During a career in the mining industry, I lived and worked in Australia, PNG, Canada and the US; I also worked for months at a time in New Zealand and South Africa and for weeks at a time in Alaska, Mexico and Indonesia. I only had to move around with my eyes open to see that people living in industrialised and mineral-intensive communities enjoyed better health and welfare, more individual freedom and greater opportunity for personal development than those in non-industrialised, less mineral intensive communities.
However the debate on the value of mineral-intensive industrialisation seems to have remained at a tactical level, conducted in terms of flora and fauna versus jobs and tax revenue. Flora and fauna have won. The two vital strategic drivers of human behaviour are not flora and fauna; they are survival and caring for the young. These drivers are conveniently quantified as life expectancy and infant mortality rate (IMR). The intrinsic civilising value of industrialisation and mineral use is found not in tactical economic factors but rather in the beneficial strategic contribution they make to reducing the rate of infant mortality and increasing life expectancy.
My reference is “The State Of The World’s Children”, an annual publication of the United Nations Children’s Fund. The table below is an extract from Table 1 in the 2005 issue.
I have concentrated on IMR because it is quantifiable and “bulletproof”; every rational person agrees that a high IMR is bad and a low one is good.
A low infant mortality rate does not happen without industrialisation.
Industrialisation does not happen without a reliable supply of metals and energy minerals.
The connection is also transparently causal. Industrialisation has been driven by electricity for the last 100 years. The generation, transmission and distribution of electrical power are essential to industrialisation and social development. Copper, aluminium, steel, energy minerals and concrete are required in large amounts to provide these services. It is also self-evident that the life-sustaining benefits of industrialisation require intensive mineral use, such benefits as a reliable supply of food and water, hot water, refrigeration, hygienic waste disposal and modern medical facilities. Widespread access to such facilities, a privilege available only to industrialised communities, requires large amounts of metals and other minerals.
A lower IMR has not been restricted to the industrialised (wealthy) countries. Since 1960 the infant mortality rate has fallen by 84% in the industrialised countries, 42% in the least developed countries and 55% in the whole world. During this interval the population of the least developed countries has increased almost 200%, that of the industrialised countries 25%. Less developed countries derive “slipstream” benefits from the more industrialised countries in the form of trade, technology transfer, foreign investment and aid in various forms including family planning and education assistance, especially the education of girls and women.
An encouraging aspect of the slipstream effect is that countries today are achieving a reduction in the rate of infant mortality with a lower degree of mineral intensity than was required in previous decades. For example, Argentina in 2003 had an IMR of 19 and a copper use of 1.2 kg per head. The Netherlands in 1960 had a similar IMR but with a copper use per head of 2.8 kg. This phenomenon is widespread and persistent.
The potential sources of extra minerals are numerous. The crust of the Earth is 30km to 45 km thick under the continents. Almost all metal production to date has been extracted from the top one kilometre. Much remains to be found and extracted below this. Extensive resources also will be recovered from more accessible deposits in South America, Central Asia, Africa and elsewhere. Mineralised nodules on the sea floor might also be recovered. Extensive coal and gas reserves exist currently; exploration in deeper water will discover more oil and gas and increasing prices will increase oil reserves.
Jack Sturgess is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
—————————
Thanks Jack for sharing your thoughts and analysis with us.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I agree.
Yep we should build upon these important developments and equitably share the benefits. Many causes of early mortality are easily preventable. given sufficient political will and resources they could be achieved even with a very basic level of industrialisation.
Companies and developed countries in some cases benefit from access to extractive activities in developing countries for bargain prices, lower taxes and with fewer environmental or legal restrictions (cheaper & easier to mine in undeveloped countries, so export the pollution and other costs of extraction).
on tapping new sources: extractive industries are getting busier in troublesome areas of the world, in the poorest and most corrupt countries.
From the UN: this sector now leads with 2/3 of all reports of activities against human rights. It’s very difficult for these businesses to navigate complex local issues, esp where govt is weak or corrupt, industries can be more powerful than govt and so extract concessions and in return attract rent-seeking ploys, valuable resources are extracted with limited and comparatively low returns for the locals, so even well-intended and genuine actions can go astray in unforeseen ways. How to share the benefits (& the costs) adequately and participate in good, fair governance?
“increasing prices will increase oil reserves” this is a hot one
Its not too bad in terms of self motivation to link infant mortality decline with mining but it seems to me Jack Sturgess and his Fellows at the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy have done a lot of naval gazing over their lifetime if is all they can come up with at this critical stage of our debate over energy use and global warming.
Jennifer and Jack; our advance in civilization over recent years is due to our technology across a broad spectrum of activities non the least is due to advances in education and communication.
Medical technology gets my tick today as we consider the fate of a particular prem baby in Westmead fighting for air and struggling with tubes in her battle for independent life.
Any one who has worked around medical research or a whole host of other industries beyond the basics like mining or metals recovery like I have will see how self focused this blog becomes in its battle for relevance as we move on.
A phone marketing campaign is currently underway for this guy’s work with infants at Royal North Shore and “a healthy start to life” in one of our oldest research centers.
http://www.kolling.usyd.edu.au/CVs/Morris.html
Howzat for advancing individual freedom of the extremely young and greater opportunity for personal development than those in non-industrialised, less mineral intensive communities?
Lets take it’s not about me up a step. It’s all about new our directions in “technology”.
Probably explains why Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than the US. And does Singapore do lots of mining?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html?ex=1263272400&en=c7ea472ff9651976&ei=5090
Correlation ain’t always cause and effect.
You should check on the facts first Luke instead of mindlessly googling.
I think Infant Mortality Rate an excellent choice on which to benchmark the social benfits of mining.
And Gavin’s example of a prem baby in Westmead fighting for her life is a brillaint confirmation of the argument. The medical equipment upon which this tiny baby depends was made from the products of mining. Minerals, plastics and glass. Without these products, medical technology could not have advanced to the point where it could save the life of this baby.
I wish this baby well, and thank goodness for mining, and the technology based upon it.
