THE END OF POVERTY? THINK AGAIN – © 2008 – DVD 2010
You do need to think again, Mr Producer
and general audience. The film was produced in 2008, before the present crisis
that started in 2009 and the discourse it contains is typical of that older
period. Everything today has to be rethought again and again.
The film is spectacular in
pictures and figures about poverty in the world but we have to be careful with
these figures at times because they are spectacular but just an unfairly misrepresentation
of reality. One example. It is said that the number of extremely poor people
increased from 434 million in 1970 to 854 million today. This is spectacular
indeed absolutely un-objective. “Today” means nothing. The DVD was copyrighted
in 2010 but the film itself was copyrighted in 2008. Which date is the right
one? I will then compare these figures with the world population in 1970 and in
2008 to be honest, not 2010.
In 1970 the number of extreme poor people represented
11.76% of the world’s population and in 2008 it represented 12.74% of the world’s
population. It did increase but a lot less spectacularly. What’s more to
consider that people who have to live with less than one dollar a day as being
extremely poor means little. When I was in Sri Lanka in 2005 the world UN
Conference on poverty was being prepared and in Sri Lanka they did insist on
the common opinion in third world countries at the time: one dollar is a lot in
a village away from any big city and it is really nothing in the slums of one
capital city, both in Africa. Most of the daily resources of people living in a
far away agricultural area are not monetary resources and it is extremely
important to know how they are evaluated into monetary terms. They should be
evaluated in PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) that is absolutely different in a
village in Masai country in Kenya
and in the slums of the capital city Nairobi.
You can easily see it if you observe an agricultural zone in Sri Lanka and Colombo, the capital city.
This spectacular use of figures
is irritating after a while because we know it is absurd. What I have just said
is also true in western countries. Life in a village in the mountains is a lot
cheaper than life in a capital city, and what’s more you may have a garden in a
village. You won’t have one in a capital city (it is exceptional to have a
garden there). You may raise a couple of rabbits or chicken in a village. You
won’t in a capital city if you live in an apartment block of any type for one
example.
The 1492 date is fetishized. In
fact it is one side of the picture. Before that date the center of maritime
commerce was the Indian Ocean up to 1433, when
Admiral Zheng He died and the Chinese government taken over by the Confucian mandarins
banned maritime voyage and commerce. China up to 1433 was the essential player
there irrigating the whole rim of that ocean with commerce and exchanges. The
Portuguese had it easy when they arrived later on since they found the Indian
Ocean practically deserted since the main actor in that ocean had been absent
for more than two thirds of a century. I would consider 1433 as being the real
turning point in the commercial architecture of the world. That does not change
the fact that 1492 was the turning point in Western Europe from an entirely
closed continent after the mishaps in the Middle East and the Crusades, not to
speak of the Black Death plague, to an open continent initially towards the
Indies, hence the Indian Ocean, and by accident towards the Americas.
Then the film is clear about the
horror of this colonization but it is very frigid about details, hence once
again it is spectacular about slave trade and slavery, but it is a lot less
spectacular about the extermination of Indians in Mexico
and in Northern America, not to speak of the West Indies.
It appeals to some kind of romantic acceptation of the barbarity of European
colonizers, though it is essentially if not only speaking of the Spaniards, and
eventually the Portuguese. In fact the English and the French are not really considered
in Northern America, though they are the only
ones to have done anything there. The French and the English are only
considered in Africa and Asia. Then the role
of the USA is by far
over-estimated even in Latin America, but it can only be considered after their
revolution in 1786 and Monroe’s theory of the manifest
destiny of the USA.
What about between 1608 (first English settlement in Virginia) and 1786? We would have to wonder
why most Latin American countries are now governed by rather anti-US left wing
governments duly elected there, even in Nicaragua (whose president is the
leader of the guerrilla against which the US employed all means at their
disposal to prevent his winning, in vain, and then his election, in vain) and
El Salvador. In fact it does not even quote the heads of the governments in
countries it quotes like Venezuela,
Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia and a few others.
But the film has far more
important shortcomings. Think again please. It does not speak of the BRICS bloc
(Brazil, Russia, India,
China, South Africa). It
does not even quote China
once, nor India
actually. Of course it was filmed in 2008 but China was already the big helper of
underdeveloped peoples. It cannot speak of the 2009 crisis since it was made
before. But this crisis has changed everything. Some in the USA were dreaming of bringing China to its
knees and in fact it is the West that was brought to its knees. The debt that
was and still is crushing African or Latin American or Asian countries has brought
down to its knees, and at times even lower, Europe globally and in particular
Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, in chronological disorder. It was discovered
that Greece
did not even have the basic four taxes that are required to be in the
Euro-zone. It was discovered that in Greece, for one example, a minority
of workers had tremendous and outrageous privileges: civil servants had eight
extra vacation days if they accepted to use a computer, and that is one
example. Railroad workers in France
had to retire (compulsory) at 50 with of course their full pensions. These are
not even privileges. These are outrageous benefits, in fact hijacked shares of
added value produced by millions of people in Europe
and in the world who have a lot less to live on, or in many cases to survive on
if not to die on. This is not spoken of. Forbidden subject!
