Wank the Congo

[fasquardon]

I understand the foundation for a developed middle class was non existent in 1960 but surely the MASSIVE mineral deposits that exist throughout the country could spur a extremely lucrative "cash crop" economy to rival any nation on the continent.

That would help some, in so much as it could provide revenue to support a government that can provide stability. As others have mentioned though, resource extraction is prone to booms and busts which mean cash crop/mineral extraction based economies tend to have great difficulty getting out of the trap of being an exploitation site. Something else is needed to give an extra push.

IMO more urbanization with various service enterprises and small scale industries growing up to serve the city itself, thus supporting a small and secure middle class, might be the first step on the road to real endogenous growth.

A very good timeline focused on the Congo becoming a stable and successful nation is Onkel Willie's Freedom and Brotherhood which you should check out.

I hadn't run into that one before.

fasquardon

 

[kichinichini]

It is. I think it could have been an even greater city though.

You know, I wonder how plausible it would be for the two Congos to form a confederation at some point? Maybe allowing Kinshasa-Brazzaville to have a single metropolitan government that if well run could really knock the ball outa the park...

As it is right now, there is no bridge between the cities because the Republic doesn't want any spillover coming in. So you need a stable and prosperous DRC as a precondition, and even then it's hard to see such a small country willingly be absorbed into one much larger.

 

[GeographyDude]

I understand the foundation for a developed middle class was non existent in 1960 but surely the MASSIVE mineral deposits that exist throughout the country could spur a extremely lucrative "cash crop" economy to rival any nation on the continent.

and the catalyst need not necessarily be a reasonable and middle-of-the-road government. For example, what if the miners have a honest union? And the union leaders are noncorrupt for the first ten years, and even after that, more bureaucratic than anything else.

And I quite agree that getting rolling with some value-added light to medium manufacturing is highly helpful.

 

[fasquardon]

As it is right now, there is no bridge between the cities because the Republic doesn't want any spillover coming in. So you need a stable and prosperous DRC as a precondition, and even then it's hard to see such a small country willingly be absorbed into one much larger.

I'd forgotten that... A bridge would be a major boost to both cities (and of course, much easier than building a confederation).

and the catalyst need not necessarily be a reasonable and middle-of-the-road government. For example, what if the miners have a honest union? And the union leaders are noncorrupt for the first ten years, and even after that, more bureaucratic than anything else.

An effective union would certainly help accumulate economic surplus that could develop local economies. I don't think the miners themselves would rise to the middle classes until their jobs had become seriously automated...

fasquardon

 

[GeographyDude]

. . at which point there'll be fewer total jobs! Exactly the dilemma workers in the United States face.

 

[fasquardon]

. . at which point there'll be fewer total jobs! Exactly the dilemma workers in the United States face.

Not necessarily. Depending on the economic situation, unions can increase total employment. A union that helps poor people have a more equal share of wealth increases economic efficiency and creates jobs in the local economy because the union members have more money to spend on goods and services. A union that makes well off people more well off decreases economic efficiency because the well-off people are generally already buying all the goods and services they need, so their gains come at the cost of others without increasing the circulation of money in the economy. Guess which category most US unions fall into?

(And yes, I'm really using a broad brush here - the details are a lot more subtle than that.)

Fighting for any group to have more of the economic pie can be good or bad, it all depends what the group in question is and who they are taking pie from. Whether the group fights for economic pie through an organization labeled as a "union" matters rather little.

In the Congo, where we are talking about landless laborers taking pie from European corporations who are offshoring all their profits, a good union really can improve things.

fasquardon

 

[GeographyDude]

. . . A union that helps poor people have a more equal share of wealth increases economic efficiency and creates jobs in the local economy because the union members have more money to spend on goods and services. A union that makes well off people more well off decreases economic efficiency because the well-off people are generally already buying all the goods and services they need, . . .

Similar to the idea that a tax cut for lower- and middle-income persons in the United States more quickly and directly pumps money into the economy, than some kind of investment tax credit. Although the investment tax credit might be great for other goals.

And I'd combine this with observing feedback, because sometimes the effect might be greater or lesser than we predict.

There's a book titled Innovator's Hypothesis: How Cheap Experiments Are Worth More Than Good Ideas, by Michael Schrage. Wish his approach, actually both, were more common!

