There were several questions and arguments this week that struck a chord with me.
For the 2nd presentation, which focused on trade being a driver of world change, the question on LDCs set me thinking. For the benefit of those who were not present, the presenter had asked: "How can LDCs develop their economies and compete with developed countries in the area of exporting manufactured goods?" The context for this question was that many developed countries exploited the developing countries for their abundant cheap raw materials to manufacture products which they then sold back to the developing countries for a huge profit. This resulted the developing countries not benefiting from the trade while the developed countries just got richer. What was proposed by Prof was that instead of letting the developed countries make the profit, resource rich developing countries should not sell their raw materials, develop their manufacturing industries and develop the products for export. Thus, they will earn the profit margin. This is what strikes me when I think about that solution:
No doubt developing countries will be less dependent on the developed countries for products with their own manufacturing industry, but where does that leave the developed countries with no raw materials? Does that mean that there will and should be a divide between resource rich countries which have very developed manufacturing industries and the developed countries with no raw materials which are dependent on the resource rich countries for manufactured products and with people as their only resource? It is probably a slippery slope to argue this but there does not appear to be any space for the developed countries to grow here except through speculative activity or other industries that do not require raw materials.
Another thing that struck me was the quote by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Man's mind, once stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original dimensions."
Upon going back to think about this quote, a book came to mind - Stefan Zweig's 'The Post-Office Girl'. Just a brief introduction to the story:
The book is on the boom and bust of Capitalism, but it brings to mind the very idea Oliver Wendell Holmes was trying to convey in his quote. The main protagonist, Christine, is a post office worker in the Austrian countryside, who works long hours for little pay. Her life is characterized by monotony and penny-pinching until a surprise letter from her aunt sets her off on a vacation which introduces her to the world of luxury which the rich people live in. When her vacation is unexpectedly cut short, she returns to her old lifestyle with a bitter heart.
The poor girl had been given exposure to a life beyond her reach, and bitterly brought back to earth upon her return. This should shed a cautionary light of those who think that exposure and education can solve all the problems of the world. Exposure, without education on how to utilise it, would do nothing for its participants except to make them bitter in the long run. Another book that expresses this is "The Good Women of China" by Xinran. The author, who goes around collecting stories of people in China, finds out that the people in the rural countryside, away from the trappings of wealth and leading a life full of toil and hardship, were ironically the happiest. So, should we interfere with their lives?
Those are the 2 main streams of thought after monday's class. I would thus give it an 8 :)
No comments:
Post a Comment