It is my view that population control programs in most parts of the world are predatory measures that are set up to eliminate the unemployables and the dispensables looking for a bigger bite of the pie before them. Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deems unnecessary. Well-meaning leaders could take a leaf out of rehabilitation programs that NGOs implement in areas affected by natural disasters. Their goal is to infuse capital into not just rebuilding homes, but creating sustainable communities of skilled people that can rise up from the ashes of destruction. The direction of capital into future opportunities is the spirit of free enterprise, but it takes visionaries to initiate this into populations deemed the refuse of the earth. Perhaps the failing of capitalism is that it has failed to recognize the ability of people to emancipate themselves and therefore stayed its hand in investing into their future.
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Glenn Contrarian
Editors -
Off topic - but in the other article published today ("Midas Touch"), I cannot go to the second page of the article or post a comment - the mouseover doesn't change into the little hand over links within the body of the article (and no, I don't know how to say that more professionally :( ).
2 - Lisa McKay
Thanks for the heads-up, Glenn, it's fixed now (and I totally understood what you meant).
3 - Glenn Contrarian
WS -
I love your article...but I must disagree with your conclusion that population control measures are 'predatory measures' against the poor, apparently for the benefit of the moneyed.
I usually try to keep from condemning someone for something they've done unless I can determine the presence of malice. If I can prove malicious intent, then I will vociferously condemn the offender; but if I cannot, I do try to keep from judging them. I'm not always successful in refraining from judgement...but I do try.
My point is...can you prove malicious intent by the propagators of the population control measures? If so, then attack as you will and I'll stand with you against such evil. If not, then you and I may still protest as strongly as we can...but I would recommend refraining from accusing them of malicious intent unless you can prove the presence of malice.
But I still loved your article. I recently read how even China's population is beginning the trend towards an aging society...and once the populations of India and China have aged to something approaching the degree of the Europeans, who then will claim the title of the manufacturing heart of the world?
I don't know...but no one can deny India and China the opportunities now enjoyed by most of the West.
4 - Dave Nalle
I actually agree with Glenn. I found most of the article interesting and informative, but I don't see how it supports the radical conclusion which the author draws. The conclusion implies conscious control of demographic change which verges on some sort of soft genocide, and I don't see the evidence to support that claim.
I also take issue with the "refuse of the earth" thesis. Capitalism is actually attracted to the poorest cultures because they provide a source of less expensive labor for labor intensive industries. When capitalists move in to "exploit" those workers it gives a boost to the local economy, provides more revenue for local governments, and unless those governments are utterly corrupt, that means more services and more education and ultimately better conditions for everyone in that society.
It's not an overnight process, but what many think of as exploitation is actually a symbiotic relationship which eventually brings less developed contries along much faster than if they were just left alone.
Dave
5 - Vijai
Hi Glenn-
Many thanks for your comments. I see your point. I wonder though if we can be predators without meaning to be. If you take a look at China's one child policy, couples who can afford pay ythe hefty government penalty for having a second child can still have one. This of course means that the poorer couples cannot have a second child. It is doubtless with altruisitic intent, viz. the desire to reduce the societal and family cost of raising a child. But its implications are that a poorer family's progeny is systematically and systemically reduced in number. The less the number of the poor that share in the pie the more the share of the wealthier.
But as I said I do see your point. I'm changing it to counter-productive, though it takes awway some of the shock. This word is from the perspective of the lawmakers; and the word 'predatory' is from that of the 'victims'. It may be worth exploring if this indeed may be predatory with intent- but that is the scope of another article!
Another reader sent me feedback via email that it was Sanjay Gandhi and not Rahul Gandhi (who is a youth icon in politics in India today and the newphew of said Sanjay) who initiated the draconian sterlization program.
I will make the edits.
Once again- thanks for your very courteous and insightful comments.,
6 - Vijai
Hi Dave,
If you notice I make a distinction in the article between the people in countries like India and China where such investment into poorer people has taken place (and produced results) and other countries where no such investment has taken place. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa for instance. I attributed some of the neglect to political, health and other risks.
I think you will agree that I have not spared the socialistic ideology from criticism either. Perhaps one could say that free trade as we know is not free enough to have every sidelined society participate fairly.
7 - Vijai
Looks like edits are not possible. Hopefully an editor can help me with this,.
8 - Baronius
"Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deems unnecessary."
That's a really powerful insight.
9 - Clavos
Vijai,
Looks like edits are not possible. Hopefully an editor can help me with this,.
Please transact editorial matters either via the edlist, or in this case, directly with me as your editor, not in the threads.
Thank you. You have my email address.
10 - Glenn Contrarian
I strongly agree with Baronius' comment #8. I must have missed that one.
Well said, Vijai.
11 - Dave Nalle
Perhaps one could say that free trade as we know is not free enough to have every sidelined society participate fairly.
I think this is a good point. The places where trade has brought the most benefit are those where it has been allowed to be free and relatively unhindered by government. When government starts taking a disproportionate cut out of the profits and therefore also out of the wages of workers the benefits are reduced proportionally.
In ideal circumstances everyone benefits, but if you have a dictator like a Mugabe in power he keeps the benefits from the people and the profits away from the businesses, often with the result that his country is just bypassed or shunned by international interests.
Dave
12 - Mark
...what many think of as exploitation is actually a symbiotic relationship which eventually brings less developed contries along much faster than if they were just left alone.
Yup...without slavery nowhere near as many Blacks in America would have color TV. I just love that symbiosis.
13 - roger nowosielski
". . . what many think of as exploitation is actually a symbiotic relationship which eventually brings less developed contries along much faster than if they were just left alone."
Excellent point, Mark.
And it's so much in line with what has been seconded as profound remark by Baronius, by such luminaries as Glenn, for instance, namely, that
"Perhaps the evil of any economic system is not so much that it exploits the people it employs, but that it leaves out the people it deems unnecessary."
I find both remarks perfidious.
Glenn is obviously seduced by clever rhetoric. Dave is a true believer, this much I grant him. It's the perfidy of Baronius that disconcerts me the most.
Presumably a Christian man, Catholic as he may be, somehow he takes solace in the fact that not everyone is being exploited.
Go figure!
And yes, let's root for color TV as among the most prominent advances of capitalism and bringing well-being and prosperity to all and all alike.
14 - Vijai
Hi Roger,
Could you explain why you find these statements perfidious? I cannot speak for Dave, but it appears to me that he wasn't justifying exploitation in the form of slavery, racism, the Holocaust or any such thing, but rather employing people in poor nations who would otherwise not be employed.
Mark's comment seems to be a misinterpretation, misunderstanding, misuse or (hopefully not) abuse of the sense in which Dave used the term 'exploitation'.
I prefer discussion to rhetoric in these debates. I would use rhetoric only to sum up my points. Would love to understand your statement better.
15 - Cindy
This should prove to be an interesting conversation.
16 - roger nowosielski
What is it that you fail to understand Vijai? I have no sacred cows since I am not from India.
So what sacred cows do you subscribe to?
17 - roger nowosielski
And to recap, what part of "exploitation" don't you understand?
It'd seem to me that you can't parcel it beyond the original meaning, there being no more than one part to the term.
Exploitation is exploitation is exploitation.
That's plain English, no ifs ands or buts about it.
I should think the term speaks for itself.
18 - Mark
The sense in which I read Dave to use the term was "what many think of as exploitation", as in the abuse of the power relationship between countries in the control of resources.
Redefining economic exploitation as a basically positive symbiosis is ... perfidious.
19 - Vijai
We exploit natural resources like wind for energy, but it is not an abuse. We exploit business opportunities, as in make the most of them. We also exploit situations, as in leverage them to achieve our goals. Dave also mentions "what many think of as exploitation", clearly meaning he doesn't think of it as such... but I'll let him speak for himself. The context of his statement is my last paragraph concerning the lack of investment into neglected sections of the world, such as some countries in Africa or a section of the people in emerging nations. Without context, your comments seem pretty tangential.
But at least one can see that none of us is simply endorsing all kinds of exploitation to be objectively, absolutely right.
