Will Free Market Economics' "Invisible Hand" Address the Planet’s Woes?
Libertarian and frequent commenter MarcoPolo writes: Over population was a hot topic in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s, with an announcement by 93% of the world’s leading scientists endorsing the prophesy that 1977 would see permanent and increasing world food shortages. But, here we are in 2015, and it hasn’t occurred yet. The planet is capable of feeding vastly more than 7 or even 9 billion people. There’s no need to resort to draconian measures to “control’ populations. We must place our faith optimistically in our own human ingenuity, and realize that moral hand-wringing will just render us powerless to help ourselves, or the environment.
It is true that this planet can deliver a food supply to 9 billion people. It is not at all true that it can do so in the absence of our civilization’s making some major changes to its approach to energy and agriculture. The fact that previous fears about mass starvation didn’t come to fruition in the time frames predicted does not imply that the concerns of our current experts in these fields are unfounded. Wishful thinking (blind faith, voodoo economics, call it what you will) that human ingenuity and free market economics will auto-correct these problems is not responsible policy. It seems especially inane today, insofar as our current path is leading us in the wrong direction in terms of almost any parameter one can name: climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, toxic waste, deaths associated with air pollution, water scarcity, desertification of farmland, the nutritional content of our food, the rising disparity between rich and poor, etc.
Btw, I caution you not to visit the developing world and tell the people there that mass starvation isn’t happening. 9 million boys and girls under the age of five die every year of starvation, meaning that over 200 young children died agonizing deaths, many in their parents’ arms, in the 15-or-so minutes it took me to compose this. Anyone who’s not “wringing their hands” about this has a profoundly defective set of morals; I refuse to believe you are indifferent to this tragedy.
Well said, Craig.
Thanks. Becky (my wife) says this is one of the best things I’ve ever written. She calls it “pithy.” I like that. 🙂
Craig,
Poverty and starvation are not a result of ” overpopulation of the planet” nor any natural phenomenon, the are failures of civil administration and interference by aid groups which perpetuate the starvation and misery.
What is the difference between prosperity and the kind of misery found in those nations where poverty and even hunger abounds ? The difference is in the civil administration, and the reliance upon “aid” from well meaning first world nations unintentionally creating a cargo cult mentality.
All human societies must pass through a period of evolution. It’s by mistakes and painful errors we learn and develop. Interference by well meaning outsiders, does not help produce anything steal from the developing nation the experiences which created first world nations.
Hand wringing and cries of disparity between rich and poor, sharing resources etc, are the sort of impractical, sentimental errors that has created third world poverty.
Singapore is a an example of a very overpopulated nation, but no one starves. Why? Because of the determined self reliance and resilience of it’s people, and civic organization.
Those third world nations that throw off a cargo cult mentality, socialistic economic organization, and encourage individual responsibility from it’s citizens, can begin to prosper.
Civic responsibility can’t be given to societies, it must grow from harsh lessons. The learning experience is painful, but can’t be avoided.
A paternalistic approach to the third world is even less effective than the old colonial administrations, which at least had the administrative ability to feed it’s subject peoples.
An ideologically driven ” redistribution of wealth” , doesn’t create more wealth, it simply destroys the economy to the point where everyone is poor !
It’s easy to point out the problems, but extolling sentimental,simplistic, unrealistic resolutions is counter-productive.
marco, you are the one who is being paternalistic. Dont forget that those nations have dictators that keep their people poor and underfed. Those same dictators are armed, and their armies trained, by the US, France, the UK and Russia. Those dictators and their gangs of thugs running their sham governments would never allow their people to rise up and become wealthy as you and I. Without aid from elswhere, those people would be in even more dire straits. The children that grow up malnourished are not able to think straight when they become young adults. We are talking about generations of damage done by malnourishment.
