I like the posting but on second reading I am puzzled by the closing
paragraphs.
Does this mean that we have to accept the unravelling of the success of
economic development as though it is entirely outside our control? Are
there no policy options or actions that we can develop?
Much of my thinking and angst is to develop ways in which the broad
middle class can continue to be a broad middle class. It seems to be an
admission of failure to turn to citizens in other, less developed,
countries for lessons in life skills. For lessons in favela living.
This, it seems, is something we wish to avoid. A middle class, replete
with careers, etc. has been a core element in creating and maintaining
social cohesion. A lot of workers gave up a lot so that citizens in the
developed countries could have many aspects of universality. Sure, with
globalization there will be continuing pressures to harmonize downward.
I would question these pressures and argue that gloabalization is really
about trying to get others to move upaward: in environmental laws,
health and workplace safety, potable water, univeral literacy, etc. etc.
etc.
There is a certain fatalism in Ed's posting, a certain feeling that
market forces have brought us here and the same forces will bring some
sort of resolution.
If we know that a problem is developing, one for which there may be a
menu of possible remedies, it is , I believe, incumbent on policy
analysts to develop and maintain such remedies ready for thoughtful
hearing and analysis when conditions are appropriate and when the
political voice has identified the appropriate time and mustered
sufficient courage.
arthur cordell
----------
From: Ed Weick
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Rifkin - some final words
Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 2:03PM
My comments on Jeremy Rifkin triggered quite a barrage of responses, and
I thought that the best way of addressing these was via a single omnibus
posting. I do apologize for the posting+s rambling character and for the
very real possibility that I have misunderstood some of the points
people were making.
I now have to admit (grudgingly) that I+ve misunderstood Jeremy Rifkin.
He is, as Tom Walker puts it, a "showman and an evangelist", a little
like the mystics who wandered about medieval Europe proclaiming that the
end of time was at hand. I should have recognized this because I have
seen him perform on TV, where he said the most outrageous things with
complete composure and absolute certainty.
<snip>
The larger point I+m making, it would seem, is that it is not computers
or any other technology that creates social and economic change. It+s
people working as individuals and through their institutions +
institutions that people should be able to change if they are not
fulfilling their needs. And I do recognize that bringing about
institutional change is a very real problem in much of the world, and is
often not possible without bloodshed and violence. I also take to heart
Victor Milne+s point that many people have neither the intelligence nor
the health to compete with the more robust of the species. For these
people, one can only hope that support systems will be in place. We know
that, historically, they rarely have been.
<snip>
Arthur Cordell suggests that production is not the economic problem,
distribution is. I+m not really sure I agree. Currently, 80% of global
GNP is produced by 20% of the world+s population living in the richest
countries; while 80% of the population produces the remaining 20%. The
advantage of the rich continues to grow. When it comes to distribution,
one wonders about the extent to which the poor world be able to use what
the rich world has to offer. The needs are very different. Poor
countries would better be able to fulfill their needs themselves, and
yet the capital to build up their productive base often comes from the
rich world and is invested to fulfill the needs of the rich world, not
the poor. Nike does not build plants in India to provide Indians with
high quality footware. Even in rich countries, production caters mainly
to those who have income. The needs of the poor, such as decent housing,
are typically overlooked. Moreover, we have not even begun to tackle the
problem of what we produce. Quite a lot of what the rich world produces
is neither necessary nor useful and may indeed be harmful. Much of it is
directly destructive (armaments) or insidiously destructive (greenhouse
gases and other pollutants; rapid depletion of non-renewables). At the
other end of the spectrum, many countries are unable to produce
sufficient basic items such as foodstuffs, health and education.
Arthur is also concerned about the changing role of the middle class:
"That good jobs for the broad middle class are less to be found these
days than in the past and will be less so in the future." Jim Dator is
concerned about a decreasing access to cash and an increasing reliance
on credit. ""Money" in the old sense just won't do any more. "Credit",
which was invented to fill in the money gap, is on the verge of stifling
further consumption (and will at the next major turndown in the
"economy" when people are forced to stop acquiring and start paying off
debts, which will spiral the system downward, given the massive heights
of the myriad mounds of debt)." It would seem that these two things are
related. During the 50's, 60's and even into the 80's the middle class
of the rich world became accustomed to rising incomes which enabled it+s
members to purchase just about everything they wanted. Much of this was
purchased on credit, but the most insidious aspect of credit was that it
became a habit + there was never any real question of not using it
because you could always pay it off. With the fall of middle class real
income during the 90's, both the habit and the credit remain, but the
ability to pay has begun to evaporate. I+m not so sure that we will, as
Jim suggests, "spiral" down, but there is a danger which must be
recognized here.
It would seem that this is the world that is now being swept away. There
will be career paths for some university grads, but proportionately far
fewer than there were in my day. Students now have to think much more
strategically than they did in the past. They have to know more about
the labour market and about their talents and capabilities. Many will
not be able to sell their services to government or a large company full
time, so they will have to know how to sell their services part time, or
they will have to find and develop new markets, perhaps in the
entertainment field, whether these are legitimate or not.
<snip>
A couple of years ago, I was fortunate to be able to spend a month at
ground level in a large Brazilian slum. Incomes there were low and
uncertain but it seemed that almost everyone had some money to spend,
enough to give their young children reasonably good care. Some people
had steady jobs in downtown Sao Paulo, but no one was on a career path.
Almost everyone functioned strategically, connecting with this bit of
money or that, staying in the legitimate economy if they could,
resorting to the illegitimate economy if they had to. I+m not suggesting
that there are virtues in living this way; nor am I suggesting that the
people I encountered lived fulfilling lives. What I+m saying is that an
increasing proportion of even the rich world+s labour force may have to
work strategically in future, though hopefully at a much higher standard
than the poor of Sao Paulo.
Ed Weick