What’s wrong with the facts Rog? Suffering astroturf burn perhaps.
Helen the babies with early mortality in the 3rd world rarely get within cooeeee of any fancy equipment. They have more fundamental needs such as mother’s health & nutrition & safe water. the benefits that do come from mining activities come very indirectly. How much do the mining companies themselves contribute, esp aftr they’ve had to fork out for overpaid PR hacks to fight all the negative publicity over their human rights ‘problems’, plus the high costs of international legal advisors to negotiate local tax concessions, complicated company ownership structures and debt structured to offset gross profits, and then the figuring on how to repatriate the profits to low-tax offshore accounts etc etc?
rog it’s well established that there are pockets of marked differences in quality of life between local groups that is misrepresented when you only consider national averages. Development insiders look at the specific conditions in these local situations to figure out why. eg Kerala, the Hunza or the peoples of the Caucasus mtns. Guess what? Mining doesn’t feature, instead it’s part of the sector that apparently has the most human rights abuse. One very important measure for life expectancy of mother & child is whether births are accompanied by a midwife.
Even more interestingly on this dicussion of life expectancy, the US which benefits greatly from mining products of the world may soon have a generation with declining (or plataeu) lifespan due to the health issues of excess.
How are the Kalahari bushmen faring, by the way? Enjoying the fruits of the extractive sector?
Where’s the UN report or the literature establishing a link between mining and IMR?
So this whole post is simply a nice piece of industry propaganda. Of course we enjoy technology and the benefits of agriculture and mining – but what – at no consideration of any impacts. Come on !
Luke,
I supremely enjoy your remark about “no consideration of any impacts” about the “benefits of agriculture and mining.”
Once again, I challenge you to tell me how many human lives you are willing to sacrifice for non-human lives.
The last time I challenged you on this, you responded with bluster and misdirection. I find this disingenuous.
I want you to give me–and the rest of us–a model of the appropriate tradeoffs between human and non-human lives.
Conversely, a model of the appropriate tradeoffs between human deaths and non-human deaths.
After we have this model, we will have Luke to thank for knowing how many of us should die to spare X number of non-human creatures.
Then we can start up production of Zyklon-B and use it for “environmental purposes.”
And that’s not tongue in cheek, Luke, it’s dead serious, lives hang in the balance with ideas like yours and you better defend them with whatever conscience you have.
When Luke says “this whole post is simply a nice piece of industry propaganda. Of course we enjoy technology and the benefits of agriculture and mining – but what – at no consideration of any impacts. Come on!” I say Hey it’s almost good enough to distract me from the cricket, let’s get on with the debate so Ewan can see a confirmed link between mining and IMR doesn’t matter for starters on here.
Thanks Helen. I think we are moving along in a private campaign. Her with the day job returns today after a little cuddle. Several people close to me have worked in medical research for a long time. Lets say there is a bit more to our life than mining yet I still have a regard for the industry after doing a turn or two at the grinding wheel. And she still has a job due to a quarry or two.
Pinxi is so right, aren’t we all so smug living way downunder as we do?
“Once again, I challenge you to tell me how many human lives you are willing to sacrifice for non-human lives.”..”knowing how many of us should die to spare X number of non-human creatures.”
Schiller everyone knows where you stand on non-human species and the environment. I fail to see how Luke was placing other species above humans in what he wrote. He merely menioned that there are environmental tradeoffs. And if you are so hung up in your own Utopia that you can’t see that responsible industry and a healthy environment will in the long run mean cleaner water and air for the world’s human population, then I wonder whose interests you really do have at heart.
Luke and Pinxi
You are using the logical falacy of excluded middle in your arguments.
Check out Carl Sagan’s Baloney Detection Kit at
http://www.xenu.net/archive/baloney_detection.html
Luke offers an op-ed dressed as a “fact”
The fact is that in Cuba foetal abnormalities are treated by abortion.
The fact is that in the US an infant born not breathing and weighing +400gms will be undergo intensive care to revive it. Regardless of the outcome all such cases are classed as “live birth”.
In other countries such intervention would not be attempted and they would not be classed as “live birth.”
The WHO and Cuba do not register births <1kg whereas the US registers all births and has an intensive (and costly) premature and/or low birth weight program.
Castro has been applauded for many innovations, the greatest being conning ‘useful idiots’ into thinking that they are all true.
Rog has actually written more than one line – that must have hurt – 6 lines – a whole days worth in one session – wow. Big day out for Rog – better than the club ?
Well Rog we’ll have to through every line in the opening post infant mortality stats and dissect it all out – I’m sure you can argue anything given long enough. Lotsa mines in Singapore too.
Again – the whole post is just pure propaganda.
Helen – stats 101 – correlation is not cause and effect.
Schiller-diller – after many exchanges I find you retort totally disingenous and laughable. You’d sell granny to make a buck.
I’d like to know how many people your policies have harmed through blatant chemical misuse. There is no excuse in this day and age for poor environmental practices. You guys do not get a carte blanche to pollute and dump as you like. Pull your socks up and lift your game. I think you guys actually need to be brought to heel with much more restrictive environmental legislation.
Helen what hypocritical and ignorant nonsense you bleat at times. I’d noticed a number of times that you employ selective reading and inductive reasoning but (until now that I”m responding in kind) I avoided the arrogant moral stance of telling you so. Tell us how much the mining industry magnaminously contributes to good governance and quality of life in the 3rd world, or does it just fall back on profit incentives and make its products available in the free markets for those who can afford to pay and screw those who can’t?
FIRSTLY let me point out how you’re wrong to suggest either Luke or myself consider only the 2 extremes. Note that above both Luke and myself have agreed there are benefits from mining that we can extend and share. Is that an extreme position? No.
SECONDLY you should note that to a person who holds rigid extreme views, even a moderate position can seem extreme. That’s the ultimate irony of this blog. Luke and I would be lucky to get any less frosty a reception at a greenie convention if there is such a thing.