Why is it that a farmer in Honduras grows all kinds of nutritious fruit and vegetables, that end up on your and my plates, and he is not allowed to bring any of it home to feed his kids? he is not even paid enough to properly feed his family? The fruit of his gruelling labour feeds you but not his own family? The problem Marco is that we steal from these people, and we keep them in line with our miltary’s protection of their dictators.
We cannot just turn our backs on them and tell them they have to evolve as a society. That is blaming the victim. That is exactly what your comment is doing. blaming the victims of our greed and violence.
Pierre,
It’s always easy to make a wish list , and make your self feel good and noble while finding someone to blame. it might make you feel morally superior, but it doesn’t have any practical benefit.
The only people responsible for the type of society in which they live, is the citizens of those nations. No one ever said that the road to national wealth and property, would be easy fair or with blood,sweat, tears or injustice. They are not ‘victims’. The citizens of these nations must learn to deal with the problem of civic administration and international trade competition. The lessons must be learned the hard way, or they are not the lessons of their own learning.
Third World dictators are not held in power by the great powers.(although they can be deposed by the great powers ) they come from their own people, and endure because a percentage of their own people support them. They fall when their own people can no longer tolerate their malevolent behavior or incompetence.
Social media and greater access to communication will eventually produce more accountable governments in third world nations, but it must be their solutions, for their own people.
Attempting to impose first world solutions on third world societies is impractical. The US is just the latest to learn the futility of attempting that sort of solution.
A reader notes: Simple
Just cut the military budget 20-30 percent
All kids in USA get free college
and all starving people could be feed…..
But we have to have weapons, which actually are not the proper weapons to fight current
enemies….
We produce weapons that are outdated because they are built in congressional districts of powerful house leaders. It extends to both parties but in particular, deposed Boehner’s district has been producing a tank that the army does not want.
That being said, without a strong military we would be overrun by the hoards of terrorists who are just looking for chinks in our armor. We could revert to a third world country with a few well placed nuclear bombs around our population centers.
I don’t see our role in the world as Santa Claus. We can make suggestions and train leaders but free food with no strings attached is doomed to failure.
I saw first hand what happened in New Orleans after Katrina with the distribution of contributions by well meaning government and non-profit groups. Cash was spent of big screen TVs when those things were very expensive. Donated food was sold by recipients for a profit. EBT cards were turned into cash for cents on the dollar.
There is no easy solution.
The Peace Corp has had some success but that is not a quick fix either. There has to be honest boots on the ground working with the people or the resources are squandered.
larry, maybe if the US military wasnt being used by the 1% to install and protect 3rd world and middle east dictators in exchange for easy access to cheap labour and natural resources, then those countries’ freedom fighters wouldnt be looking for chinks in your armour.
and your new orleans tvs, well there is always bound to be an enterprising capitalist in the midst of a catastrophe.
All kids get free college”
Nice Democrat talking point but I don’t think it would work even if we had the money to pay for it.
The government paying for college through the G.I. bill works great but those guys and gals are not just out of high school and have earned those dollars by putting themselves at risk around a very dangerous world. Giving every kid, rich or poor, motivated or not, is just money down a rat hole.
If you want to make college more affordable for more kids, tie the grants to community service. We already have the work-study funds at most if not all universities and technical schools. The whiners want cash with no work requirement. There is no free lunch and there never was.
Marco Polo raises some very valid points regarding the risks of poorly thought out aid and associated dependency.
There are however some basic things which can I believe be helpful.without too much risk of generating dependency.
One of the best ways to reduce birth rates, increase child survival, grow economies etc. is to ensure that the vast majority of people get at least a decent primary school education. Without this, it is very difficult to achieve development and improve the quality of life of those who are currently poor.
To assist with this, I would suggest the following.
1. Ensure that every school has certain basics such as
Sufficient electricity to run a few lights and allow access to information via the internet (phone charging / tablet computers). That way, learning can continue into the evening.
Clean water for drinking and hand washing – it is hard to learn when you are constantly getting sick!
