Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
America, China need to balance personal greed with public welfare
November 1, 2010, Monday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
IN several recent well-written and soundly presented articles, Mr Wan Lixin ably discusses the considerable downsides of unfettered "consumerism" and unregulated capitalism.
Implicitly, he also recognizes and challenges the individual's wants (often perceived as needs) as opposed to the good of the larger community, including society as a whole.
In his articles he frequently references the current and historic difficulties in the United States and cautions against similar distortions or excesses within China. In his column of October 16 ("The Case for Personal Effort to Fight Climate Change"), he quotes from Chris Goodall's book, "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life: The Individual's Guide to Stopping Climate Change": "The threat from climate change requires each of us to take personal responsibility for reducing our impact on the planet's atmosphere ..."
Mr Lixin then comments: "Individuals must provide the leadership because it is hopeless to place our faith in the government and much-touted science and high technology. The government simply has no incentives to distract from its infatuation with growth and economic boosterism. The business of government anywhere today is business, even though it prefers not to advertise this fact."
He then identifies the source of our current delusions: "Modern lifestyle is sustained on the assumption that the world has an inexhaustible supply of fossil fuel, and that replacing human labor with fuel-driven machines is cheap and progressive. But the surplus of stuff thus manufactured needs human consumption, hence systematic and persisting effort to excite human greed."
Cost of 'success'
I recall attending (as a young legislator many years ago) a meeting with realtors and developers in my home district, in which they were pressing their case for legislative action they supported (and opposed) in the coming session of the Iowa General Assembly.
Time after time I heard various speakers advocate the "highest and best use of the land" which, inevitably meant development of that land.
Over time, whether the issue involved land development or commercial activities, I came to understand that what was missing from the "success" and "cost" equations they presented us was any sort of social value or societal welfare criteria.
In making the case for why project "x" or "y" was desirable, there was never any reference to environmental consequences (such as effluent and air pollution), nor hardly ever as to how a particular project fit into larger societal goals.
All this was in keeping both with a mindset that "a free market is best able to decide" and that any attempt to factor in environmental or social goals would be an "interference" with this market and, hence, both wrong and deplorable.
While we have made some inroads in the United States in addressing environmental consequences, and factoring into planning and building costs attempts to minimize and pay for those consequences, we are still loath to tinker with the concept that the "free market knows best."
Since, in capitalism, money flows to money, without any sort of societal controls or direction (for the purpose of the larger society), imbalances of wealth will only grow and the nefarious interplay between persons of wealth and persons exercising governmental power will become more incestuous.
'Land of the free'
This is why in the "land of the free" (markets), America sees the kind of growing income and ownership inequities of which I have written recently and as Mr Lixin did in his article of October 23, ("Let's not Squander the Crisis and Ignore Hidden Factors").
It is my sincere hope that not only will China find a successful way to find and maintain a healthy balance between individual greed and the welfare of all, but that we in the United States will - sooner rather than later - come to our senses and also demand the same.
The alternative, to both of our societies, is too grim to ponder. The most hope-filled option is to have both an enlightened and activist citizenry - conscious of preserving their heritage, their natural resources, and striving for the justice and welfare of all - and a government which insists on exactly those same criteria in deciding which projects and policies to support or oppose.
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowan executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
Implicitly, he also recognizes and challenges the individual's wants (often perceived as needs) as opposed to the good of the larger community, including society as a whole.
In his articles he frequently references the current and historic difficulties in the United States and cautions against similar distortions or excesses within China. In his column of October 16 ("The Case for Personal Effort to Fight Climate Change"), he quotes from Chris Goodall's book, "How to Live a Low-Carbon Life: The Individual's Guide to Stopping Climate Change": "The threat from climate change requires each of us to take personal responsibility for reducing our impact on the planet's atmosphere ..."
Mr Lixin then comments: "Individuals must provide the leadership because it is hopeless to place our faith in the government and much-touted science and high technology. The government simply has no incentives to distract from its infatuation with growth and economic boosterism. The business of government anywhere today is business, even though it prefers not to advertise this fact."
He then identifies the source of our current delusions: "Modern lifestyle is sustained on the assumption that the world has an inexhaustible supply of fossil fuel, and that replacing human labor with fuel-driven machines is cheap and progressive. But the surplus of stuff thus manufactured needs human consumption, hence systematic and persisting effort to excite human greed."
Cost of 'success'
I recall attending (as a young legislator many years ago) a meeting with realtors and developers in my home district, in which they were pressing their case for legislative action they supported (and opposed) in the coming session of the Iowa General Assembly.
Time after time I heard various speakers advocate the "highest and best use of the land" which, inevitably meant development of that land.
Over time, whether the issue involved land development or commercial activities, I came to understand that what was missing from the "success" and "cost" equations they presented us was any sort of social value or societal welfare criteria.
In making the case for why project "x" or "y" was desirable, there was never any reference to environmental consequences (such as effluent and air pollution), nor hardly ever as to how a particular project fit into larger societal goals.
All this was in keeping both with a mindset that "a free market is best able to decide" and that any attempt to factor in environmental or social goals would be an "interference" with this market and, hence, both wrong and deplorable.
While we have made some inroads in the United States in addressing environmental consequences, and factoring into planning and building costs attempts to minimize and pay for those consequences, we are still loath to tinker with the concept that the "free market knows best."
Since, in capitalism, money flows to money, without any sort of societal controls or direction (for the purpose of the larger society), imbalances of wealth will only grow and the nefarious interplay between persons of wealth and persons exercising governmental power will become more incestuous.
'Land of the free'
This is why in the "land of the free" (markets), America sees the kind of growing income and ownership inequities of which I have written recently and as Mr Lixin did in his article of October 23, ("Let's not Squander the Crisis and Ignore Hidden Factors").
It is my sincere hope that not only will China find a successful way to find and maintain a healthy balance between individual greed and the welfare of all, but that we in the United States will - sooner rather than later - come to our senses and also demand the same.
The alternative, to both of our societies, is too grim to ponder. The most hope-filled option is to have both an enlightened and activist citizenry - conscious of preserving their heritage, their natural resources, and striving for the justice and welfare of all - and a government which insists on exactly those same criteria in deciding which projects and policies to support or oppose.
(The author was a member of the Iowa state House of Representatives. He also served in the Iowan executive branch. He retired in 2004.)
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
