Just finished reading "Globalization and its Discontents" by Joseph Stiglitz. One thing is for sure: you will never read any news about IMF, bailouts, austerity packages and other related things in the same way as before after reading this book. Whether you are a die-hard capitalist or communist, you will find something to love or hate in this book. The book does not mince words to squarely lay blame at IMF's door for some of the biggest economic declines in the last 30 years or so, including Russia, East Asia and Latin America. Even if you do not have a very good idea about Macroeconomics, quite a few things would make sense. And if you do, this book would give you a lot of things to think about and chew on. Very nicely written book. Nevertheless, even though I recommend reading this book, there are some things in the book which I understand but don't agree with in terms of its feasibility in the real world.
Goodness and fairness are good to have. Unfortunately, goodness and fairness can permeate only from the strong. And nobody can teach that to the unwilling strong or moral-lecture the strong into being good. Such is the nature of power. And, as much as one may not like it, the world operates on principles of power and self-interest, which in turn derive their strength from how we are brought up. The question of making the world a better place is not simply the question of having the right policy: it is always possible to game a system. The question is about the basic human learning and understanding. If the values of humanity and universal brotherhood are not imbibed at an early stage, it is virtually impossible to get it later in life. The definitions of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable vary so wildly that it is nigh impossible to reach any kind of common standards. Further, it is fiendishly easy to use, abuse and mislead an economically deprived crowd. So, it is in the interest of most political leaders to keep things that way. There are simply too powerful vested interests that do not understand the meaning of fair or good. For them might is right, and so the world moves on. This problem will not be solved with intellectual discussions.
The book also comes down to some veiled rich-bashing, blaming the rich for all ills, and poor are generally exonerated by virtue of their suffering or their mistakes are generally toned down. Nobody forces anybody to take a loan. To live within one's means and getting the house in order is one's own responsibility. Fairness is good to preach, but as far as the eyes of history go, it has never-ever been successful. Is it desirable? Definitely. Is it possible? No. Yes, we can try. But it is good to know the odds you face. It may be good to build consensus and avoid hubris, but avoiding hubris and working with a committee are two different things. Making the collective wiser than the individual is a skill that very few have.
Overall, I find the book's position centrist, leaning a little towards left. The writer is also either naive or idealistic to assume that the world should operate on principles of fairness on its own account. The truth remains that in this world powerful rule over the weak. As somebody said, the meek shall inherit the earth but not the mineral rights! The writer is right to point out the imbalances and unfairness, but his approach is solve the problem is somewhat idealistic.
Goodness and fairness are good to have. Unfortunately, goodness and fairness can permeate only from the strong. And nobody can teach that to the unwilling strong or moral-lecture the strong into being good. Such is the nature of power. And, as much as one may not like it, the world operates on principles of power and self-interest, which in turn derive their strength from how we are brought up. The question of making the world a better place is not simply the question of having the right policy: it is always possible to game a system. The question is about the basic human learning and understanding. If the values of humanity and universal brotherhood are not imbibed at an early stage, it is virtually impossible to get it later in life. The definitions of right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable vary so wildly that it is nigh impossible to reach any kind of common standards. Further, it is fiendishly easy to use, abuse and mislead an economically deprived crowd. So, it is in the interest of most political leaders to keep things that way. There are simply too powerful vested interests that do not understand the meaning of fair or good. For them might is right, and so the world moves on. This problem will not be solved with intellectual discussions.
The book also comes down to some veiled rich-bashing, blaming the rich for all ills, and poor are generally exonerated by virtue of their suffering or their mistakes are generally toned down. Nobody forces anybody to take a loan. To live within one's means and getting the house in order is one's own responsibility. Fairness is good to preach, but as far as the eyes of history go, it has never-ever been successful. Is it desirable? Definitely. Is it possible? No. Yes, we can try. But it is good to know the odds you face. It may be good to build consensus and avoid hubris, but avoiding hubris and working with a committee are two different things. Making the collective wiser than the individual is a skill that very few have.
Overall, I find the book's position centrist, leaning a little towards left. The writer is also either naive or idealistic to assume that the world should operate on principles of fairness on its own account. The truth remains that in this world powerful rule over the weak. As somebody said, the meek shall inherit the earth but not the mineral rights! The writer is right to point out the imbalances and unfairness, but his approach is solve the problem is somewhat idealistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment