Here we are, the developed nations, and what we are worrying about is what to do about the underdeveloped nations.
Should we send aid? Should we send in the technocrats? Should we tax ourselves to help them develop renewable resources?
Maybe none of that works.
In the First World countries we have benefited from first mover advantage. When we mechanized textiles, developed fossil fuel oils, etc., nobody had done it before. But the underdeveloped countries can't even make money out of pre-industrial agriculture because it is much cheaper to produce food with mechanized agriculture.
Politics offers all its usual options: send aid to the developing countries -- oh yeah, like the Poor Law in the 17th to the 18th centuries. Or send credentialed experts and technocrats to teach them how to do it. Only, of course, technocratic development in the First World ain't up to much. And once a government program gets started it gets to be almost impossible to reform or stop it. How about sending money to help the undeveloped countries to skip the evil step of fossil fuel power plants and go directly to renewable resources? Sorry, Charlie, that is just going to create fields of dysfunctional wind turbines and dusty solar panels.
So do the undeveloped countries just have to wait until Apple comes calling to open an assembly plant and Nike comes calling to open a shoe manufactury? Yep, that's about it. When it becomes cheaper to open a factory in Africa than in East Asia or South Asia, that's when Africa will take off.
But hey, there is something that Africans can do about this. They can create a relatively corruption-free economy for the western brands that come calling. I mean this is not that hard. Your western brands are going to do the math. If the sums add up, as the Brits say, then the western brands will start to set up in African countries. If the sums don't add up then the western brands won't come.
A few more things that are real deal-killers: civil war; Boko-Haram kidnapping teenaged girls; South Africa sending out the word to kill Boer farmers; ethnic cleansing.
When you think about it, there is a profound cultural issue here. Business and economic development thrive where tribal conflict has been reduced down to a dull roar, where the whole of life is not taken up in the jealous conflicts between political rivals, and where the land has not been stripped of resources to pay for the ruinous conflicts between the local lords.
That's why I always come down to Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays. Think of it. What sort of economic development could take place when Henry Bolingbroke is duking it out with the Duke of Northumberland's perky kid Harry Percy from 'oop North? Any businessman worth his salt would know to keep away, because where ravenous politicians are casting around for resources to fight their petty fights for domination, in those places there is not much call for doux commerce.
It is funny, is it not, that our friends on the left are utterly clueless about this. For them the issue is that businessmen are The Rich and are denying the poor a just and equitable standard of life, because greed. So they are perfectly willing to bring down the temple and destroy the economy because Justice.
It all goes to show, I think, that reality, science, facts on the ground have nothing to do with the case. What really matters is the moral imperative of creating the perfect world, either in heaven, or right here on Earth.
Because over and over again political and religious leaders have chosen to fight for justice and Heaven rather than just step back and let people get on with it.
The issue is not that the undeveloped nations of the world are poor and need help. The issue is the utterly unfathomable fact that in the First World, to an extent, people are allowed to get on with their business without having to bow and scrape every moment to get the approval of the local lord.
The miracle of the modern age is that economic development in the First World ever happened at all.
Should we send aid? Should we send in the technocrats? Should we tax ourselves to help them develop renewable resources?
Maybe none of that works.
In the First World countries we have benefited from first mover advantage. When we mechanized textiles, developed fossil fuel oils, etc., nobody had done it before. But the underdeveloped countries can't even make money out of pre-industrial agriculture because it is much cheaper to produce food with mechanized agriculture.
Politics offers all its usual options: send aid to the developing countries -- oh yeah, like the Poor Law in the 17th to the 18th centuries. Or send credentialed experts and technocrats to teach them how to do it. Only, of course, technocratic development in the First World ain't up to much. And once a government program gets started it gets to be almost impossible to reform or stop it. How about sending money to help the undeveloped countries to skip the evil step of fossil fuel power plants and go directly to renewable resources? Sorry, Charlie, that is just going to create fields of dysfunctional wind turbines and dusty solar panels.
So do the undeveloped countries just have to wait until Apple comes calling to open an assembly plant and Nike comes calling to open a shoe manufactury? Yep, that's about it. When it becomes cheaper to open a factory in Africa than in East Asia or South Asia, that's when Africa will take off.
But hey, there is something that Africans can do about this. They can create a relatively corruption-free economy for the western brands that come calling. I mean this is not that hard. Your western brands are going to do the math. If the sums add up, as the Brits say, then the western brands will start to set up in African countries. If the sums don't add up then the western brands won't come.
A few more things that are real deal-killers: civil war; Boko-Haram kidnapping teenaged girls; South Africa sending out the word to kill Boer farmers; ethnic cleansing.
When you think about it, there is a profound cultural issue here. Business and economic development thrive where tribal conflict has been reduced down to a dull roar, where the whole of life is not taken up in the jealous conflicts between political rivals, and where the land has not been stripped of resources to pay for the ruinous conflicts between the local lords.
That's why I always come down to Shakespeare's Wars of the Roses plays. Think of it. What sort of economic development could take place when Henry Bolingbroke is duking it out with the Duke of Northumberland's perky kid Harry Percy from 'oop North? Any businessman worth his salt would know to keep away, because where ravenous politicians are casting around for resources to fight their petty fights for domination, in those places there is not much call for doux commerce.
It is funny, is it not, that our friends on the left are utterly clueless about this. For them the issue is that businessmen are The Rich and are denying the poor a just and equitable standard of life, because greed. So they are perfectly willing to bring down the temple and destroy the economy because Justice.
It all goes to show, I think, that reality, science, facts on the ground have nothing to do with the case. What really matters is the moral imperative of creating the perfect world, either in heaven, or right here on Earth.
Because over and over again political and religious leaders have chosen to fight for justice and Heaven rather than just step back and let people get on with it.
The issue is not that the undeveloped nations of the world are poor and need help. The issue is the utterly unfathomable fact that in the First World, to an extent, people are allowed to get on with their business without having to bow and scrape every moment to get the approval of the local lord.
The miracle of the modern age is that economic development in the First World ever happened at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment