How many people live in shantytowns?
Even in the West, inequality and poverty are on the rise. Poverty has, in fact, reached the levels of 1933. Devote 4 minutes to watching Thomas Pogge, professor of Yale University, talking about the current international system that allows a large part of the world's population to live in abject poverty:
The global economic downturn has been pushing millions of people into poverty, or worse, extreme poverty. Add to that the fact that people all over the world are moving into urban areas to seek their fortune and we have a danger of slums increasing tremendously.
How do we keep them safe in urban areas?
There hence is a huge need to reduce vulnerability in urban settings. Half the world's people now live in cities, a share that will rise to 70 percent by 2050.
So what are we going to do to give more people in the world a decent life? If we don't do anything the amount of people living in shantytowns will rise, everywhere. Or call them homeless, if you wish.
Extreme poverty leads to crime – or worse
Countries with a lot of poverty easily gets trapped in crime or worse, become failed states. And I don't need to tell you how easily failed states can follow in the steps of Afghanistan and Somalia, do I? So it's in the interest of all of us to start eradicating poverty in the world.
And let's not forget poverty in the developed world
Frankly find it unbelievable that child poverty is on the increase even in a country like Sweden. So is poverty in all age groups, for that matter. And the same applies to Europe as a whole and the United States. Like South Koreans a decade ago, people are starting to committ suicide in Europe due to being wiped out financially. Isn't it, like Thomas Pogge put it, a crime against humanity?
Isn't it time to put Milton Friedmans theories on the shelf and, again, start implementing what Keynes ordered? Or do we really want a world where poverty is increasing and the middle classes are in decline? By now we know the side effects of Friedman's ideas as mentioned in do you concur with Joseph Stiglitz on market fundamentalism? Just look at what has happened the last few decades in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Russia. And since 2007 the American middle class has been severely affected by the same side effects of his policies. The Euro zone is currently being hit which has an impact on Europe as a whole. China has been spared to some extent since it implemented Friedman's ideas but never completely opened up their markets. And Iraq failed miserably because the shock theraphies implemented there went too far.
Negative for much of the world's population
One hundred faculty members at University of Chicago wrote a letter of protest when university president Robert ZImmer announced the creation of a $200m Milton Friedman Institute stating that "The effects of the neoliberal global order … strongly buttressed by the Chicago School of Economics, have by no means been unequivocally positive. Many would argue that they have been negative for much of the world's population." Since the time when Reagan was president the Chicago boys have dominated not only Washington but the world, not least through the IMF. So now when the recession keeps on causing substantial increases in misery isn't it time to stop implementing policies that favour multinational companies at the expense of the majority of people in the world?
Do you agree with Pogge that many of the people who support the current international system are like passive Germans during the Nazi era? Do we really want the world's middle classes and poor to be worse off? Is it really a good idea to have more people across the globe living in shantytowns? Or being homeless? No wonder Occupy Wall Street swiftly spread to 1,500 cities all over the world. Is it the beginning of a new era where 99% of the world's population say enough is enough and demand to get a share of what now goes to the top one percent? Is equality only justified if it benefits all human beings? What's your opinion? Is it time to put market fundamentalism aside and start stimulating economies in order to grow again and give more people a decent life? The Euro zone would make a good start. Or are you of the opinion that Friedman's version of capitalism is the way forward?
(Video: carnegiecouncil – You Tube)
Google+
Tags: Afghanistan, Asia-Pacific, China, Europe, international, Iraq, Joseph Stiglitz, Latin America, Milton Friedman, Russia, shantytown, shock theraphy, slum, Thomas Pogge, US, Yale University
February 19th, 2010 at 21:42
Catarina
Most people react very fast if yo have a new theme or splendid headline; but this is not easy.
Here Innovation must be serious, because you cannot think outside this box or be creative in such a serious case. I did these things for many years and learned to be creative and innovative in spite of the pain, the fear and the enormous amount of problems you need to solve.
One thing is for sure; the thing you need to do is confront these things, because these are the things the people you are talking about are faced with every second and they consider themselves weaker than we are. So if we throw the food, the money and the help than they will see that also we, the strong and rich are afraid of the massive attack.
If we call it Robin Hood, then let them see that we risk our lives, our families and our existance too, even if it is at our level of life. Like Robin Hood did. Tax is so automatic.
Don't punish those moneymakers and bankowners by robbing their extra payments.
Send them to these places and let them use this bonus to invest in local economy, managed by them. Kind of " taakstraf" as we call it in the Netherlands. No jail, no payment but work somewhere in community for a certain amount of time.
I see these people as a massive opportunity for economy, luxury and intelligence.
I don' t think that the social or religious ways are the ways we need to go; poverty, modesty, no richness, hard work, obedience and offers for the one who takes care. What do we learn those desperate people; you will be better of, but not much and with a lifelong gratitude.
What each person wants; safety in relation to risk, wellness in awareness of the chance of poverty, health with the acceptance of sickness.
I love the mini-economy system. I like craftmanship, like a friend of mine does in Bali.
