After re-reading the article I linked the other day about the Mountain Man in America and the Surgeon in Congo, I realized that it had raised quite a few questions. I’ve tried to answer some of the questions (which are in bold) but perhaps everyone else could give them a wack too? I’d definatly recomend that everyone read the article atleast.
The troubles of today, including worldwide political volatility, lack of tolerance of other people’s ideas and cultures, environmental preservation and economic sectionalism are all the effects of an underlying issue. One issue fires the uncertainty of our world. That is, we live in a polarized world similar to that of the cold war. Now instead of communism vs. capitalism, we have the haves vs. the have nots. While acknowledgment of religious and cultural differences is important, the problems of today’s world largely stem from the schism that exists between those nations and even those peoples within a given nation who are fortunate and those who are not. As the rich have gotten richer, or as the powerful have gained more authority, the poor and weak have suffered. We have come a long way since the days of Khrushchev and Kennedy. That polarization is gone, but a new schism controls and dictates our politics and economics. I may seem a hypocrite, speaking as a constituent of the wealthiest nation in the world. However, even America faces problems common in the developing third world nations. The simple fact is that even in America millions are without medical care, hundreds of thousands are homeless, and many do not have an adequate amount to eat. In fact, America is an excellent model of the schism facing the world. We have parts of our population with more affluence than they know what to do with, and others who barely survive, if they do at all. The question arises however, if the poor of America are better off, then the rich of the rest of the world. The impoverished in America, know what they are missing, and there is indeed a physiological toll. However, some of the “elites” in other nations, have much less then poor Americans. Take for example Dr. Kabamaba, who makes just enough for his family to survive, eat meat twice a month, and have electricity a couple of times a week. While even poor Americans enjoy such “luxuries” as air-conditioning, and a good steak, in many countries even the rich cannot afford such things.
All of this clearly raises the question, who is more happy?
While the obvious answer would seem to be Mr. Banks, as he does have electricity, food, and indeed a Wal-Mart near by, material goods aren’t always a determinate of happiness. Mr. Banks is at the lower end of American society, and while he has more then Dr. Kabamba, in comparison to the rest of the society of his nation, he has nothing. Mr. Banks is the character in all bad jokes about white trash; he is the type of person who sits in his trailer all day, wishing to have to same things, the same life as the fake soap opera stars he watches. He never actually does something to achieve them, he just dreams. This leaves an unbalanced mental state. It always feels like something is missing, as if there is a void. On the flip side, Dr. Kabamba may have a void of meat, but he works to provide for his family, and for the most part does. His family is on the upper end of Congolese society, which in comparison to fellow Congolese citizens must appear miraculous. Mentally Mr. Banks is compared to Bill Gates, Dr. Kabamba, to starving kids in Red Cross refuge camps. Dr. Kabamba must be happier. He doesn’t have the same void, felt by many like Mr. Banks.
So who should the American Government help?
This is a loaded question. Politically speaking, the answer is simple. The American government has a responsibility to it’s constituents before the citizens of the world. Any simple social contract theorist would argue, the government has a responsibility to provide for Mr. Banks. Practically speaking however, who deserves the help more? The man who sits around all day in a trailer, or the one who works to save lives, while providing all he can for his family. Obviously Dr. Kabamba is more “deserving”. Perhaps the answer isn’t this simple. To understand, we must consider our next question, what does the article suggest about America’s wealth versus Africa’s wealth? While it may seem that the wealth structures of the two continents are much different, this is false. Money and wealth in both places is concentrated in the pockets of the upper elites, which make up a small percentage of the society. The difference is in the distribution of this wealth. In our truly progressive society, in America the wealth trickles down. However in Africa, the wealth never leaves the elite. As the war lords, and corrupt officials get richer and richer, they allow just enough of their resources to trickle down, for the minimal survival of their people. Because the do provide some food, and care, the people don’t revolt as it’s the elite are their only means of survival. This economic based control of political structures is common in underdeveloped nations across the globe. Perhaps the solution of who to help can be found in this. Maybe actually decreasing American economic support of corrupt régimes would help those like Dr. Kabamba, then directly supporting him. If the warlords and corrupt governments loose their legitimacy, then the poverty issue can be easierly addressed.
“Few Americans say that the poor have only themselves to blame,” but “many believe it.” ???
There is one flaw with the previous statement. The word only. I truly believe that some fault lies within the poor for their condition, as is the case with Mr. Banks, who hasn’t worked in twenty-five years. However there are also some conditions which are insurmountable, despite ones’ best efforts. Some people are poor, because through their laziness they choose to be. However, others are poor due to the cyclical nature of poverty, and the conditions and environments they are provided with.
Considering poverty, are free markets the best way to organize economic activity?
Practically speaking, in the mind of an economist, without at doubt free markets are the best way to organize an economy. However, one must consider the human costs of such a policy. I believe it to be an admirable goal to decrease poverty and aid in the development of impoverished areas. Perhaps sometimes this requires government regulation and action, to limit markets. While not the most economically beneficial always, I think it is important to help those who cannot always help themselves. I am not for aiding those who can, but don’t provide for themselves, they can enjoy they chosen quality of life. However, as we can actually see in Mr. Banks case, even the impoverished in America can live better then many elsewhere, if the markets are restricted by the government in favor of the poor in some instances.
So how does this all add up?
The truth is, I don’t really know. I understand that there is a growing gap between rich and poor in our nation, and in the world. It appears that even the poor here are better off then the rich elsewhere, and that is concerning. But what is the solution? Economic activity is stifled with too much government interference, and what is our role on a global scheme. What is too far? I think part of the solution is found in the last quote, “were Americans not so incurable discontented with their lot, their great country would not be half as dynamic as it is.” If we don’t always question, and if we stand contently, we loose who we are. Our nature of consistently trying to progress and be better, is how it became that our poor people are better off then other countries rich. If we continue to reach for the moon, at the very worst, we can land among the stars, and it is this kind of attitude that will help us answer the questions of poverty.