Hygienic and adequate toilets (Essential for keeping girls in education after they hit puberty)
Regular visits by a health professional for vaccinations, health education, and treatments for common conditions such as parasitic worms – basic health care facilitates education
Facilitate sponsorship of vulnerable students unable to afford the basic essentials required to attend school – uniforms, pens and pencils, paper etc.
2. Facilitate the training and ongoing professional development of educational and health professionals as well as certain other essential professional skills such as sanitation engineering – possibly through giving access to open learning materials, and in some cases, sponsorship of training places.
This way, you get the tools of development into the hands of those who will in the future will deliver development.
3. Make family planning available to all those who wish to avail themselves of it.
With an educated population, population growth will take care of itself – girls who have a full secondary education start having children later and have fewer than those who do not complete primary school.
Great fear mongering, Lemmert! You state failed policies of separation tactics and then say it must be prevented by more waring methods. Yet you have no idea of the mindset that causes fearfulness and lack of ability to help the less fortunate. War preparations do not make the conditions for peaceful growth, but make aggression the “name of the game” for our society. …………Increasing our population numbers feeds this fear as well, by increasing chaos and consumption of goods. Then, our “ever seeing government” cuts funding for education while increasing prison allocations……….. Yes, “Katrina” was a sister on all fronts! The Govt was unprepared, and defended it’s ignorance well. Corruption does happen when money flows without design and planning.. Thats what is mean’t by being unprepared for natural disasters and having a legacy of making war against nature, among all others we cast as enemies around the world. It is paramount to cooperate with natural systems rather than rage dominion over them. There are NO quick fixes…………. Spending money on all war equipment is foolish to natural systems and destroys all humanity equally. Including the producers……….. When God’s Will is feared, no truth will ever be found in it, because it is, perforce, foregone that we have turned away from it. All wars have been attempts to justify the trespasses of the ara’ ones before. They never have…………. When will we learn? Perhaps soon! ………… Your last paragraph perhaps regained your sensibility. Thanks.
Hi Craig,
This is an interesting and complex subject that hinges on oil production. Thomas Malthus proposed a theory that basically said that food production increases linearly while population increases geometrically. Population would then always outpace food production until a correction based upon starvation, disease, or natural disaster. http://www.buzzle.com/articles/thomas-malthus-theory-of-population.html
But instead of reaching the limit of our arable land three things allowed us to increase food production. Irrigation, pesticides and fertilizer. While these things have always been with us they have, for several decades, been turned to factory levels. 90% of all fresh water is used for irrigation. Much of that depends upon diesel that pumps water to the fields. Commercial pesticides and fertilizer are made from oil. With these three things we have laughed at Malthus theories while we have extended our population about 4 times beyond its natural limit of food production.
Now Monsanto is trying to change the genome of our food and they are also looking at water needs, pests and nutrients.
On factory mono-culture farms we can produce the substance that looks like food. It will support a population at least for a time, at a price. Part of that price might be increased levels of disease and reduced immune levels. Part of the price is supported an increased level of the economy which is also a byproduct of oil.
While we can afford to buy goods from all around the world poor countries have more limited opportunities and sometimes seem forced to make bad choices.
Hi Graig,
Firstly let me correct you, I’m not really a libertarian in the American political sense. I would describe myself as an old fashioned Progressive-Conservative, of the English-Australian style.
That is to say, a have respect for benign traditions and identity, while recognizing that social attitudes must progress to become more enlightened and tolerant. I’m economically conservative and socially progressive, although I try to remain open minded, I don’t agree in change just for the sake of change.
I’m a financial-business analyst by profession, and that discipline always makes me consider the up-side and downside of any proposal, including those with an ideological basis.
You are quite correct, third world poverty, or even poverty in the first world is tragic. It’s impossible not to feel deeply moved by the plight of these people.
