Cordaid has come up with a very hard hitting “People in Need” campaign and has put the hard truth of stark disparity existing on our planet right in front of our eyes. This ad campaign is a play on emotions, guilt conscience and will surely generate lots of aid essential to reach out to the most deprived and poor people living in poor nations around the globe.

We all know that what we splurge on can buy something very essential for the needy ones. This emotional appeal for little donation which is much less than what one usually spends on luxury is no doubt an effective tool but is it necessary to make big spenders very guilty with all these images?

These pictures of African people posing with expensive stuff seem very poignant, compelling but was it necessary to use actual ‘poor people in need’ to make an appeal? Do they need to ‘beg’ for donation from the rich? Maybe candid shots would have worked better. We cannot deny that affluent of the society also contribute to world’s economy in a big way. We live in a consumer centric capitalist era which runs on market economy after all.

Big spenders alone are not responsible for sorry state of the world. This disparity won’t be removed even if rich were to donate all their money to charity. We live a far messed up complicated world and this ad gives the most simplistic solution.

It is true that world needs organizations like Cordaid to build bridges between haves and have-nots. Hope the play on conscience works for the good cause. But more than aid poor of the world need to be empowered to improve their own conditions.

Via Advertt

Today one of the most elite and prestigious trains of India Rajdhani Express was held hostage for almost 5 hours. Some 200 people who surrounded the train and abducted the driver were no terrorists but yet they did manage to spread word of terror. The abducted driver was later released and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) rescued of 1200 stranded passengers. No one was seriously injured or killed and no one was arrested either

It is believed that these 200 local people belonging to the interiors of Jharkhand were part of Maoist group demanding release of their leaders who have been recently arrested during crackdown on Maoists operations in some states (mainly West Bengal).

Naxalite and Maoist movement has been gaining ground in the interiors of India mainly due to flawed development policies. Developmental projects like dams, mines, heavy industries have displaced thousands of people all over India who have been forced to live in slums in the cities. It is only activists and Maoists groups who have managed to reach out to farmers and poor tribals living in interiors of India and hence have found good haven and fertile ground for their revolutionary dreams.

If only administration and politicians had kept their promises of providing basic infrastructure like health, primary education and right to livelihood to millions living in far flung villages this Maoist menace would not have grown into a big tree which if uprooted now will certainly shake the whole country. Its better to cut the roots and let the tree to die out naturally to uproot this menace completely.

Via NDTV

There is a new breed of dissidents in China today as the country ‘tolerates a safer wave of protests’ 20 years after the Tiananmen Square massacre. The ordinary Chinese are much more critical of human rights now and some of them have been keen to defend such rights.

On June 3 and 4, 1989, a military crackdown on protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square left scores of people dead. The complete tally of casualties has not been released even after 20 years as the Chinese government has always been adamant to defend its right to have quelled such protests undertaken by the elite of Chinese society, specifically students and intellectuals who demanded democracy, transparency from a corrupt government, and better economic policies.

Chinese activism today is no longer conducted by intellectuals. Most of them have not graduated from college. They still demand political and economic reforms, but now largely act as the voice of the disenfranchised sectors such as workers, farmers, and microbusiness owners who, otherwise, do not have sufficient legal support. Rich people in China, specifically the elite, have had better legal options to air their grievances and fight for their rights. Protests in China today mostly come from disgruntled workers and grassroots people from the countryside. Generally, it is still justice that protesters have been fighting for

Image

Via The Wall Street Journal

Reaganomics refers to the economic policies that marked the presidency of Ronald Reagan who became US president during ‘stagflation,’ a period known for high inflation and unemployment. The four cornerstones of Reaganomics, a set of policies and economic view, are: reduction in the growth of government spending, reduction in marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital, reduction in government regulation of the economy, and control of the money supply to reduce inflation.

Reagan wanted to cut back on domestic spending while lowering taxes, making him markedly different from his immediate predecessors. True to two of Reagan’s campaign promises, Reaganomics lowered taxes and ‘decreased’ government. What Reaganomics actually translated into were cuts to social programs, as well as large-scale deficit spending on the military.

