Savage Economic - Wealth, Poverty and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism - Coursework Example

? Savage Economic: wealth, poverty and the temporal walls of capitalism Introduction Profusion in all aspects of life has been a concern to many people. Even after, many people try to adjust their lifestyles to cater for their necessities, very little has been achieved. However, the hope by many citizens to continue waiting for that time when leaders will reinstate the reign of profusion carries the day. While this hope continues to engulf the bigger percentage of people languishing in poverty, a small fraction of people swim in pools of wealth and abundance (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). Savage Economic: wealth and poverty Today, poverty is argued to be on the increase, while discussions to put efforts to revert the situation continue to be the main agenda every other day. Before the era of economic growth, it is argued that the gap between the rich and the poor was small, but apparently most people lived in poverty (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). However, after realization of economic growth, a few people prospered while too many people continue to pine on the economic ladder. With these deliberations, different scholars have had different arguments on what poverty is all about. Smith, whom much of Blaney and Inayatullah’s work focuses on, have argued that complex division of labor generates economic growth while a simple division of labor limits economic growth (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). In this regard, many of these scholars attribute poverty to lack of economic growth. However, some scholars argue that poverty is not just as a result of economic growth, but as a result of lack of functionings and capabilities. Functionings and capabilities can be argued to be the primary concept to think about when tackling the issue of poverty. This is arguably true because, in the process of economic development, peoples’ capabilities need to be put into function in order to effect the change desired for economic growth (Clapp and Dauvergne 2008). Blaney and Inayatullah points out that poverty should not be faced directly, since it might cause antagonism that prevents closure of the social field. However, if a clear articulation of this argument is done, there are a number of issues to be concerned about. For example, in order to be able to tackle the issue of poverty, it is apparent that the first step would be acknowledging and accepting that poverty is there and it’s real (Clapp and Dauvergne 2008). This way, mechanisms of dealing with it would be derived from this acknowledgement. As much as one would want to agree with Blaney and Inayatullah, that facing poverty directly could bring complications. This notion could as well act as a barrier to motivation and energy needed to reverse the situation. In this regard, it can be argued that facing poverty directly could initiate the courage and potentials needed to curb the menace (Davis and Feng 2009). Poverty can be viewed as a secondary result instigated by primary conditions or problems, which if not dealt with directly could worsen the situation (Henderson, 2002). On a further account, Blaney and Inayatullah argued that facing poverty directly could be a too painful and difficult experience to sustain. However, encircling is blaney and Inayatullah tends to endorse, can be argued to have more complications than facing the problem directly. For example, in the event of avoiding facing poverty directly, pleasure gained as a result of using circling instead of direct approach could raise some temptations of compromising the ideal goal of fighting poverty (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). As political economy sets the stage for what wealth and poverty entail, Blaney and Inayatullah argues that putting behind the past and policing the boundaries between the past and present is essential. They further argue that putting behind the past allows us to construct what counts as the present, which is as a result of experiences of the past encounters (Taylor 2008). In fact, they argue that understanding of the present as different from the past enables us to formulate convincing accounts of the history, present, and probable futures. In this regard, the issue of liberal political economy involving, wealth, order, and human progress and freedom will be easy to contemplate on (Robert 1999). Blaney and Inayatullah claim that viewing political economy in the context of contemporary poverty, disorder, violence, and burdened tensions engulfing time and places would be the better option. Temporal walls of capitalism Modern Europe is characterised by the emergence of bourgeois time. As this concept emerges, the issue of sense of time comes in. as time factor is focused on the perspective of past, present, and future, the idea of human progress is noted, a concept that some scholars term as industrial progress (Carbaugh 2009). This progress is, therefore, viewed as a form of modern capitalism. However, this form of