However, here’s the problem. Once you control your feelings of sympathy, what can you really do about reducing the size of the problem ? Compassion is all very well, and it may alleviate or assuage guilt feelings, but in reality what can be practically achieved on a long term basis ?
The International Aid Agencies have grown into vast empires, with huge amounts of money donated by wealthy countries, without any real accounting for the outcome. In fact, it could be argued that Aid is making only making the problem more difficult to resolve.
Most of these poor, overpopulated nations are really quite wealthy in terms of agriculture and raw materials. The problem is political and civil administration. Many of these nations, are not ‘natural’ nations but the relics of colonialism, and interference trying to create modern nation out people who hate each other.
Trying at this stage to find historic fault and blame, is equally pointless. Futile indignant rantings have little value unless backed by a real solution. Failed states, and failed societies must be corrected from within. Attempting to impose solutions from outside, has consistently proved unsuccessful. (Colonial methods are no longer acceptable).
Hopefully, technology will prove to be the solution these nations need. Technology can side-step the political process and bring about an intolerance for corrupt and inefficient civic administration.
Technology, including mass communication that is difficult, if not impossible, is already making a difference.
Population IS a factor in starvation and poverty, but it is only ONE factor. It should be obvious that if population growth had somehow halted at four billion we would not be having many of the environmental problems we are experiencing. However, it is entirely possible that with massive and radical changes in how we do things the earth could support 15 billion or even more people without starvation or poverty.
By implementing a safer, more efficient, and more economical nuclear power technology, we could radically change agriculture. Food crops could be grown in multi-level farming structures with the aid of artificial light. Plenty of water could be made available by a combination of using water much more efficiently and sea water desalination. Huge quantities of nitrogen fertilizer could be made by getting H2 from water and N2 from the air to make ammonia which, if desired, could be converted into a solid fertilizer. Transportation could be powered by a combination of artificial fuels and electric vehicles recharged with nuclear power. All this could be done and would depend on some form of nuclear power to get the massive amounts of power required.
Whether it would be desirable for the population to grow to that extent thereby forcing us to live in a rather artificial environment is another matter. It may be that most of us would prefer to live in at least a somewhat more natural environment.
In item 50 of his encyclical, the Bishop of Rome incorrectly, at least in my opinion, dismisses population growth as a factor in the problems we are experiencing. He does point out, correctly in my opinion, that the excessively unequal distribution of resources and pollution are basically a moral problem.
Fortunately, as poverty declines and as social safety nets increase security, people have fewer children because they no longer see having many children as necessary for their security in old age, it is expensive to raise and educate children properly, and because they learn how to limit the number of children they have. Therefore it may be that less unequal distribution of resources and more concern for our fellow human beings will cause population growth to cease before we are forced to live in an artificial environment.
As for the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith, that is another matter. That concept was proposed to show how things would work with perfect competition. In Adam Smith’s day, the economy was much closer to perfect competition than it is now. Because there were many craftsmen and farmers, they had no control over what they could charge for their products; they had to accept what people were willing to pay. The situation today is radically different for much of what we buy. Producers can collude to exert considerable control over the market. Because that has been recognized to be a problem, we have anti-trust laws, the first one in the U.S. being the Sherman Anti-trust act named after the senator who proposed it who was the brother of the well-known Civil War general. Following that, other anti-trust laws were enacted and have been successful to varying degrees depending to some extent on how they are enforced.
It has been widely recognized for some time that laissez faire capitalism does not work well which is why we have anti-trust laws, pollution regulations, and other controls. No “pure” economic system does work well. What we have had for well over a century is a mixed economy some parts of which are socialistic and some parts of which are capitalistic although with significant regulation. There will always be a struggle to attain a reasonable balance, continual tweaking will always be needed, and there will always be many different opinions about how to do it; that is not necessarily bad. The people who scare me are those who insist on a pure system and refuse to modify their positions as the result of experience and as new information becomes available.
@ freggersjr
What a refreshingly sensible comment ! I completely agree with your well constructed analysis.