2008 became the beginning of the
end of the domination of the world by the USA and the West. The change is
radical: terrorist movements have been brought down since then: LTTE terrorism
in Sri Lanka, Osama Bin Laden, the fundamentalist Iranian President, Gaddafi in
Libya, various autocratic regimes in Arab countries, the Islamist movements in
the Sahara are being put under control and dried out, etc. Pretty soon Corsica
in France
will be the last terrorist battle field in the world since even the Basque independent
movement, ETA, has stopped its terrorist campaign. This video does not take
into account the great change of this century already at work in 2008: we are
shifting from all kinds of autocratic systems and governments to an ever wider
democratic order.
The only thing on which they are
right is their denunciation of neo-liberalism (note the unacceptable meaning of
this word from an American point of view where “liberal” means “left-wing” and
even for some “socialist”) attached to Thatcher and Reagan. The proper term
should be “deregulated free market” in a market economy. They are right to expose
the privatization of things like water or natural resources basic for simple
survival. But in a galloping demography these natural resources have to be regulated
and even properly shared, meaning finding market regulations that will not
encourage waste and that will charge the bigger users. Every person has to have
clean drinkable water for drinking and cooking, but why should that water be
used for washing, washing up or baths? Privatization is not the solution, but
the absence of regulation is just as bad. And it is here the film is most
deficient. The world’s demography has to be curbed. What the Chinese edicted in
the late 1970s about having to choose between having more than one child per
family and being unable to develop the economy is true for the whole world and
there is some improvement everywhere. I am surprised by some examples of families
who have up to eight children: one case shows five children and three grandchildren.
If the children were as prolific as their parents they should all have five
children. It is of course absurd and it is of course not happening even in the
countries where procreation is the main objective if not the only objective of
marriage, like fundamentalist Christian countries and fundamentalist Islamic countries.
Even in Africa the number of children is down
under four and it still has to go on getting lower. Children mean poverty at
all levels of society, including in the rich elite because then their fortune
will have to shared and thus squandered.
The solutions that are proposed:
1- forgiving the debt;
2- changing the tax systems for
taxes to fall essentially on property and not on people and wages;
3- land reform to give land to
those who want to and can cultivate it;
4- ending the privatization of
natural resources;
are debatable.
To renegotiate the debt is one
thing. To forgive it is another thing. Third world countries have to come
together to be strong enough to impose a renegotiation of their debts including
how it was contracted and what for.
The BRICS countries are showing
the way.
To modulate VAT (or sales tax) is
one thing but to nullify it is absurd since some items this tax is imposed on
are luxury items, property items, and some property items are needed for decent
living, some others are not needed at all. Is a jaguar a need or a caprice?
Income tax is justified and it
has to be regulated and modulated not cancelled. Then you create situations
like in Greece
where sooner or later the trap closes on your own feet and then you may try to
impose taxes that should never have been cancelled or neglected and the task is
then gigantic, herculean.
The land reform is essential but
we have to be careful and not go back to a purely directly consumable food
production, hence autarky. No country will be able to produce all they need. So
every country has to produce something that can be exported to pay for what has
to be imported. And that has been the rule since Homo Sapiens emerged in Africa. Why should it change? Once again it is the
balance between the two orientations that is to be regulated and properly
managed.
Privatization are not supposed to
be systematic but at the same time nationalizations are not supposed to be systematic
either. It is not the type of ownership that is important, but the management
and regulations of the market economy, otherwise you end up with highly
subsidized services and industries that do not have any incentive to improve
and that sooner or later cost so much that the whole country gets into
stagnation. Ask the Soviet Union and their satellites
what it costs to implement to the extreme end the dogma of anti-privatization
and nationalization, of anti-market economy
In fact this film does not make
any difference between the market economy that has always existed in human
societies and will go on existing forever in human societies, and the
deregulation of this market economy that extreme capitalism brought to our
planet when it imposed total deregulation and private ownership, not to speak
of financial ownership of everything and speculation on everything and the
rest, including your debt with sub-prime speculation. We have to fight for a
regulated market economy “of the people, for the people and by the people.” The
2009 crisis and its subsequent episodes are the crisis of a deregulated market
economy “of everyone, for everyone but BY only a very few.”
The worst project comes from a
Frenchman, because it cannot come from anyone else. If you consider that “less
than 25% of world population uses more than 80% of the planet’s resources while
creating 70% of its pollution” you come to the idea that you have to punish
these bad western boys and girls and that the west has to accept what this middle
class cushion-protected and pillow-oriented French intellectual calls “de-growth”
and even “a-growth” meaning that we in the West have to accept to see our share
of the use of resources to go down for the share of the use of them by the rest
of the world to go up. In relative terms that is already happening, but not in
absolute terms. In the west they have to learn how to use less resources to get
the same comfort, hence to save and be more effective, and in the rest of the
world they have to develop their economy to produce more resources and to use these
resources in the most efficient way possible.
All ideology – because it is
ideology then – that will preach undressing Paul to dress Peter will be
rejected by the people on Paul’s side and will not satisfy the people on Peter’s
side. This will produce extreme right nationalistic movements in the west and
it will produce unstable and unmanageable political institution in the rest of
the world. We have to move towards a global management of the economy and the
world that will balance the growth of everyone so that no one will be left on
the shoulder of the road if not in the ditch. This film does not propose such a
balanced approach but in fact preaches and advocates a global freezing of the
use of resources and a more equal if not equalitarian redistribution of these
frozen resources among people meaning less for some and more for others. That’s
the best recipe for a third world war, nuclear or not, for water or whatever
pother natural resource.
There would be so much more to
say that this review would never end. So it’s better to stop here and now.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU
# posted by Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU @ 7:46 AM