THIRDLY if you’ve read the rest of the list from which you quoted without explanation, you would have noticed the following:
“Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).”
eg from my personal and biased observations as a mining industry insider …
“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc – “it happened after so it was caused by” – confusion of cause and effect.”
and ” Confusion of correlation and causation.” as Luke keeps trying to tell ya
“Suppressed evidence or half-truths.” eg saying mining helps life expectancy of poor people in the 3rd world without admitting that the extractive sector has the most reported abuses of human rights in the poorest countries
rog just because your mum carried full term doesn’t mean that foetal abnormalities aren’t ever aborted in Aust.
On the American position, can you tell me rog why the US right to lifers are so fanatical about unborn babies but do so little to fight for the right to life of the many babies throughout the world who are born into extreme poverty and malnutrition and suffer abnormally high rates of early mortality?
The connection is transparently causal, not collateral, as I clearly spell out. A very simple exercise in deductive logic confirms the connection
Cuba is certainly an interesting case. Its IMR at 7 is one below the US. I think it is still surviving on the large amounts of Russian aid it received up until the late 80s, which must have been spent more wisely than most foreign aid. It’s infrastructure is now deteriorating.
Industrialisation may well be associated with a lower infant mortality but it is also associated with:
Over population and over crowded cities that don’t have clean air
Increasing incidence of mental illness and depression
Increasing the risk and consequences of pandemics
Rising boredom and a steady breakdown of social order
Increasing obesity, & etc,
The more important thing for industrialisation to address is how much longer we can possibly continue our present levels of energy consumption, use fossil fuels, pollute the air, export minerals and trace elements from farming land, and waste so much without adversely affecting the survival of future generations?
Truly the Australian aborigines enjoyed a much higher living standard 230 years ago than we do today.
Wrong Robert; all the available evidence points to “primitive” people having an IMR of about 500 deaths per 1000 live births, and a life expectancy of 45 years.
Overpopulation is certainly not a problem in the industrialised countries, if anything exactly the opposite. The only way forward in this issue lies in the education of the females.
Here you go Luke
International Rankings of Infant Mortality and the United States’ Vital Statistics Natality Data Collecting System—Failure and Success
SAMUEL SEPKOWITZ
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, and Deaconess Hospital Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Reprint requests to Samuel Sepkowitz, MD, 5300 North Meridian, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112, USA.
Background. International rankings of infant mortality rates have been consistently lower for the US than other industrialized countries, and this ranking has been falling. This study examines the influence of birth registrations among very low birthweight Infants on these international rankings.
Methods. Birth rates of infants weighing <1500 g (VLBW) reported by Japan, Sweden, the Netherlands, France, the UK and Canada were compared to the rates of Infants of this weight born in the US, and these rates were correlated with the infant mortality rates reported by these countries. Also, deaths in the first 24 hours after birth were correlated with the reported mortality rates.
Results. Countries with the lowest infant mortality rates tended to have the lowest incidence of births <500 g (correlation coefficient, r = 0.73) and of births 500–999 g (correlation coefficient, r = 0.81). When white and black newborns in the US were reported separately, the correlation coefficients were 0.96 and 0.97 for these weights. Furthermore, the countries with the lowest infant mortality rates registered the fewest number of deaths in the first 24 hours after birth, correlation coefficient, r = 0.78; when white and black newborns were reported separately, r = 0.95. In addition, the International rankings of the US, 1969–1988, when correlated with the annual birth rate of white infants <500 g registered in this country was r = 0.78.
Conclusion. Differences in birth registration practices for infants weighing <1500 g are primarity responsible for the poor, deteriorating performance by the US in the International rankings of neonatal mortality rates.
Yes but there’s also Singapore, Iceland and Bejing. And how do we know those correlations are significant. – not yet convinced.
Its of no real import if you are unconvinced, 1.5million healthy comrades fleeing Cuba for the US had the courage of their convictions.
Why does equity matter? What can we observe about the direct impacts of extractive activities? The World Bank 2006 world development report says:
“The central argument here is that
unequal power leads to the formation of
institutions that perpetuate inequalities in
power, status, and wealth— and that typically are also bad for the investment, innovation,
and risk-taking that underpin
long-term growth.”
“…Basic patterns in cross-country data and
historical narratives support the view that
countries moving onto institutional paths
that promoted sustained prosperity did so
because the balance of political influence
and power became more equitable.”
“One example comes from a comparison
of the early institutions and of the longterm
development paths of European
colonies in North and South America. The
abundance of unskilled labor prevalent in
the South American colonies—where either
native Americans or imported African
slaves were available in large numbers—
combined with the technology of *****mining*****
and large plantation agriculture to provide
the economic base for hierarchical and
**extractive** societies, in which land ownership
and political power were highly concentrated.
In North America, by contrast,
similar attempts to introduce hierarchical
structures were foiled by the scarcity of
labor—except where agro-climatic conditions
made slavery economically feasible,
such as in the southern region of the United
States. Competition for free labor in the
northern areas of North America led to the
development of less unequal land ownership
patterns, a faster expansion of the franchise,
and rapid increases in literacy and
basic education. The resulting economic
and political institutions persisted over
time, with positive consequences for longrun
economic development”
I searched but nothing in there says that extractive industries reduce infant mortality or that extractive industries educate women on matters of life.
A low infant mortality rate and educated women are a persistent feature only of industrialised societies. Industrialisation is synonomous with mineral use. End of story.
While I agree that industrialisation is synonymous with mineral use Jack, don’t lose sight of the difference between “use” and “ownership of the place where the minerals are extracted”.
mining royalties are a good source of income for some developing countries, but are rarely used wisely or distributed fairly. In the absence of equitable distribution systems of royalties there is only the hope that the extraction of raw materials will encourage the local development of processes and industries based on the “use” of the minerals. The industrialisation then creates large scale employers and their employees form trade unions to improve their conditions and out of this grow new political parties which challenge the traditional, feudal elites.
But does wider industrialisation automatically follow, once an extractive industry is setup? I would say the evidence is equivocal. In some cases it does, and in others not and there are amny other factors which come into play.