I like heterogenic group communities with different tasks and talents.
There are so many ways and these people know how to survive.
Let them live and show them the faces of those who ruined them; they have to give life and money to show they want to change. This will help more than money alone as tax or as bloodmoney.
February 20th, 2010 at 04:18
This is a highly emotive topic, Catarina, and one that causes high emotion from all sides of the political divide.
The problem I have with a "Robin Hood" tax, or any other such thing is that in most cases it is simply pouring good money after bad. As the old proverb goes, "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, whereas if you teach him to fish, you feed him for life."
For a variety of reasons, as little as 5% (worst case) to 20% (more normal) of money donated to help countries actually gets to benefit the poor of those countries. Most of it goes to a combination of salaries/perks/running expenses of the aid funds/workers and to the bank accounts of highly-placed officials (read: corruption). Many current and past leaders of the world's poorest nations are/were among the world's most wealthy individuals – no wonder they keep asking for more aid!
continued…
February 20th, 2010 at 04:18
…continued
Furthermore, many political leaders actively encourage migration of people from the rural areas (where they traditionally are strong anyway) to the urban areas in order to boost their voting in these areas (the better-educated urban elite often are against these corrupt leaders), so exacerbating the problem – whereas these people may have been able to feed themselves, albeit ina subsistence farming manner, in the rural areas, once they are living in shantytowns, they have no opportunity to do so.
Rather than imposing taxes on, and looking for more donations from, the West, we should find ways to ensure that the existing funds go to the people they are supposed to benefit (which would increase effective spend by 5-10 times), and that we find ways to end the aribitrary movement of people to urban areas for the wrong reasons.
February 20th, 2010 at 07:42
Catarina,
I personally find merit in a Robin Hood tax as capitalism is well known to further divide the rich from the poor as it creates an environment of elitism. It's not the poor that shape policy decisions but the elite, so the rich get rich and in turn they propagate policy decisions that ultimately makes them richer. So the poor are stuck in the quicksand of capitalism.
However — while democracy and capitalism are two separate concepts they have been mutated to define America. At this stage what happens is that to strip away Capitalism by "penalizing" the elite with the Robin Hood tax would be like stripping away democracy (in the eyes of the Americans). Also, in collaboration with my forethought, if the elites are the one's manipulating policy decisions then it's quite unlikely that they'll poison their own pockets.
I think that one plausible solution is eliminating "dependency theory" by taking initiatives to promote self-sufficiency and sustainability. Additionally, regional trade pacts I don't feel are ethical in the age of globalization as they are discriminatory. However, regardless of the means, the ends will not procure without a global integrative framework.
I question what the world will look like 20 years from now——
February 20th, 2010 at 12:13
The only way to gradually eliminate the problem is to let the developing world trade themselves out of poverty. But the US & EU control the WTO and will not let that happen. Even getting rid of EU & US farm subsidies would go a long way towards eliminating the poor.
But since that isn't going to happen we need something in the meantime. And what would that be?
February 20th, 2010 at 12:09
Yes Guy those problems are very real. Catch is the only sustainable way is to let developing countries trade themselves out of poverty. But since vested interests control the WTO that isn't going to happen. Getting rid of US and EU farm subsidies would go a long way towards that goal.
So we need something else. And what would that be? Difficult isn't it? Add to the problem that the millions of people I mention in my article excludes Africa and the Indian subcontinent. Half the worlds poor are, as you know, on the subcontinent.
Something needs to be done until trade benefits not only the developed but also the developing world. And what?
February 20th, 2010 at 16:55
You know Thom, the only way that would be sustainable would be to let developing countries trade themselves out of poverty. But that's not going to happen since the US & EU firmly control the WTO. Even abolishing EU & US farm subsidies would go a long way towards making life better for the billions of people who live on less than $2 a day.
Trade instead of Aid is my recipe. But until that's possible something needs to happen. Have helped developing countries get investment and so forth. But that's not where the problem lies. It's in the collapsed Doha round.
By the way taakstraf is called community service in English.
February 21st, 2010 at 22:01
During the month of December all the Christmas movies come out. One famous line is "mankind is your business!" It would be nice of more people understood that there are so many people who are living below poverty level, don't own a pair of shoes and don't have proper health care. Others are worried that they may not be able to get their preferred golf times.
Hopefully, your call to arms will get some positive results. Sadly, there are so many political layers standing between these people and the changes that they need.
LinkedIn and other forms of social networking helps to make the world smaller as people begin to develop friendships with others from throughout the world. Hopefully, a benefit of this social networking is the feeling that what happens in other parts of the world is relevant to where you live.
Catarina, you have a huge heart and a wonderful way of embracing humanity. Thank you for sharing your thoughts!
David
February 22nd, 2010 at 02:02
Ending poverty begins with meeting the most basic human needs; nurturing hope, pride and self confidence, and providing some tangible evidence that the poor have a future. All to often, extreme poverty creates such despair that we can barely comprehend the psychological effects. Only when basic human needs are met can one expect any sense of direction, inspiration and courage for the poor to lift themselves up and be open to the prospect of self preservation and develop a sense of community. Post continues ….
