The Independent newspaper (UK) headlined on Tuesday with “The great depression” in reference to what it claims is 28-million Americans’ reliance on food stamps to survive. This, it goes on to say, arises from the era of the credit crunch, which it suggests is “a sure sign the world’s richest country faces economic crisis”.
Ironically, this comes just prior to the large oil companies being required to face a US congressional committee to explain the need for federal subsidies running into billions of dollars while showing a profit of a hundred billion dollars in the past year.
Lest we forget, the US is also involved in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, costing trillions of dollars.
Of course this means that whoever assumes the presidency is going to inherit not only two wars, local and global recession, the re-emergence of Russia and China as well as climate change, but also a host of other pressing issues from terrorism to genocide.
One issue of which they will be acutely aware — but which will probably not feature near the top of their list of priorities — is poverty. While all presidential candidates commit themselves to uplifting the poor, there appears to be a lack of substance behind most of the rhetoric.
Indeed, Sasha Abramsky in his article for the Guardian‘s Comment Is Free titled “Who’s talking about poverty” says:
“John Edwards talked about structural poverty during the months he ran for the Democratic nomination. Since he disappeared from the public scene two months ago, however, the discourse around poverty has largely been denuded of specifics.
“Clinton and Obama, and for that matter McCain, are talking about people hurting and dreams being deferred, and I’m more than willing to believe they do care about the most impoverished Americans. But the Bobby Kennedy-circa-1968 emphasis on why people are too often condemned not just to poverty during recession but also to hard-scrabble lives even during the good times has largely disappeared from the discourse.”
The fact is that tangible structures or proposals for dealing with the ever-increasing gap between the haves and the have-nots have been thin on the ground. While speaking in terms of abstracts may afford hope to the oppressed masses and gain their support, it will not translate into substance nor assist in remedying their plight.
Where are the economic models and proposed measures that will translate rhetoric into substance?
This “great divide” between rich and poor may well become front and centre as the recession starts to bite, and the sooner politicians provide people with a clear idea of how they see the way forward, the better.
This applies to us in South Africa as well.
The ANC — in terms of a statement by the NEC to mark the party’s 96th anniversary on January 8 2008 — outlined the measures it believes are necessary to tackle poverty. It confirmed:
“However, serious challenges of unemployment, poverty and inequality remain. Answering these challenges means that we must simultaneously accelerate economic growth and transform the quality of that growth.
“Our most effective weapon in the campaign against poverty is the creation of decent work. Moreover, the challenges of poverty and inequality require that accelerated growth takes place in the context of an effective strategy of redistribution …
“During the course of this year, we must make the creation of decent work opportunities the primary focus of our economic policies. We need to make maximum use of all the means at our disposal, as the leading party in government, to achieve this. This objective should be reflected in the orientation and programmes of development finance institutions and regulatory bodies; through government procurement policies; in the sequencing of industrial and trade policy reforms; and in our macroeconomic policy stance.
“While many families have access to social grants and other poverty-alleviation programmes, many households and communities remain trapped in poverty, are dependent on the state and are thus unable to access the opportunities created by an improving economic climate.
“Key development indicators published by government last year show that poverty has indeed been reduced since the ANC-led government was elected, especially after 2000. In real terms, the income of the poorest has improved. The percentage of the population living under R3 000 a year decreased from 52% to 43%. More than 12-million people now receive social grants, out of which 8,1-million are children. However the rate of income increase for the poor has not matched that of the better off, so income inequality has increased.
“Among the challenges that we therefore face is to respond effectively to the massive income inequality that continues to bedevil our society as we continue to make progress in pushing back the frontiers of poverty.
“Our responses to poverty must seek to empower people to access economic opportunities, while creating a comprehensive social safety net to protect the most vulnerable in our society. We will accelerate the process of introduction of a mandatory retirement scheme.
“Education and health must be prioritised as the core elements of social transformation.”
This extract from the statement, while highlighting certain areas, should not be quoted before reading the statement in its entirety — which gives context to these quotes.
As President Thabo Mbeki confirmed at Polokwane and as iterated above, the ANC has made progress in the fight against poverty, which needs to be recognised. Yet Polokwane was driven by the issue of poverty and the people’s desire to accelerate the process.
Vital to that is your understanding of what the ruling party is suggesting as the way forward. It affords you the opportunity of contributing, in whichever way, to the process, suggesting ways in which it may be improved and keeping the party to its promises.