Russell I am not even trying to make that connection between mining or oil production revenue and social progress in the host country. Individual nations may, unfortunately, make poor decisions about how to spend resource revenue. The minerals will be used to the advantage of some other more industrially mature country. For example, China is now very busy negotiating a position for itself in sub Saharan Africa, and will use the resources from there to progress its own people.And hopefully the Africans also.
And hence the continued institutionalised inequalities and poor governance (as per quote above 3.45pm).
Where the primary product is exported to be processed and then manufactured elsewhere, perhaps a newly industrialising nation, then the extractive process isn’t contributing much to industrialisation or social development or IMRs in the country of origin. So yes, we can all agree that:
– the local extraction process can benefit a limited number of local workers for a limited period
– it can also prop up corrupt governance structures and can carry environmental and social costs for the locals, many of whom don’t have mining jobs, and those costs can outlast the mine
– supported by minerals, industrialisation is a fantastic boon primarily for the wealthy and the rich countries
– people like ourselves enjoy unprecented levels of health and wealth thanks in no small part to the mining activities in developing countries which account for the lion’s share of alleged human rights abuses
– occasionally we share these benefits by donating a miniscule amount of our GDP to overseas development assistance
And while rejoicing the ‘slipstream’ effect by which industrialisation in rich countries (not development efforts on the ground in poor countries) has somehow lowered the percentage of early mortalities in poor countries, let’s not forget the sobering thought that rapidly growing populations mean the total number of children born into extreme poverty has increased. They need better mineral supplements I suppose.
Jack said “A low infant mortality rate and educated women are a persistent feature only of industrialised societies”
As touched on above there are counter cases, and other factors more fundamental than the sophisticated products enjoyed in industrialised nations. How do you explain the difference in IMR, life expectancy and female education between whites and rural blacks in Sth Africa, or between the rich and the poor in latin America? Lack of equality becomes institutionalised and reinforced over time. It can be reinforced by business investment. It has been reinforced by extraction industries as mentioned in the World Bank quote above. It needs strategic and co-ordinated interventions to be overcome. Good governance is the key and mining companies would do well to fund independent organisations working towards good governance and the MDGs.
The benefits of mining is that you lot are able to post an independent comment here without the fear of censorship.
So Louis, the benefits of mining also extend to conquering censorship?
Hmmmm, just unfolding my “skeptical toolkit” and without spending too much time looking for a suitable example….
It would be fair to say, would it not, that during the Apartheid era in South Africa there was no political or environmental constraint on mining in that country, and that mining constituted (and still does) a very important industry there?
Is it also correct then that during this period the successive Apartheid governments were recognised for their vigorous commitmment to free speech? I may have missed something in the reports on human rights in that country since the 1950s.
I would argue to the contrary that in South Africa the mining companies were perfectly happy to see free speech and free association into trade unions denied to the majority of their black workers by pass laws. It increased the profit margin.
On a more trivial level, is it possible to show that in Australia the relaxation of censorship laws since the 1950s is both correlated with, and caused by, a surge in mining activity?
Over to you Louis?
Hence, for eg, mining activities led Botswana to openly respect the rights of the Kalahari Bushmen to voice their complaints of repression, assimilition, forced relocation, torture ,ethnic cleansing, genocide
Guys – stop peddling your information. It’s making me have doubts in correlations.
Jack: I’m going to thank Russel for hanging in here on the question of social responsibility in all mining operations. As the discussion focuses on South Africa in particular I’m reminded of quite a few things about company policy development both here and there.
Back in the 70’s I worked for a large international mining group who re employed one of their own mine managers from South Africa in their Australian developments. In South Africa, David was in charge of several gold mines, three towns and two big hospitals. He left that country in a cloud of depression after he lost his wife in a hospital while on tour in India. In Australia he had one mine, a town, no hospital and a lot of industrial problems.
From day one I became a union target in town so I took them all on. I had unwittingly taken my family into a wild hornet’s nest. However I had a traditional escape route with lots of folks not far away.
This company’s recruitment policies had been transferred from South Africa. By the time David and I had finished up, Federal and State governments, the Union hierarchy, the Medical Board, another mine and its town also major recruitment agencies were tangled up and down this country.
The situation in my town was so bad at one stage several young mothers abandoned their babies and left the state on the first plane. Families also left their chattels during transition on the wharf. My workshop committee was forced to run a crèche using some mature ladies from town.
It was my supervisor who dropped a hint about shareholders attitudes to closing down both towns in order to rout the remnants. I took half the maintenance unions back to work on David’s personal promise to save both towns. Our settlement involved the company employing local women as well as local men who knew the conditions best.
Women on the operations workforce in an award were the first for this country. Young single women were sought too and that caused a bit of a riot with the older ladies when we discovered one import was a smart as new paint on nightshift in her blue overalls. My old classmate at Skilled said the governments also banned the interstate traffic in metal trades for a significant period. We all learned a lot in a hurry.
My wife long gone had some satisfaction knowing how we got rid of the doctor and the personnel officer. She left town to get her broken arm fixed after a long wait for help and never returned. Not even a brand new staff house would get her back. My union offered a fresh start anywhere they had a decent agreement with management but I waited long enough to see both towns settled.
After the restructure I lost track of David. We both moved on but the experience left a mark. I have been looking through many aspects of Australian mining operations since.
Russel: We changed a bad culture here in the nick of time.
In the rush to unload personal quibbles not lets forget that any product that is not grown through agricultural means is a product of mining, including water, even Stonehenge uses a quarried and dressed product.
no personal quibble rog, just a very strong sense of basic human decency and fair go. Or ‘do unto others…’ if you prefer. What would yr epitaph read?
I strongly recommend yuo read, with an open mind and heart(!!!) my dear roggy, the entire World Bank 2006 report on equity that I quoted from above – it’s relevant to much of the stuff that we talk about.
I’ve been wondering about some fresh mining definitions, mined mineral water versus watery discharges. Perhaps we can ask Russian spies about use by dates. Then there is those old rock piles in the UK, hardly technology hey.