capitalism is argued not to be constant as it varies from place to place and across different people and nations (Reisman 2012). The modern era of commerce viewed in terms of the past- as a product of human progress. However, this progress is viewed as disordered and fractured (Greenfeld 2001). This is attributed to the fact that the natural operations of the market do not secure the economic prospects of nations and individuals. The reason to believe so is because unregulated markets attach abundance to scarcity and life to death (Blaney and Inayatullah 2010). Providence, on the other hand, is does not assure order nor do economic wounds necessarily serve the higher good. As other authors would tend to justify capitalism, blaney and Inayatullah argue that capitalism is characterised by the pursuit of material self-interest, which is led by cultural influence of reason. Worst still is that apart from freedom of economic competition, and economic progress, capitalism attracts economic inequality (Carbaugh 2009). In their argument, blaney and Inayatullah points out that Smith’s assumptions of the human drive to the truck and barter that leads to material improvement is a complicated view of economic developments. The use of Smith’s emphasis on the role of Amerindians, comparative ethnology and theory of human progress acts as insulation of commercial society from ethical critique. However, this could act as an opening to a new avenue of focusing on how to recover repressed ethical resources that help to assess the present state of global capitalism (Clapp and Dauvergne 2008). Blaney and Inayatullah also believe that Smith’s comparative ethnology is a shallow context based on his encounter with Indians, who were not as profound as earlier adventurers, missionaries, and scholars whose report he inherited. As much as capitalism can be viewed as a driving force of economic growth, modern capitalism has brought about all manner of evils. For example, universal ethical values, justice, equity and autonomy have been compromised in the name of attempts to achieve economic growth through capitalism (Baumol, et al 2007). In particular, division of labor, which comes with capitalism, has led to the invention of machines that are endorsed by owners of means of production. As a result, many people lack jobs, thus they become poor. It is also apparent that free markets have led to the emergence of principle of survival for the fittest in today’s market. In this regard, equality has been put aside as competition takes center stage in the market (Davis and Feng 2009). However, according to Smith, such issues occur as a result of inconveniences of the division of labor. However, this is what concerns political economists; reasons why these inconveniences occur (Clapp and Dauvergne 2008). In fact, it has been pointed out that the problem with modern day division of labor has a lot to do with what is termed as constraints of people living by labor to advance in their areas of specialization (Carbaugh 2009). This argued to contribute to a situation where such people experience difficulties in overcoming difficulties that face them. In fact, it is also argued that such people confined to such situations by the concept of division of labor becomes stupid and ignorant. Specialization endorsed by division of labor is also argued to lead to incapability of rational conversation and other shortcomings of division of labor (Baumol, et al 2007). On the other hand, the absence of division of labor in savage societies ensures that there exists varied occupations and that everyone is able to form judgment concerning the interest of society. Therefore, as a result of these characteristics of a savage society, abundance is assured to the majority of the populace (Thompson 1993). This is in contrast to civilized society characterised by specialization whereby the majority of the laborers in their so called specialized jobs are poor (Grassby 1999). In contrast, Smith advocates for government intervention, but argues that in some ay, the government destroys the very thing it advances. Responding to Smith’s controversial arguments, Blaney and Inayatullah argues that a more limited division of labor is not a solution to the present savage barbarous societies. Instead, a reformed commercial society, which combines wealth creation with as government sponsored program of character refinement, must be prioritized. Nevertheless, Smith’s argument is in support of a commercial society, but one which the government must intervene in order to prevent or stop the morally degrading effects of capitalism. In some ways, the issue of wealth creation through capitalism is viewed as a concept to be endorsed only if it focuses on the well being of common populace than the previous forms of society (Grassby 1999). To support his arguments, Smith is noted contesting that no society can surely be flourishing and happy while majorities of its people are poor and miserable (Baumol, et al 2007). With such deliberations, form Smith, blaney and Inayatullah argue that poverty is not a distinct condition of savage