According to economic experts, Reagan’s tax reforms actually ‘pushed both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit, leading to a significant increase in public debt.’ The tax cuts nearly doubled tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1,032 billion in 1990). The budget deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending.

Furthermore, Reagan reduced income tax rates, with the largest rate reductions on the highest incomes. Operationally, from the eyes of the average American taxpayer, what Reagan did was fatten the rich and hoped that their excreta will nourish the poor.

Image

Via Ludwig von Mises Institute

There are indicators of socioeconomic well-being, and all these are materially measured. They may all contribute positively to a person’s comfort, convenience, mobility, freedom, and further opportunity in life. On the other hand, these material manifestations are not distributed equally in society. That is why if these provide advantage to one person who has more of them, they may also prove to be disadvantage to someone who has less of them. These measures of socioeconomic well-being are also the benchmarks of inequality in this world.

Income is the opportunity for consumption, and is usually measured in monetary terms since consumption comes at a material cost in what is called consumerism. As a measure of socioeconomic well-being, income’s strength is its beneficial effect on the owner of the income, endowing him with a certain comfortable level of standard of living.

The weakness of income lies in the convenience it gives its owner. Someone with higher income or consistent income not only gets used to his living standards but will aspire for even higher standards. In the process, he will do what it takes to earn more so that he can spend more and consume more.

In the end, income affects a person’s level of contentment. But resources are finite in this world. Someone with more income will hoard more of those limited resources, tipping the balance against those who may not have the income to avail themselves of those resources – but have the same need. Food is a pertinent example that is proportionate to income. While everybody needs nutrition, those who cannot afford to buy more nutritious food end up with poorer health.

Image

Via LIFE-WALKER

When income does not go to savings, it generally ends up in the realm of consumption. The principle of consumption rests on the concept of disposable income. When one has more income to spend, he has the bigger opportunity to consume.

Consumption is rather attractive and tempting, at times. In a free world, there really is no barrier to consumption except the material capability for it. So, those who can afford to spend more, consume more. And those who cannot – do not. The balance is tipped in favor of those who use up more of the finite resources of this world. The end result is sheer disparity in resources between the haves and the have-nots.

Additionally, consumers become victims of producers. The more people consume, the more producers use up the raw materials available on the planet to fashion them into material goods or services for the consumers to avail of.

The weakness that is inherent in consumption is its loss of control. Consumption is bred by greed. People will avail of things that may include those that they do not even need. Some ugly scenarios include traffic jams where people who can afford to buy vehicles buy more than they actually need in terms of the transportation purposes of vehicles.

Purchasing power is the bastard son of a capitalist and consumerist society that comes with free market economy.

Image

Via Congoo

Adolf Merckle owns Phoenix Pharmahandel, a drugs wholesaler with annual sales of 21bn euros; Heidelberg Cement with annual sales of 11bn euros; Ratiopharm, a generic drugs firm with annual sales of 1.8bn euros; Kaessbohrer ski slope equipment firm with annual sales of 183m euros; and VEM engine makers with annual sales of 280m euros. The German billionaire’s business empire employs approximately 100,000 employees. In 2008, it recorded 30bn euros annual sales.

In 2008, he lost about 400m euros (£363m; $535m) on Volkswagen shares. His business concerns raked up huge debts. When his business empire broke down due to the economic meltdown, he took his own life. The body of the world’s 94th richest person was found sprawled near railway tracks. Before he committed suicide, Merckle was able to secure credit from banks. Apparently, the new hope was not able to mend the broken spirit of a rich man.

It is the poor that will be affected most by the global economic meltdown. The rich will get less rich but can never reach the destitute level of those who never had material wealth. It is interesting to note that with the same economic meltdown, it is the poor who will be able to handle the emotional, mental, and psychological challenges of an economic depression. Perhaps, it is because they have no expectations and have tempered their material aspirations so much so that financial loss will not necessarily lead to total helplessness.

Image

Via BBC