June 9, 2004 – Well, it’s been awhile. I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the discrepancy between the wealthiest and the poor in the world and finding it ever more intolerable. Without going freshman-year-Marxist on anyone, I’ll expound for a moment.
I read an editorial by Jeff Sachs in yesterday’s International Herald Tribune that dealt with the problems caused by the U.S. having a lack of poverty and development expertise in places where they could make a difference, even within USAID. It touched a nerve with me, because I’ve been struggling to articulate something related for a few weeks. The gap between the world’s poor and the wealthy seems to be widening, with poor people in places like sub-Saharan Africa just being left behind. The Washington-dominated development efforts of the Bretton Woods institutions continue to focus on economic growth as the sole solution to improving the lives of the world’s poorest. And yet, after more than 20 years of BWI-led intervention in many countries, conditions for many people continue to deteriorate. It just makes me tired.
My opinion, still developing, is that more is required than loans and conditionalities. It is unacceptable for some people to live in stable conditions (or worse, be growing obese as a culture) while most people live in terrible conditions. Being from the United States, I feel particularly awful about how much my fairly effortless existence has been facilitated by the suffering of others. The US may be the largest dollar-amount donor in terms of development, but as a proportion of GDP, our contribution is shamefully low. While better, the EU & Japan are also not doing enough. My fantasy solution for this problem is in two basic parts. The first part is to do with taxes and the second to do with the role of governments in development.
First, I don’t see any reason to try to get away from a monetized world economy. It doesn’t seem a useful or achievable goal. Rather, I’d like to see the widespread adoption of tax structures more along the lines of the Swedish – from what I understand of it. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with the pursuit of fabulous wealth. If that’s your thing, go for it. You are generico cialis on line advised to repeat massage daily two times with water in the morning after breakfast and in the evening after supper consistently for 3 to 4 months for the best results. This medicinal drug must not be combined with certain other medicinal treatments which include nitrates in them since it would not lead for faster responses of recovery by the patients at affordable rates & thus, they are easily available to buy online. discount viagra levitra This reasonably priced medication has come as a big boon for couples grappling with infertility-related issues. cialis 5 mg icks.org Kamagra Soft buy cialis mastercard Tabs is a simple solution for providing men with hard erection which is stiffer and extra hard than usual so that a good climax can be achieved without any trouble or worries. More power to you. However, there’s something wrong with the way that pursuit works right now. Granted, people who have more money do pay more taxes, but not very consistently across countries. The wealthiest person in the world right now may be the Swedish founder of IKEA. However, he doesn’t live in Sweden – to avoid paying the high taxes. Similarly, some US companies find themselves nice offshore offices in the Cayman Islands in which to situate their headquarters to avoid taxes. I’d like to see a simplification of tax systems within countries and a harmonization of sorts between them to make sure that the more money people or businesses have, the more taxes they pay. The harmonization is so that the wealthy can’t simply hide their money elsewhere. In general, I’m of the opinion that – though there will surely be some losses due to inefficiency or corruption – governments should be raising more money. That’s right, big government.
Why big government? Why more money? Well, it seems to me that right now the only system capable of handling the requisite reallocation of wealth from richer to poorer is the international system of sovereign states and its many apparatuses for interaction – the UN, WTO, BWIs, etc. I guess on some level I’m a fan of the old developmental state from the post-WWII era. What I’m really thinking about is a fundamental shift in the ideology of government towards a bigger role in guaranteeing the social welfare of people around the world, not just in their own countries. This would obviously be a bigger shift in some places than others. As I said above, I’m still struggling with how to articulate this properly. I’m certainly not advocating the overthrow of the capitalist system. Rather, I want to see governments (as the only institutions capable of carrying out such a massive coordination) take a strong role in ensuring the welfare of human beings on the planet. It seems like this is the logical outcome of globalization, whether MacDonald’s, De Beers or Starbucks realizes that or not.
I’d certainly be interested in hearing anything anyone had to say about why this would never work, is misguided, or is the best thing since sliced bread. Start a discussion thread or send me something via the email form and I’ll put it up on the opinion page.