Craft rog; simple craft but mind your feet.
‘do unto others…’ , what was that reference to my mother and foetal abnormalities?
I am surprised that you quote that bastion of free market economic reform, the World Bank Pinxsii.
Most anti globalisation protestors think that the WB is a mouthpiece of the US neocon neoliberal capitalist zionist military machine and given half a chance I am sure you would join them.
Actually the WB does comment on the the apparent inequity between rural and non rural countries (eg India, China vs OECD) and the inequity between rural and nonrural communities within China and India and notes the slow growth of rural sectors compared with non rural sectors. WB notes that a continued reliance on rural based economy will ensure that globally equity will not equally distributed.
Try to catch up Pinxii, blind freddy can see what you are blind to.
there again you show again yr refusal to move beyond yr rigid preconceptions roggi bear. I’ve told you & yr friends time & time & time again that I’m no anti glob protestor, I support many aspects of globalisation, and I regularly refer to the WB – remember I explained its internal factions & how the WB was attempting a transition to a knowledge bank? Knowing that you refuse to reconcile that I don’t fit in the box that you’re trying to close the lid on, now go ahead and tell me what I’m blind to as I’m open to learning. If do I might share my personal motto if you want to hear it.
If you’d read of the sources I keep recommending to you rog you’d move beyond shallow references to general outcomes and start to understand some of the factors that contributed to those outcomes – important so you can understand why ‘free mkts’ alone, as you like to argue, is oversimplistic, carries unrealistic assumptions and a 1st-world bias and hence cannot solve these problems but can help entrench them (again as per quote above). But you keep yr hands over yr eyes. Pls remove them! I encourage to read widely of the WB & UN reports on development and human rights, and of various development approaches over time.
Yes the WB, and one would hope, the IMF learnt some deep lessons after pushing a strong urban development bias where attempts to rapidly industrialise urban areas carried a host of inaccurate assumptions (1st-world perspective), such as labour and structural capacity and flexibility, and caused a host of problems including inflationary pressures putting basic necessities out of reach of the rural dwellers and increasing migration to urban areas that couldn’t cope.
A balanced economy needs strong and functioning linkages between rural and urban economies and industries. That needs investment and industries with economic linkages to local businesses. These are important to develop a more robust national economy without which international investment or trade in a few traditional cashcrops can’t contribute much to sustained economic development. Extractive activities do little to foster such balanced development or advance good governance and social development which is needed to provide a stable base to attract investment and create the conditions for direct investment to contribute to national economic development.
What would yr epitaph read?
“…I’ve told you & yr friends time & time & time again….”
dunno why they’d put that on yr epitaph rog.
you’ve had an opportunity to engage some learning and I invited you to tell me what I’m blind to. One thing I’m blind to is why yr so resistent to human rights for others and why you refuse to consider that certain socioeconomic conditions and structures need to be in place to enable efficient and effective market operations. It’s not just myopic greed is it?
If you support globalisation then you must also support free movement of capital and labour between nation states.
Somewhere along the line pikii you must say what you mean and mean what you say.
I keep doing that time & time & time again roggi bear, just that you won’t digest it. it’s not as simple as a 1 liner so you have be prepared to make a few connections. You have a narrowly defined view of globalisation btw, we’d probably have to start there
I would have thought the benefits of industrialisation was the bleedin obvious.
I was amazed someone would bother posting a thread about such a topic.
Untill, of course, i read the comments.
Some of the most pathetic rebuttals to capitalism i have ever seen.
I had to read twice to make sure it wasnt a joke.
Here’s some food for thought: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1799918.htm
Not sure which comments you are referring to Whatthe? I dont see that anyone is denying the positive aspects of industrialisation -merely pointing out that there are also negative effects of extractive industries and those negative effects are not necessarily felt by the those who enjoy the positive effects.
In other words….capitalism and the market approach are not perfect -yes I am a heretic. Recognising that does not make me a commie, or even left wing. It does make me a skeptic whenever anyone fronts up with cute phrases which suggest capitalism is perfect.
Neither is it a foolish, or anti-development/industrialisation approach to recognise the world is not equitable in the distribution of resources and desire to improve the way that works.
There is much regular angst on this website about how environmental impediments to mining in the developing world cost lives. The implication is that if we have unfettered mining and other extractive industries we would have a utopia where there are no losers. Perhaps that is true for shareholders in those mining ventures, but it does not automatically follow that everyone benefits from extractive industries and I see no harm in debating why that might be. Maybe I desire a more equitable and just system of wealth distribution? Why? Because I genuinely care about the quality of life in the developing world whereas I suspect people of your ilk are simply paying lip service to the equity principle in order to get what’s actually best for you.
Thank you Jennifer
Food for thought indeed. Challenges many of the West’s assumptions about pre-requisites for successful capitalism, (to lifts nations out of poverty); Democracy, individualism, protection of contracts, property rignts, and rule of law.
Looking at the capitalism developing in India and China, and what has developed in Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore, the only common themes are protection of contracts, property rights,and rule of law.
It would appear that these nations have adapted the essentials of capitalism to their own cultures, and in varying degrees ignored the ‘Western’ elements. Thought provoking indeed.
The following is an obituary to Peter Bauer, more information can be obtained from Rafe Champion’s excellent site
http://www.the-rathouse.com/Revivalist4/PeterBauer.html
May 8, 2002, 8:45 a.m.
Peter Bauer, R.I.P.
His ideas are a true guide to wealth and prosperity.
The world lost a great man on May 2 with the death of economist Peter Bauer. Sadly, he was just on his way to Washington to accept the first $500,000 Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty. Bauer was to receive the award at a gala dinner sponsored by the Cato Institute this week.
It is impossible to explain Bauer’s importance without recalling the intellectual climate of the immediate postwar era in which he did his most important work. During World War II, government economic planning appeared to work well. And in the wake of the Great Depression, all Western governments were obsessed with preventing its recurrence, which was widely expected once the war ended. Especially in Europe, this led virtually all countries to adopt highly centralized economic policies, including widespread nationalization of industry.