societies. Rather, poverty is associated with the emergence of commercial society. Therefore, they argued that the concept of commercial society can not wholly be entrusted with healing poverty. General analysis of Blaney and Inayatullah’s book Blaney and Inayatulla drew on the rich tradition of classical political economy to build up critical theoretical means of rejecting misleading preferences between modern and savage, capitalism and anti-capitalism, and economy and culture in an analysis of contemporary international political economy. With these deliberations, it can be argued that the book is a profound contribution to postcolonial thinking. In a provocative argument, Blaney and Inayatulla muster their postcolonial and ethnographic sensibilities in order to come up with solutions posited by classical political economy thinkers. It is apparent that after reading the book, one is able to connect to important contentious issues of capitalism such as poverty, inequality and violence. These issues are of major concern because modern capitalism was somehow justified. For a long time, the field of political economy has been predominated by technocratic analyses of market equilibrium and evils of capitalist oppression. Blaney and Inayatulla had all the reasons to suggest a profound reorientation of the concepts to a more potent form of immanent critique. It is also apparent that their incisive discussion discloses resources for ethical and political reflection that have for a long time been masked by other authors. Their discoursed arguments have unmasked intrigues of modern-day economics. This book is not only a reading for academicians, but also for everyone involved in the lines of production and consumption political economic knowledge. Conclusion Blaney and Inayatullah have brought out some strong arguments concerning savage Economic: wealth, poverty and the temporal walls of capitalism. According to their arguments, nothing much has been achieved in relation to fight against poverty. They point out that before the era of economic growth, the gap between the rich and the poor was small although most people lived in poverty. Smithy attributes poverty to lack of economic growth. In response to Smith’s argument on poverty can be handled, blaney and Inayatullah argue that poverty should not be faced directly, since it might cause antagonism that prevents closure of the social field. As much as one would want to agree with blaney and Inayatullah, that facing poverty directly could bring complications, this notion could as well act as a barrier to motivation and energy needed to revert the situation. In fact, it is true to argue that facing poverty directly can initiate the courage and potentials needed to curb the menace. As political economy sets the stage for what wealth and poverty entail, blaney and Inayatullah argues that putting behind the past and policing the boundaries between the past and present is essential. They argue that understanding of the present as different from the past enables us to formulate convincing accounts of the history, present, and probable futures. In this regard, the issue of liberal political economy involving, wealth, order, and human progress and freedom will be easy to contemplate on. As capitalism was viewed as a means through which economic growth can be achieved, capitalism brings about economic inequality. Division of labor, which comes with capitalism, has led to specialization, which plays a part in contribution of poverty to laborers as they are unable to assess or advance to other areas of specialization. Bibliography: Baumol, W. et al., 2007. Good capitalism, bad capitalism, and the economics of growth and prosperity. New Haven [u.a.]: Yale Univ. Press. Blaney, L. David and Inayatullah, N., 2010. Savage Economics: Wealth, Poverty, and the Temporal Walls of Capitalism. New York: Taylor & Francis. Carbaugh, J., 2009. International Economics. Mason: South Western Cengage Learning. Clapp, J. and Dauvergne, P., 2008. Paths to a Green World the Political Economy of the Global Environment. New Delhi: Academic Foundation. Davis, D. and Feng, W., 2009. Creating wealth and poverty in postsocialist China. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Grassby, R., 1999. The idea of capitalism before the industrial revolution. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, cop. Greenfeld, L., 2001. The spirit of capitalism: nationalism and economic growth. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Henderson, W., 2002. John Ruskin's Political Economy. New York: Routledge. Reisman, G. Economics and capitalism. Accessed on 2nd July 2012 from: http://www.capitalism.net/Capitalism/Economics%20and%20Capitalism.htm. Robert, L., 1999. The Lives, Times, and Ideas of the Great Economic Thinkers, the Worldly Philosophers: New York: Touchstone Book. Taylor, W. C., 2008. The natural history of society in the barbarous and civilized state. London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans. Thompson B., 1993. Socialism vs. capitalism. Ashbrook Center for public affairs: Ashland University. Read More