 

[altamiro]

Not necessarily. Depending on the economic situation, unions can increase total employment. A union that helps poor people have a more equal share of wealth increases economic efficiency and creates jobs in the local economy because the union members have more money to spend on goods and services. A union that makes well off people more well off decreases economic efficiency because the well-off people are generally already buying all the goods and services they need, so their gains come at the cost of others without increasing the circulation of money in the economy. Guess which category most US unions fall into?

(And yes, I'm really using a broad brush here - the details are a lot more subtle than that.)

Fighting for any group to have more of the economic pie can be good or bad, it all depends what the group in question is and who they are taking pie from. Whether the group fights for economic pie through an organization labeled as a "union" matters rather little.

In the Congo, where we are talking about landless laborers taking pie from European corporations who are offshoring all their profits, a good union really can improve things.

fasquardon

The problem is that a successful union must be aware of how much pie there is and how capitalist decisions are made before demanding a bigger share of the pie. There is nothing wrong with the latter - but there is an optimum to the demand level. Too much and the entire operation becomes unprofitable which results in people losing jobs (some people if unions are accepting it, all of them if they don't). But the union cannot demand too little or it loses support among workers.
There are situations where the two extremes have no middle ground between them. This is usually when the blood start flowing (see Lonmin).

 

[fasquardon]

Similar to the idea that a tax cut for lower- and middle-income persons in the United States more quickly and directly pumps money into the economy, than some kind of investment tax credit. Although the investment tax credit might be great for other goals.

Exactly so. Though it does depend what gets cut to pay for the tax cut. Taxing poor people in order to invest in large products that benefit those people and which the government (due to its greater spending power) can do cheaper than smaller private organizations is a legitimate method of development.

Of course, the same applies to companies paying for the demands of unions - unions have played a role in weakening some corporations by pulling money from investment into wages or pension funds (though in every case I can think of where this has happened, poor management decision making played as great, if not greater, a role in those companies losing competitiveness).

There's a book titled Innovator's Hypothesis: How Cheap Experiments Are Worth More Than Good Ideas, by Michael Schrage. Wish his approach, actually both, were more common!

I'll look this up.

The problem is that a successful union must be aware of how much pie there is and how capitalist decisions are made before demanding a bigger share of the pie.

Particularly once the major injustices have been addressed.

After the big abuses of the workers have been stopped or at least ameliorated, the remaining problems unions face are a fair bit more subtle and need alot of information and experience to solve.

fasquardon

 

[GeographyDude]

By powerful, do you refer to military strength, or a strong economy, or political influence, or all three?

A big problem is going to be the lack of education. In 1960, there were only 16 Congolese with college degrees. There were no Congolese physicians or engineers.

On the question of doctors, I'm a real big believer in ramping up traditional healers. This instead of trying to create a small number of 'perfect' professionals.

And if some doctors do come to the Congo—and more power to them!—I hope they spend a good chunk of their time passing on medical knowledge. And please go at this as skillfully and as seriously as anything else. Later ask the people you've taught what they remember. And don't ambush them, tell them you're going to do this. In the nature of shared experiments, see what teaching and learning methods tend to work best.

For example, a U.S. Army medic can learn a lot of useful stuff in 3 months, right? I'm guessing at the timeframe, but I think you see my point.

 

[fasquardon]

I'm a real big believer in ramping up traditional healers

There are a fair amount of issues with this. In the Congo, a big one is that the mass murders under the Belgians had left traditional society - including traditional medicine - deeply wounded. An awful lot of information and experience was lost.

More productive would be to train people up in basic first aid and preventative medicine. Those two things don't require an awful lot of training, but "doctors" practicing and teaching these things can lower illness and mortality rates quite sharply.

fasquardon

 

[GeographyDude]

In the Congo, a big one is that the mass murders under the Belgians had left traditional society - including traditional medicine - deeply wounded. An awful lot of information and experience was lost.

Like the Star Trek movie Insurrection, at first they're going to move the people decently. The people resist. Then the larger power says, The hell with it, kill them all.

And I think this or similar pattern has been repeated many times throughout human history.

As far as traditional healing, the only thing I'm really familiar with is Chinese acupuncture, which I'd say has an empirical basis, just a different empirical basis than Western medicine. Along these lines, I'd say a seasoned poker pro usually has an advantage over a good statistician. Although it's probably preferable to have both skills!

I'd agree with you entirely about first aid. In fact, one of the real miracles of the last thirty years has been the promotion of ORS (Oral Rehydration Solution).