Many of the countries adopting these socialist policies, such as France and Great Britain, exported them to their
colonies, where they took root and continued even after independence. The idea that socialism was the quickest path to growth and prosperity was reinforced by the Cold War and fashionable economic theories. Development economics became a popular field of study, while concerns about Communism led Western nations to initiate huge foreign-aid programs. Suddenly, billions of dollars were available to impoverished nations for development, which was viewed as the best way to keep them out of the Soviet camp.
Development economists saw less-developed countries (LDCs) as lacking all of the necessary conditions for growth — they had no capital, no entrepreneurs, no education, no infrastructure, and no access to foreign markets. It was thought that foreign aid would fill these gaps and create the conditions for “take-off,” after which growth would be self-sustaining. Without aid, it was thought that poverty would perpetuate itself virtually forever.
Western governments hired development economists to advise LDCs on how to industrialize and modernize their economies. Aid was available for projects favored by them and denied to countries that insisted on going their own way. In this way, government planning was cemented in place as the dominant approach to development.
In the midst of this consensus, Bauer was hired to study the rubber industry in Malaya and trade in West Africa. Although he did not consider himself to be a “development” economist, he quickly found himself at odds with those who did. What he saw in his very detailed field research ran sharply counter to the teachings of development economics.
Bauer saw with his own eyes how poor, uneducated peasants built a vast rubber industry in Malaya and cultivated millions of acres for growing cocoa and other export crops in West Africa. He saw the LDCs not as special cases where different economic principles applied, but simply as countries at an early stage of development, little different from Europe 150 years before.
Bauer was appalled by the disastrous advice he saw given to impoverished LDCs. They were being told to tightly control trade, when free trade had been a cornerstone of European development. He saw countries discouraging the inflow of private capital in favor of foreign aid. He saw price controls, high taxes, and government regulations kill vibrant native industries, while aid financed industrial “white elephants” that became
bottomless pits for the precious little capital available.
Bauer argued that all the LDCs had to do was follow the time-tested path to prosperity laid out by Adam Smith and blazed by England, the U.S., and other nations that rose from poverty to wealth in just a couple of generations by letting the market, rather than government, guide development.
Somewhat reluctantly, Bauer was drawn into development economics, where for 40 years he was a lone voice for free-market policies where socialism was overwhelmingly dominant. Only with the election of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did the economics profession and international development agencies like the World Bank begin to take seriously Bauer’s views.
Much more still needs to be done to reform foreign aid and thinking about economic development. But at least the crude notion that government planning is the quickest path to prosperity has been deeply discredited. The fact that most LDCs are poorer today than they were at independence is sufficient proof that the postwar consensus was terribly wrong.
It’s a cliche, but true nevertheless, to say that ideas have consequences. They make some people poor and some people rich. Had the world listened to Peter Bauer 50 years ago, there would be billions fewer of the former and billions more of the latter. Although he is no longer with us, his work and ideas still are. They will forever remain a true guide to wealth and prosperity for any country willing to follow them.
— Mr. Bartlett is senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis
rog you’ll be pleased to learn that development awareness has come further along. The stages of development observation is valid but is now known not to work where markets are liberalised too quickly and too recklessly, especially under externally forced conditionality (IMF & Washington consensus policies).
The 1st world economies 1st rose to prominance under different times and conditions to the present and since then they’ve stacked the rules in their own favour. They reduced trade barriers in a highly selective and carefully timed manner (also maintained trade barriers in the areas that less developed economies were encouraged to enter). Remember the sequence Aust went through to open to international competition? Planned and progressively deregulated – by whom? Govt. 3rd world undeveloped economies are stuck in entrenched institutional inequalities(refer above quote & document yet again) that market forces alone have never resolved and cannot resolve. Perfect information – puhlease, rational market choices when people don’t even have money to participate, decisons at the margin when people are starving to death, labour flexibility & costless participation in markets when malnourished people have to walk miles to hawk sparse scraggly crops, exogeneous technological influences etc etc – how will that address 3rd world situations?
Also worth noting, for the umpteenth dozen time, that the successful and newly industrialised asian economies pursued their export-oriented trade strategies by ignoring IMF neo-liberal advice and using active govt involvement to co-ordinate industry and encourage domestic savings. This situation is inconvenient for the neo-lib fanatics.
>>>This post-war synopsis really hits the nail on the head in that much post-war foreign aid $$$ was dedicated not to the liberty or human rights of the citizens but to dissuading the country from joining the socialist camps. Let’s not confuse that with real development aid that seeks to achieve the MDGs. As colonial powers were faced with resistence or opposition and pulled out of their colonies it doesn’t take much of a stretch of imagination that the ex-colonies might have a political knee-jerk reaction.
To Whatthe I’d say that yes, capitalism is fantastic for those lucky few in possession of the capital.
We’re in large agreement Russell
re: fair go v’s me me me 1st thinking, free mkt idealogies & govt policies, what a ruddy CORKER of a speech:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20876,20876230-601,00.html
and what’s more, churches & mosques are telling their followers to care for the environment, climate change & protection of social rights. The tide turns. Resistence to self-focused conservative & fundamentalist lefty denialism is arising even on our own lethargic shores.
he heh righty denialism
The probvlem with quoting Krudd pinkii is that you will have to sustain the argument. When Krudd quotes “We must be ruthlessly self-interested in the market and sweetly caring in the family, greedy at work, selfless at home” are you with him or against him?
http://www.cis.org.au//Events/policymakers/rudd_lecture.pdf
This ‘policy’ falls apart when applied to Krudds views on deregulation of labour market. (freedom of labour)
Russell,
Comments such as:
“Probably explains why Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than the US. And does Singapore do lots of mining?”
and
“Truly the Australian aborigines enjoyed a much higher living standard 230 years ago than we do today.”
Both absolute and utter nonsense of course. Stone age people live a short brutal existance and women are virtually in permanent enslavement.
Cuba is a basket case with tens of thousands fleeing from a dictatorial state that imprisons and kills political opponents and its leaders are notorious liars.
