Protectionism and Poverty - The World Today

I am privileged, and according to some of my friends (?) and colleagues, I am rich. That, I submit, from them is a little like the pot calling the kettle black - an old expression that I hope does not cause offence to pots or kettles and that I have not now inadvertently started a “#movement”.

In my defence - not that I am proposing to mount one, I am not as “rich” as many other people I know - at least not in monetary terms, but then neither are the people who call me “rich” - in some cases in rather derogatory terms - actually poor, as they most certainly would themselves qualify for a place in the top 1% of the world’s wealthiest people. [To be in the top 1% worldwide for income, you need to be in receipt annually of around GBP25,000 pension or salary - and in net worth terms - GBP600k. Remember that is to be in the top 1% globally!!]. “Rich” for me though is measured not just in terms of fiscal and asset wealth, but also in terms of freedoms, happiness and health. So yes, I am rich and so I also have to say while we are about it that I am also lucky.

Where I am right now, the people are not financially rich! I am on the Mekong River in Laos. It’s really interesting. The part I have been going down bisects Laos and Thailand and the contrast between the two sides has been stark. The more prosperous Thai side with its brick built villages shows up the poorer Lao side with its run down wooden huts and dirt tracks. Oh yes, say the tourists, the Lao side is just so much more picturesque and unspoilt. I was having a chat with Lee, our Lao guide, and asked him about the border between the two - with the river providing a natural boundary. He told me it was very easy to cross between the two sides to visit but only for a day. No visa needed, but if you stayed any longer you would be sent back to the other side, and anyway you couldn’t work without a permit. So, I asked him more about his feelings when he saw the prosperity on the Thai side and didn’t it make him wish Laos was more like Thailand? His response was simple. Yes, of course it would be better, but then he also said why couldn’t they be the same country? They have many ethnic similarities - even the Thai Baht is accepted in Laos, but of course the Thais don’t want to share what is theirs. And there you have it, the problem in a microcosm. Why should they share something they have built up? What is wrong with possession even if your neighbour is poor.

The world was once made up of small communities, happy in their own environments but then those communities started to spread out to meet their needs for food or grazing then ultimately other raw materials gathering influence on the way by bullying or by diplomacy. But it became a matter of ownership and possession, and over the ensuing centuries it has ever been thus. The explorers, the adventurers ... Marco Polo, Vasco de Gama, Zheng He, Captain Cook. The colonisers and acquirers of land and property - the Vikings, the Romans, Genghis Khan, the Portuguese and Spaniards, the Dutch in Asia and the British everywhere. Did they develop the countries they invaded or colonised ... well some will argue yes ... or did they just take what they wanted. And then did they prepare those countries to fend for themselves when they became independent? I would argue no. They made possession the key word. It’s rather the opposite of what we tell our children, which is to share. As adults do we encourage sharing? 

Lee, the Laotian is interestingly not bitter about the wealth of Thailand, but does wish they had some of it, or that they could live together. Possession is I am sure what drove many of the people of Britain to vote to leave the European Union (and I know I will be criticised for this view) because “protecting your own” is what possession is all about. The USA - a country built on immigrants - now wants to protect the possessions it has acquired and build some wall to stop other people from having the same opportunities afforded to their forbears.

What can one do? Look, this is as much a matter of human nature as anything else. Like a child, you have something - you think it is yours and you want to keep it. But everyone seems to agree that the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots” is growing. This cannot, in the longer term, be sustainable. Don’t we owe it to our children and the generations that follow to see sense, to both educate and encourage this generation - and beyond - to reign in the excesses. Are the huge salaries paid out actually justified, and just how much do you need to live comfortably? Yes, you can still reward success and hard work - and that would be right because there should be no room for the idle. But people like Lee work at least as hard as many millionaires I know - and while he is rich in knowledge and in culture, he needs a little more to be able to build a better house and educate his family. Although being my usual cynical self, that “little more” of course needs to find its way into the hands of the people who need it and not the hands of the corrupt; yet another problem seeking a solution!

Comments

[Jeremy]

Glad that you enjoyed your Laos trip. I love Luang Prabang! Also, just while exploring a movie biopic of Lee Kuan Yew today, I found out that Lee's (not your guide) favored journalist - the talented writer and once upon a time MI6 field officer Dennis Bloodworth, wrote a long forgotten and supposedly hilarious novel about Laos back in 1972. I'll try to track it down, and pass it to you if it is any good. We all know how much time you have for reading nowadays ;)

[David Eldon]

In response to the comment asking if there is not a "middle way" - I can only say "I wish". The unfortunate thing here is that, as you say, politicians are quick to exploit the differences (joined by the media often) and of course a policy that allows those that "have" something to keep it sits well with those that "have". (Please forgive the over-use of the quotation marks). My argument is not to deny people the right to "have" - but to be reasonable about what they need. In Britain, a labour government will certainly ensure those that "have" are taxed to such an extent that they will be significantly reduced in wealth - but then comes the issue of what happens to that money. Fair distribution? I somehow doubt it.

[John D]

In this post, you draw attention to the seeming greed of those who are unwilling to share what they have, and also to the apparent envy of many of those who desire what they have not got.

Sadly, selfishness and suffering appear to define the path followed by much of humanity, and a lot of politicians are not slow to take advantage of these differences for their own ends.

Is there not a middle way, perhaps one that cuts out self serving politicians? Or are we too far gone for that?