February 22nd, 2010 at 02:04
Though inequality in tems of wealth and trade is actually shrinking between developed and developing countries — it is growing within countries — including the developed world. This means that countries will become more vulnerable to social unrest and political instability. Instability and violence is the premier cause of greater poverty and the collapse of markets and viable governments. Countries thus affected often descend into civil wars and then resort to authoritatrian solutions to maintain civil order. If you accept this basic analysis, then a whole different paradigm emerges as to how governments can create sustainable economies, and people can live sustainably upon the Earth.
For practical solutions I invite you to visit http://www.genesisfacility.org. We plan to be operational this Spring.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:39
Thanks David. You know it's worse than that to live on less than 2 dollars a day. Have seen poverty in Africa that's mindboggling. But despite that we cannot fully comprehend what it is like. Unfortunately most people don't care because self interest prevails.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:44
Good comment David. Catch is most people in the developed world don't care because self interest prevails. Not least when it comes to the WTO. Abolishing US & EU farm subsidies alone would go a long way towards assisting developing countries to trade themselves out of poverty. But that will not happen since politicians first priority is to be re-elected.
February 23rd, 2010 at 00:51
Yes, the major powers are run by politicians who devote their full time efforts towards getting elected and pursuing self interests. Those interests do not include looking after these people. A case study is the cruel indifference during Rwanda. In the US there is a phrase “NIMBY” which stands for “not in my back yard.” People become too self important when that shouldn’t be.
A crazy thought would be to try to find solutions that include the creation of jobs, increased standard of living which results in an increased demand for the products that big companies sell.
Basically, a global economy would do wonders for so many people.
I have an internal battle raging between optimist and realist.
February 23rd, 2010 at 15:48
Catch is too many people resist a global world with all that entails. I'm all for it, in fact that's how I have lived my life. But sooner or later all people in the world will have adapted to a truly global world in every sense. But we will be long gone by then.
April 25th, 2010 at 02:42
It is great to have the ability to read a good quality blog with useful data on topics that plenty are interested on. Go on doing what you do as we like reading your work.
April 25th, 2010 at 10:40
Happy you find my blog interesting.
April 10th, 2012 at 02:34
Catarina,
We've been living in a global world for some time now – all of us are serfs to a global economy owned and run by global corporate entities. These entities quickly shift their dollars wherever it is most profitable. They load up special interest coffers in the U.S. and elsewhere in order to maintain their taxbreaks, incentives, and government funding. They do NOT care about poverty. Across the world they have supporters (otherwise known as investors) from all political parties.
My recent post Stand Out with Social, Search, and Content!
April 10th, 2012 at 07:45
When it comes to poverty and shantytowns. In some places they have become such a part of the landscape they are actually suburbs in their own right. In Port Moresby PNG think of the Four Mile. In the Solomon Islands' capital Honiara think of Burns Creek, Black Sands near Port Vila in Vanuatu. In Fiji there are so many in Suva that I've lose count, and the latest analysis indicates well over 10% of its population of around 800,000 live in them, with number set to increase. Many who live in these have jobs which you would consider a white collar position. But the amount they are earning, the size of their family, and the commitments to the extended family mean living in a Shantytown is the only option. And while the national governments of these countries occasionally put out big words saying they want them to go, action rarely happens.
For overseas tourists it's a side of their holiday in the sun they don't see, and which tour and resort operators go out of the way to ensure stays out of sight. Many people might say they are serious about ending world poverty, but don't realise, or care, that it often exists under their nose.
April 10th, 2012 at 10:38
Glad you agree with me Catherine.
April 10th, 2012 at 10:39
Good points Campbell.
April 14th, 2012 at 05:22
The number of people who live in poverty throughout the world is shocking. It's difficult to see how this intractable problem can be solved. The United Nations does good work, as do global charitable organizations, but the birth rate in developing countries exacerbates a problem as do dictators who do little or nothing to share the wealth with their people. I count my blessings every day that I was born in the U.S. and have never known a day of hunger or without shelter over my head.
My recent post LinkedIn Adds New Feature to Discover People You May Know
April 14th, 2012 at 10:12
I do not get why Germans must still be reminded of Hitler after this time. That is history. Worse stuff happened in the rest of the world. Apartheid in South Africa is far then what Hitler has done but do not get the mileage by social commentators. Other then that I applaud your compassion great work.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:36
Glad you agree with me Jeannette. However, I do believe that only governments can solve the problem of poverty. In the developing world they are interested in doing so. However, in the West the will is unfortunately lacking. So lamentably we will see poverty in the US and Europe increasing even more.
April 14th, 2012 at 10:39
Glad you like my compassion Xavier. Apartheid got a lot of coverage. However what happened when the ANC took over is that they got the political power but the economic power stayed with multinationals. The ANC has hence not been able to solve the problem of poverty in South Africa.