returned to the national economies they have stolen it from, when I see the likes of Bob Geldof and his fellow "touchy-feelys" actually setting up hospitals, creating jobs, and building schools, I might be more inclined to support their efforts. As things stand, I do not think that forgiving African Debts and pouring in more "aid" will change the root cause of the problem. The African lands are overpopulated and unable to support themselves with food production. The assets of these nations have been stripped and deposited in the personal bank accounts of the small rulling elites installed by the likes of Blair and other "liberal" Left wing politicians - who now refuse to acknowledge their complicity.
When those assets are returned to the people of Africa (most of which came from Western Government Aid, anyway!) and the infrastructures of these countries start to get the benefit of that injection of cash - then, and only then, should more money flow. Giving more food is not the right answer, either. We can feed a man today for today, but if we give him the means to take care of himself we give him both dignity and the means to feed himself today, tomorrow, and for all time.
That, and we better get a grip on the declining opportunites for our own populations - tomorrow will be far too late. By then they will be the basket cases that we now see in Africa - and no one will be there to organise a Pop Concert on their behalf. Blair and his "luvvies" will have fled - taking their wealth with them.
Posted by The Gray Monk at July 12, 2005 10:00 AM
Comments
I agree with most of what you say here, but will take issue on the overpopulation of Africa. I don't have the figures, but I don't think Africa is overpopulated; it's true they cannot provide enough food to support their populations, but that is as much a function of corruption, lack of technology, lack of property rights etc etc. Just look at Zimbabwe, it can no longer feed itself not because the population has expanded, but because of Mugabe's stupid land reforms. If they had proper governments that encouraged investements, trade and profit many of these countries pressing problems would be wiped out without any aid.
Posted by: fdm at July 12, 2005 03:31 PM
In pure terms of "people per acre or square mile" you may be right on the population figures - except that roughly 40% of the land is desert and around another 30% is bordering on being semi-desert to "poor" arrable. Only the West and the central belt across Equatorial Africa and into East Africa is fully "good" arable land and even in South Africa, the so called "bread basket" of Africa the usable arable land and the yields per acre are not particularly high. Mismanagement and misgovernance certainly plays a major part, but even under sound land management there would be a major shortfall if Africa had to rely entirely on its own food production.
I am not an agriculturalist, but I have lived there and the major portion of the land I am familiar with is fairly fertile, but not well watered and would not support regular crops to any great extent. This is why goats, sheep and rather tough cattle are the major farm livestock over most of the Karoo and Namaqualand. The coastal belt along the Eastern Seaboard has a wide variation in conditions ranging from reasonable rainfall to almost none and agricultural afforst require large farms in order to get a reasonable return on investment. Further up the coast the Transkei area is now almost unusable because of poor farming and erosion and over population and use of the land and the Kwazulu Natal area is tropical and therefore marginally better - except that again over use in some areas has led to terrific erosion problems and overpopulation is eating into the available land.
It is by no means a simple problem.
Posted by: The Gray Monk at July 12, 2005 03:54 PM