glad you raised this point ben- gdp is a crude measurement (at best) of quality of life of the people of any given nation. It does not address individual welfare, income distribution, health, education (the list goes on). Aside from his stellar visual aids, what I took away from this is a lesson in not making broad assumptions about "first world" and "third world". Really we need to abandon that language completely.
Agreed - notice the margin for the exorbitantly wealthy stayed the same.
the idea of nationalism in general needs to be destroyed. i would consider likely the most destructive ideology humans have ever created. Countries only seem to enforce property with its necessary consequence - the right to extort.
grouping people by countries creates divisions that ignores the tangible divisions that truly are at work - class.
in response to corbin's take away--that's why i posted the video--unfortunately i've been doing most of my posting from a computer that doesn't have a fucking sound card (my work) so i'm unable to listen to any of the videos...BUT i still think i remember the general content from it.
the relevance i see in this video is in regards to the environmental policy argument--when it comes to accountability the "third worlders" demand reparations for the abusive industries, technologies, and culture pushed into their communities. Third world countries demand that if the World is collectively going to move into a "greener" era (all shouldering the responsibilities of recovering the health of the earth) that they are going to need huge subsidies from those committing the damage, from those who also have access to the aggressive technologies capable of producing "green" industries while maintaining a competitive edge in this "global" economy--the first world countries. Currently the only way a third world country can compete with first world industries is to use low tech high yield technology (i.e. coal powered). To break from that dependency they need a boost in resources and information to make the jump to where they can create industries that do not have to start with earth "destructive" technologies.
To retort--first world countries (their representatives) have said fuck that--let's World Bank their asses! but really they argue that the third world is to blame for some of this mess too, possible just as much, that they use harsh technologies that are more caustic than first world--that their exploding human capital is the main reason they see such strains--that they are producing too many people (thus the reason why i posted the video)
this is a real tough run down of the general discussion i've picked up through the news--it’s been a while since i've followed it, maybe someone else has a better understanding and would like to be more thorough--but from my understanding many first world countries argued that the explosion of human capital on to third world land bases were a major factor of its degradation--BUT according to the above video that's obviously a lie (3rd world birth rates are similar to ours)
I agree! ... but this video was about the correlation between health as defined by infant mortality and GDP as representing overall quality/ affluence of country.
i would contend that the problem is not the exploision of human capital but overproduction in the Global North. The struggle at the beginning of the industrial revolution and early capitalism was how to get enough people to submit to the dehumanizing cycle of factory/industrial/taylorized production.
this is no longer the problem. we no longer are struggling to produce in this country, not by any means. the struggle is now that we produce way to much shit so we need other markets to buy and to expand to. also that the standard of living is such in the Global North that it is not cost effective to produce mass consumption commodities here/there anymore.
the irony of this is that the idea of globalization or international trade aka we finance production in the Global south with the capital of the global north (and the obvious collaboration between the oligarchic capitalist upper one percent, the global north countries unified under the WTO, IMF and World Bank) for consumption in the North, in no way works to better the lives of anyone other then the prime recipient, the west/global north/1st world countries.
If trade with poorer countries actually increased their economies and infrastructure, they would then become our competitors. For first world countries this would result the loss of cheap, fragmented, unorganized labor, and exploitable market. Another poor country would have to be found to exploit because these formerly 3rd world countries would no longer have a low enough standard of living for first world countries to exploit and indeed, they themselves would need to find another market to finance their own capital, were they to want to be competitive.
I didn't mention the big conclusion of the above argument
Capitalism is a necessarily unstable system because of the above explanation. It cannot allow for every country to become wealthy, some most necessarily always be exploited otherwise there would be no market for production or consumption, no ways for economies to expand.
Once you realize that Capitalism cannot allow for other countries to truly be capitalist countries the events of the last forty years draw a grim picture. Capitalists recognize this which is why ...
THERE NEEDS TO BE CONTINUAL WAR. War is capable of completely destroying infrastructure, reducing countries back to a pre industrial stages of economy. It allows for corporations to come in and control markets that were formerly protected by government (oil in Iraq, Copper in Chile) War creates new markets, ramps up production at home and allows for the victors to create an infrastructure for indefinite exploitation.
I could say more but ... educate yourself
THE NEW IMPERIALISM David Harvey THE SHOCK DOCTRINE Naomi Klein NOAM CHOMSKY Imperial Ambitions, Profit over People DELEUZE/GUATTARI Capitalism and Schizophrenia, A Thousand Plateaus AXEL HONNETH Redistribution or Recognition? HORKHEIMER/ADORNO Dialectic of Enlightenment LUCAKS Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat
Awesome points Ben. Even "super liberal" (hahahaha) Paul Krugman tends to talk about quality of life in terms of per capita GDP, but, obviously, that measure is only used because it's easy to measure and universally applicable. It is, again, a reductionist standpoint because it fails to take into account individual growth and development. Americans like to get fat, isolate themselves, hate everyone else, overmedicate and kill themselves while our GDP stays relatively high. Quality of life? Really?
This video and the subsequent discussion of capitalism (thanks Ben and Dante) is also a great tie-in to the four years go discussion. Noting the inherent violence of capitalism, can we together imagine a system that promotes equal opportunities worldwide in terms of health, education, social stability, etc. that could replace or augment capitalism, getting rid of the need for constant competition and expansion? I think Jill would be an awesome person to talk to about this, seeing as her area of interest right now is scaleable, localized manufacturing.
8 comments:
is gdp an accurate measurement for the welfare of a populace
'its like the world is flattening out.'