I like the fact that you are a provocateur- I especially like your India/Sacred Cows motif- but you have to try harder in this case. It is no skin off my nose if you give it a different meaning that I intended- most readers can understand what I mean. I do try to see the best side of your argument. For instance, even if none of us could justify the denial of equal rights to poorer people, how is it different from simply paying lower wages to poor people? Good question and it takes into a different direction, but it is hardly the scope of this article or the commenters.
You applauded Mark for bringing racial prejudice into his statement where it did not exist before. You say Glenn is seduced by clever rhetoric. But then you say it is "the perfidy of Baronius" that concerns you the most- when both said the same thing. Wonder why?
It doesn't seem like you have no sacred cows. Mine are clear enough from the article. Why should any reader try to dig beyond what I've written to see if I have a secret agenda. If you agree or disagree with the article, I'm fine with it as long as you can help me understand why.
Thanks for your comments though.
20 - roger nowosielski
What is perfidious, to top it all, is to reduce human, moral relations to biological relations.
Anything can be call symbiotic from the biological standpoint, even the relationship of a parasite to its host. But to apply the rules of the jungle as the right kind of model to govern human communities is perfidy.
But then again, I must cut Vijai some slack, because the Buddhist tradition does speak to a kind of symbiotic unity with everything that exists. We're all part of the same and the one.
So from that particular standpoint, I suppose I do understand him.
21 - Vijai
Mark,
Okay- Investment into a foreign country could be interpreted by some as exploitation of that country's labor, resources, etc. I can see that though I may not always agree.
Most foreign investors or outsourcing companies in India pay pretty competitve wages. But then there have been cases in which abuse of such investment as in Bhopal (1984) has occured.
But is this a good reason to keep from investing at all? Isn't this a reason to examine labor laws, their eimplementation, penalties in case of non-compliance, etc in both the investing and investee countries?
22 - roger nowosielski
Vijai,
I do make a relevant distinction between the two men because I read then differently - and that's apart from whether they utter the same form of words or not.
You should be sensitive to that concept if you seriously care to address the decadent West.
We're not as innocent as you may be, nor are we as saintly as you, so forgive me but context does play an important part in our deliberations.
A Western prejudice, perhaps. And I'll be the first to admit we're over-analytical. The Oriental philosophy does certainly have a great deal to recommend itself, if only to stop us in our tracks lest we become arrogant. But don't expect me now to abandon my way of thinking and embrace all of your precepts wholesale.
There has got to be a give and take here, even you must admit it.
23 - roger nowosielski
Wow, we may yet have an intelligent discussion here, despite Vijai's obvious bias of reducing biological to moral terms - a la symbiosis.
Cindy, you were right.
24 - Mark
But is this a good reason to keep from investing at all? Isn't this a reason to examine labor laws, their eimplementation, penalties in case of non-compliance, etc in both the investing and investee countries?
And when you lower roi through these processes (and only after the investors have had their gluttonous go at the feast) will the money not logically move on leaving your workers out in the cold?
25 - Glenn Contrarian
Roger -
That's one reason I tend to trust you - you'll tell me when you think I'm right, and you'll tell me when you think I'm way off the reservation, and you're using no political agenda to influence your opinion of me.
That said, can you name any political or economic system in the world that doesn't exploit at least some workers to at least some degree? Of course some systems (such as western Europe's) exploits less than America's, and far less than China's...but all systems exploit someone. I really don't think you can disagree with that.
However, there are political and economic systems which give legal protection to the less fortunate...and there are political and economic systems which do not. IMO it is this difference to which Vijai was referring, and I agree with his statement.
Given any particular country, which is better? To be exploited, yet still be an accepted part of the country, to have more of an opportunity to change one's station in life? Or to be within that country but not be an accepted part of that country or the society and culture thereof? In the latter situation, if one is exploited, how does one's opportunities compare to those of one who IS an accepted part of that country?
And to strengthen the argument a bit more...think of the plight of the 'untouchable' caste in India. Perhaps they are who Vijai had in mind when he wrote that particular statement.
Even though we disagree, you are still certainly one of those from whom I appreciate criticism.