This is vital for all South Africans.
Re – the SA poverty question:
It seems that two countries (Chile and Tunisia) that have very successfully pushed back their levels of poverty are not addressing poverty as a question of lack of wealth alone, but target it as a symptom of broader issues that need to be addressed.
I think the classical socialist ideal of redistribution of wealth that the ANC is espousing isn’t going to help us get there. I really think there are some good lessons to be learnt from these examples:
http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=641&fArticleId=3817114
i dont have a clear reason that what kind of poverty are you talking about but let me say i think obama he can talk about it?
What about the fact that a lot of brothers and sisters are sitting in townships entertaining alcoholic habits who are fit and able to do basic manual labour? What about the young girls who are falling pregnant at alarming rates so they can get a grant?
i think poverty in the south african context is more difficult to “solve” because of its many facets. Maybe we need to identify why so many young ones dont WANT to do to school. Many of them don’t want to work. some espouse to be like Bra Joe(local gangster pseudo) or someone down the street, wear nice flashy italian golf-shifts and drive VR6s or GTIs(tsotsi rides).
The is a social stigma linked to our poverty. Its called entitlement. its what i fear will ensure that this poverty beast hangs around for awhile.
No political system works
The scum always rise to the top and are in control
A number of points
1. Poverty is a state of mind. One is only poor if one perceives that someone else is rich. That is, there has to be a rich person around for others to feel poor and individuals (not governments) make themselves rich by taking steps to do so.
2. To solve inequalities one has to reduce everyone to the lowest common denominator. That is, the rich must pay the poor and become less rich. So addressing inequalities does not work as communism and socialism have shown.
3. Child grants are NOT sustainable as it leads to a population explosion by creating professional mothers. A women with 10 kids gets R5,000 pm. The tax payers cannot sustain this and it will lead to more poverty. The solution here is to give women(guardians included) who are not tax payers a mother grant of R2500 pm regardless of how many kids they have. This will promote single child mothers, raise household income and reduce poverty.
3. Social upliftment and redistribution strategies like BEE is confined to people who can afford some shares at reduced prices and the companies have no further commitments to uplifting the people. The companies also know that the shares will over time be sold and revert back to normal wealthy shareholders. That is, BEE is a short term strategy that will benefit the rich in the long term.
4. Education is key. We should have a national education revolution where the poorest kid gets a quality education. Instead of BEE, companies (and individuals) should get tax relief by having to invest in schools and student bursaries. Just think of what will happen when say Checkers or BHP Billiton puts money into a ‘poor’ school and erects advertising boards to declare its social commitment. The school will suddenly find that it has to perform as it will be under the spotlight of big business.
One cannot eradicate poverty due to its relative to rich status BUT one can raise real household incomes.
Governments in general are usually too busy playing power politics to worry about poverty as the poor generally have no power until they become the overwhelming mass – eg Zim, Czar Russia, Nazi Germany, etc.
I should have added this quote:
‘Teach a man how to fish and he will feed himself for life.
Feed a man fish and you will feed him for life.’
Owen
What about the Kibbutz system? Much more African. Let “The Village” teach the child if the mother can’t. Covers education as well.
With regard to the US poverty gap and impact of the credit crunch, an important and overlooked aspect is that it is the working poor who are the most leveraged.
Those earning just above the poverty line are not eligible for state sponsored social security benefits and have been mercilessly targeted for heavily backloaded credit vehicles – be those personal lines of credit, teaser credit card rates with high limits and the almighty adjustable-rate homeloan (mortgage). With all of those pigeons now coming home to roost, there is going to even more crap in the US pigeon house – regardless of whom the next incumbent of the White house is. Come to think of it, that could be the reason why they call it the “White house”: that’s where most of the present pigeon droppings are being composted.
SA and other developing economies are particularly vulnerable to this type of contagion if they continue using easy (poorly collateralized) credit as a mechanism for economic empowerment and growth.
I read somewhere that most people live lives of “quiet desperation” That has always stuck in my mind. Wish we could find a way out!
The poor will always be and have always been with
us,that is why we pay taxes to enable the Government to alleviate poverty.
No Government can give anything, it first has to
take something before it can give something, but
it should do so without killing the goose (economy)
that lays the golden egg,if you do,Zim is not
on the moon.