...
glad you raised this point ben- gdp is a crude measurement (at best) of quality of life of the people of any given nation. It does not address individual welfare, income distribution, health, education (the list goes on). Aside from his stellar visual aids, what I took away from this is a lesson in not making broad assumptions about "first world" and "third world". Really we need to abandon that language completely.
Agreed - notice the margin for the exorbitantly wealthy stayed the same.
the idea of nationalism in general needs to be destroyed. i would consider likely the most destructive ideology humans have ever created. Countries only seem to enforce property with its necessary consequence - the right to extort.
grouping people by countries creates divisions that ignores the tangible divisions that truly are at work - class.
in response to corbin's take away--that's why i posted the video--unfortunately i've been doing most of my posting from a computer that doesn't have a fucking sound card (my work) so i'm unable to listen to any of the videos...BUT i still think i remember the general content from it.
the relevance i see in this video is in regards to the environmental policy argument--when it comes to accountability the "third worlders" demand reparations for the abusive industries, technologies, and culture pushed into their communities. Third world countries demand that if the World is collectively going to move into a "greener" era (all shouldering the responsibilities of recovering the health of the earth) that they are going to need huge subsidies from those committing the damage, from those who also have access to the aggressive technologies capable of producing "green" industries while maintaining a competitive edge in this "global" economy--the first world countries. Currently the only way a third world country can compete with first world industries is to use low tech high yield technology (i.e. coal powered). To break from that dependency they need a boost in resources and information to make the jump to where they can create industries that do not have to start with earth "destructive" technologies.
To retort--first world countries (their representatives) have said fuck that--let's World Bank their asses! but really they argue that the third world is to blame for some of this mess too, possible just as much, that they use harsh technologies that are more caustic than first world--that their exploding human capital is the main reason they see such strains--that they are producing too many people (thus the reason why i posted the video)
this is a real tough run down of the general discussion i've picked up through the news--it’s been a while since i've followed it, maybe someone else has a better understanding and would like to be more thorough--but from my understanding many first world countries argued that the explosion of human capital on to third world land bases were a major factor of its degradation--BUT according to the above video that's obviously a lie (3rd world birth rates are similar to ours)
I agree! ... but this video was about the correlation between health as defined by infant mortality and GDP as representing overall quality/ affluence of country.
i would contend that the problem is not the exploision of human capital but overproduction in the Global North. The struggle at the beginning of the industrial revolution and early capitalism was how to get enough people to submit to the dehumanizing cycle of factory/industrial/taylorized production.
this is no longer the problem. we no longer are struggling to produce in this country, not by any means. the struggle is now that we produce way to much shit so we need other markets to buy and to expand to. also that the standard of living is such in the Global North that it is not cost effective to produce mass consumption commodities here/there anymore.
the irony of this is that the idea of globalization or international trade aka we finance production in the Global south with the capital of the global north (and the obvious collaboration between the oligarchic capitalist upper one percent, the global north countries unified under the WTO, IMF and World Bank) for consumption in the North, in no way works to better the lives of anyone other then the prime recipient, the west/global north/1st world countries.
If trade with poorer countries actually increased their economies and infrastructure, they would then become our competitors. For first world countries this would result the loss of cheap, fragmented, unorganized labor, and exploitable market. Another poor country would have to be found to exploit because these formerly 3rd world countries would no longer have a low enough standard of living for first world countries to exploit and indeed, they themselves would need to find another market to finance their own capital, were they to want to be competitive.
thoughts ...
I didn't mention the big conclusion of the above argument
Capitalism is a necessarily unstable system because of the above explanation. It cannot allow for every country to become wealthy, some most necessarily always be exploited otherwise there would be no market for production or consumption, no ways for economies to expand.
Once you realize that Capitalism cannot allow for other countries to truly be capitalist countries the events of the last forty years draw a grim picture. Capitalists recognize this which is why ...
THERE NEEDS TO BE CONTINUAL WAR. War is capable of completely destroying infrastructure, reducing countries back to a pre industrial stages of economy. It allows for corporations to come in and control markets that were formerly protected by government (oil in Iraq, Copper in Chile) War creates new markets, ramps up production at home and allows for the victors to create an infrastructure for indefinite exploitation.
I could say more but ... educate yourself
THE NEW IMPERIALISM David Harvey
THE SHOCK DOCTRINE Naomi Klein
NOAM CHOMSKY Imperial Ambitions, Profit over People
DELEUZE/GUATTARI Capitalism and Schizophrenia, A Thousand Plateaus
AXEL HONNETH Redistribution or Recognition?
HORKHEIMER/ADORNO Dialectic of Enlightenment
LUCAKS Reification and the Consciousness of the Proletariat
Awesome points Ben. Even "super liberal" (hahahaha) Paul Krugman tends to talk about quality of life in terms of per capita GDP, but, obviously, that measure is only used because it's easy to measure and universally applicable. It is, again, a reductionist standpoint because it fails to take into account individual growth and development. Americans like to get fat, isolate themselves, hate everyone else, overmedicate and kill themselves while our GDP stays relatively high. Quality of life? Really?
This video and the subsequent discussion of capitalism (thanks Ben and Dante) is also a great tie-in to the four years go discussion. Noting the inherent violence of capitalism, can we together imagine a system that promotes equal opportunities worldwide in terms of health, education, social stability, etc. that could replace or augment capitalism, getting rid of the need for constant competition and expansion? I think Jill would be an awesome person to talk to about this, seeing as her area of interest right now is scaleable, localized manufacturing.
if we could get an interview with jill, that would be awesome!
Post a Comment