So your assertion that: “? I dont see that anyone is denying the positive aspects of industrialisation” – perhaps you cant even see the cheerleading for fictitious ‘garden of eden’ existances and the overt support for dictatorial communism given this blog seems to be infiltrated with garden variety leftists sprouting idealogogical wankery that this is the norm in this blog.
Also worth noting, for the umpteenth dozen time, that the successful and newly industrialised asian economies pursued their export-oriented trade strategies by ignoring IMF neo-liberal advice and using active govt involvement to co-ordinate industry and encourage domestic savings. This situation is inconvenient for the neo-lib fanatics.
anyone interested in a good summary of how the Asian countries that ignored the IMF neo-liberal advice prospered, while those that took the advice failed, could read Joseph Stiglitz’s book. “Globalisation and its discontents” -author is a Nobel Prize winning economist whose research interest is/was the impact of imperfect information on markets.
Of course now that he is suggesting that markets are constrained by imperfect information he is branded a heretic in many quarters. And I use the word heretic deliberately as it has become something akin to religious dogma to suggest it can all be left to Adam Smith and the “invisible hand” -As Stiglitz suggests, maybe the hand is invisible because it’s not there.
Whatthe,
I’ll grant you that the comments you refer to are odd – In Luke’s defence his comment appears to be tongue in cheek, I don’t think for a minute he is seriously advocating that Cuba is a better society, rather the opposite, but still Cuba has a comparable IMR to the US. His point was that the original proposal this blog is based upon was a simplification of a more complex issue. The aim of this website is to shine a skeptical light upon all manner of glib statements and dogma -nothing wrong with that, it’s what attracts me here, but I certainly am not about to concede that it’s only the statements from the left side of politics that should be held up to scrutiny. The neo-liberals/cons and whatever are equally guilty of cliched and woolly thinking.
The other comment about the Aborigines living in Eden is rubbish – no problem with that, but then so are many of the comments made here in defence of mining – Louis Hissink’s assertion that we enjoy our current level of freedom of speech because of mining is, frankly pathetic and I find it hard to believe he is really serious, particularly as he never sticks around to argue the point.
Do you agree with his assertion by the way? Give us some clear examples please if you do.
I can give you some examples of where I think mining has not actually helped people in developing countries (see above). That does not mean I do not recognise the value mining plays in our modern world and how our society is dependent on it – but that recognition does not mean I also believe everyone always benefits.
Russell, did you read Jennifer’s ‘food for thought link’?
Russell,
“Hissink’s assertion that we enjoy our current level of freedom of speech because of mining is, frankly pathetic and I find it hard to believe he is really serious, particularly as he never sticks around to argue the point. ”
I find such a comment as overblown but not entirely inaccurate – there is no doubt in my mind that a wealthier society becomes more free though not as a direct result of development rather as an indirect result.
And i am not refering to just this comments page but others on this site.
There is no doubt that there is hyperbole from the right. But as you pointed out the stuff from the left here is ‘odd’…breathtakingly odd.
Whatthe.
At least we know who Louis is – he uses his real name and has provided information for us at this site. I wonder who you are … with such a funny pen name?
Anyway, the bottom line is that Louis is correct. There would be no internet without mining and the internet has opened up also sorts of possiblities for freedom of speech and exchange of information.
Do you think society would be freer if we had to go back to letter writing and printing presses?
To supplement Russell’s recommendation I strongly recommend reading of Herman Daly, esp his views on uneconomic growth and comparative advantage in trade. You can find a lot of his articles on line. He was a snr economist at the World Bank where he tried to encourage a change in view. Let me know if you need help finding his work online. He’s written some beauties.
Nigeria is an excellent example, mining has given that country >$450B which the govt stole and spent leaving your average worker just getting by on $1/day. Bougainville political activists have ensured that no benefits will be received from mining, their situation just goes from bad to worse. Politicians are good at this, they can create poverty out of wealth.
Von Mises regard Herman Daly as just another eco-socialist who’s ideal economy “is managed by wise government officials who don’t allow resources to fall below *desired levels* in reserve, and who restrain population growth with transferable *birth licenses* sold to the public.”
Yes Helen,
I have read the interview with Prof.Lal. I find some of what he says rings true, other things do not. He is as guilty of the sweeping generalisation as many others on the right-hand side of politics.
My point continues to be that…all sides of most arguments attempt trivial generalisations in order to distil what they are saying into some set of principles or rules ,and in so doing they tend to overlook the exceptions that inconveniently break the rules.
I have no problem with Prof Lals assertion that you do not necessarily need democracy to become wealthy under capitalism, but I cannot agree with all the reasons he identifies. Property and contract rights is an obvious one I do agree with.
However Prof Lal, states in that interview that one of the reasons Botswana succeeded while other African nations failed is that it kept its traditional chief structure intact while other nations lost theirs. This is, I’m afraid, complete rubbish. Here in Nigeria, a former British colony, part of the problem is that people are still largely dominated by their allegiences to the traditional chief structure which represents a feudal system of administration. Those chiefs now sit in the senate and are very happily creaming off the oil revenues, send their children to school in Switzerland, attend health clinics in Spain and holiday in Paris. Most of the problems in the delta have arisen because the resource rents (oil revenues) paid by oil companies make it as far as the traditional chiefs and no further down the chain. Many of those traditional chiefs now live in New York.
How do you put more pressure on those chiefs to be acountable to their people? Perhaps the only way is to encourage foreign investment here and the establishment of large industries that move the large mass of urban informal workers into a trade union movement that then spawns new political parties that represent the rights of the common people. This would be a unifying and positive aspect that would break down the ethnic barriers between people here. The spectre of such a development in the cities of South Africa was the impteus for the imposition of an Apartheid system in the 1950’s with all its devices to keep black south africans ethnically divided.
Of course in a country like Nigeria, rich in oil revenues there is no incentive for the ruling elite (who are the traditional chiefs) to improve the lot of their people – so they are reforming the financial system only under pressure from the international community. One of the most interesting aspects of living here is that I am continually shocked by how the poor here revere their leaders -most of whom are nothing short of bandits.
I am, by the way fully aware of the shortcomings of aid programs and some of the reasons they have failed and will continue to fail here in Africa. If anyone is interested I could explore that sometime and could include my take on why the relief effort in Aceh is such a problem.
As for the comment from Jen that Louis is right about the internet and its fostering of free speech. Yes, mining is the base upon which that is built, but it would not have happened in an environment without academic freedom in decision making that first allowed the formation of the internet core and the decision by the US govt to allow it to grow. It does not automatically follow that mining leads (however indirectly) to freedom of speech. It did in this case, but as I postulated with the South African example it does not always do so. Unless of course I have misunderstood the history of South Africa and one of you would like to set me straight?
Jen
1st thanks for providing a great site that actually does challenge myths in an intelligent way.
2nd I have read lots of Mr Hissinks posts here and elsewhere and have the utmost respect for him and my comment was purely my own view on the comment he made in the context of this thread.
If it makes you feel better my name is Paul Borg and I am an engineer for a company that is developing alternative power sources, specifically hydrogen fuel cells for remote UPS applications.
The quote had to do with the direct relationship between freedom and development and I specifically agreed with the sentiment though not that exact wording.
I hope that clears that up.
oh and Jen to answer your question:”Do you think society would be freer if we had to go back to letter writing and printing presses?”
Most certainly not and I must assume you misread my posts to even ask me such a question.
Hey rog we know too well that you can google & cut & paste, but why not attempt yr own opinion for once & read of Daly’s work yourself? Or do you only get your opinions pre-canned?
Oh gawd, Hissink’s cult is spreading. What ever happend to joe the trader? He went under after he bought futures in abiotic oil no doubt. Now we’ve got Paul the ginger beer.
Not too sure who the “we” is pixii, are you fronting some extremist student anarchy cell?
My opinion – not worth the time of day, obviously you think highly of his opinion tho’.
Oh hi Pinxi
I was wondering when you would first try to insult me.
I guess I am not yet in a defined camp here so I will cop it from everyone.
They arent really insults Paul, more like a classic examples of fundamental attribution error;
“….the tendency to attribute behaviors to dispositional qualities while underrating the role of the situation.”
Example:
Why did I raise my price? Because the demand increased more than supply allowing me to recoup on previous losses.
Why did the petrol station raise its price? Because oil companies are greedy capitalist price gougers.
Oh, a member of the Borg collective? Ahhahahaha don’t try to assimilate me, I only called you a ginger beer, no no, I dont wanna be like rog, aaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh stop it hurts, ahahahhahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhggghhghhh.
“utmost respect for Louis” – well of course we respect his right to be wrong consistently on such a wide rsange of subjects.
Geez, attack of the lefty clique. I am shattered.
You really got me Pinxi, particulairly with your clever use of typing lots of ‘a’s and ‘h’s.
Paul welcome & remember that left & right is only ever relative. You should know that other than pretty photos of cute animals Louis’ posts are about the only thing to unite all commenters on this blog.
Pinxi.
Yes such terms are ‘relative’ and are clearly applicable here.
I have nothing against Mr Hissink and do not understand why his posts annoy you guys so much.
On this topic i merely made an observation that the bleedin obvious is challenged.
And challenged by people who seem to think stone aged people had a higher standard of living than we do and that Cubas information ministry is a reliable source of information.
“Mr Hissink” – jeez that was a short friendship eh Pinx. Paul prefers Louis to the blog’s leading intelligentsia – I’m insulted.
Oh so you and Pinxi have public ‘asides’ to each other.
Do you feel safer in a clique?
ALERT! ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suspected. Identify borg identity Luke Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal borg number detected. System intruder suadsspecteddddddd. Identify borg identity Luke BorgADKAKLS #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal happeeee borg numb38er detected. System in2truadder suspected. Idendyytify borg identity Luke Bugorgy #3.dd141sow592654. ERROR! Illegal borg n3fgumber de9tsdected. Systdssaem intruder suspesdascted. Identifyidentifyidentify borg borg BORG BROG BROG ROG ROG ROG ROG ROG GOR GOR GOR GOR GOR GOR GOR identity Luke 26622-2- Borg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illeg3alf borgp 4g number detected. System intfruder sufspected. 32o8 dkla Id8ents122ify borg BROLGA identRRRRRity Luke444 Bforg #3.141592654. ERROR! Illegal bor44g nuooqpeosmber detected. Syssadk fssdftem in5tr9uder suspecsasfted Chair— Mao. Idsfdsf220Mao989jdentify Mao boraaag ideadasfajhwoqpntity Lukalal e Bds2-02org #3.1415926saksjsalk =q0q0a54 a 081 Mao jo- -=1122.. sao.ao al borg borg GW all asjd sk queen5 sal6asu red book sd o2 broyoq
Yes mate we do. You gotta problem with that. I think we may have to give you the old rhetorical rounds of the kitchen if you keep behaving like an upstart. Can u believe this latest guy Pinxi-winksy.
Oh I guess this is how you guys ‘prove’ other peoples posts are ‘wrong consistently’.
Well done.
Hey pinxi
I just realised how much effort went into your last post.
Belittling me seems to be a bit of a priority for you.
I am gratified.
Hey Paul – we’re kidding !
I’m a rool fast shooter Paul so don’t feel flattered or belittled. the fun is just an ongoing attempt to impress Luke. Lighten up leader of the borg and take the collective somewhere!
“I’m a rool fast shooter Paul”
oh
“so don’t feel flattered or belittled.”
That 2,000 keystroke thing you did makes me very flattered.
“the fun is just an ongoing attempt to impress Luke”
You have acheived your goal.
Luke seems very taken with you.
Paul – Pinxi and I have been dating for some time now. Our mutual hobbies are flower de-petaling, panel beating and pooning newbs, so we have a lot in common. We’re also writing a book on “Right wing blog Darwinism – Survival of the Silliest”.