This Angry Vine
Roger J. Burke
January 28, 2009
"Poor people in Africa should not pay the price for a crisis that originated in America."
Robert Zoellick, President of The World Bank.
Being a movie aficionado and admirer of Classic Hollywood cinema, I got around to watching, again, The Grapes of Wrath (1940), with a young Henry Fonda in the lead. I'd seen it when still a youngster in the late forties; being a sexagenarian now, it was almost like seeing the movie for the first time.
Just as an aside: while it was interesting to see the story unfold again, now with more mature eyes, I was actually more interested, at the outset, in finding out how the producer (Darryl F. Zanuck) and the director (John Ford) handled the controversial ending, as written by John Steinbeck and with which I am familiar. At the time of production, the Hays Code was implicitly under attack from film makers, but still exerted significant pressure upon the film industry to conform, voluntarily, to societal mores and expectations. Hence, as I expected, Steinbeck's ending was totally excised. Pity – it's an effective metaphor, though shocking for some.
Afterwards, I was thinking about the story, and how well it was presented. And, as I did, I was struck by the parallel that now exists globally with the continuing unfolding of the financial meltdown and its consequences.
I'm not the first, of course, to compare what's happening now with the social upheaval of The Great Depression, the theme of Steinbeck's classic novel. But, as a foretaste of things to come, perhaps, it's appropriate to consider.
As any reader of news knows, each day brings new bank failures, sweeping job losses, falling production, constricted lending and spending, and, naturally, projections of greatly reduced GDP for just about any country you want to name. And, while world wide banking continues tanking, the wallahs of Wall St make the Down Jones Index – and others – perform like a yoyo. Could it be they don't know what to do? Well, that might give my schadenfreude a daily boost, but it doesn't do anything for my – and billions of others – bottom line.
Hence, as a final comment on the purveyors of global financial ruin, and with apologies to the late Sir Winston Churchill, I can only conclude that never in the field of human commerce have so few owed so much to so many.
Now – regarding the almost-Biblical deluge of job losses, are we going to see hordes of global Okies moving to jobs in other countries, just as the share-croppers from Oklahoma moved west to California in the 1930s? Not quite.
Specialized industries, of course, will continue to attract workers from wherever. Location is the big factor, however. For example, as conditions deteriorate in Mexico, illegal border crossings of workers to USA will no doubt increase, even as the cancer of massive layoffs eats away at The American Dream. On the other hand, in Australia, the need for migrant workers from Asia has already dropped off the cliff as the resource industry contracts with BHP, Rio Tinto and others laying off thousands. And while poorer people from the African and Asian continents will continue to risk everything to find a better life somewhere else, I would expect governments to redouble efforts to oppose such activities. Which means that millions of workers will be forced to find work in their own country, or perhaps in bordering states. If they're lucky.
Hence, just as some areas of California resented the Okie incursions of the 1930s, the global community will tend to preserve and defend borders with even greater vigor because, as always, it's a question of survival: government must look to the needs of its own citizens first – if not for the citizens themselves, but also to ensure its own political survival.
All of which means that, as the financial debacle worsens, conditions for workers in developing and poorer countries will worsen dramatically and tragically. Signs of that are already emerging: China's GDP is nose-diving, with up to a projected fifty million out of work in 2009, and who knows how many in 2010? India's GDP is worsening also. And as for Africa – well, think of Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Sudan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo and so on.
As beneficiaries of international trade and globalization, the masses within those countries must now be experiencing, to some degree, a form of cognitive dissonance similar to that of the newly unemployed in USA, UK, and elsewhere: despite the relative economic advances of the last half-century the promise of the good life for most people still remains a dream – certainly in developing countries, and even in some more advanced.
Note that inequality of wealth is not the issue here: in a liberal democracy driven by capitalist enterprise, the rich will always get richer. Arguably, that is true regardless of the politics.
What's needed is to make the poor less poor. But without action to reduce the murmuring of the angry unemployed and the socially marginalized, social unrest can only worsen. Pushed to extremes, as seems likely in the short run, the murmuring may reach a roar.
However, disorganized masses are slow to act, as all politicians, anarchists and extremists know well: it's the nature of the Beast. But once on the move – and angry – governments cower in fear of the mob. And by all accounts, the government of China is already sweating blood in attempts to stave off what some see as inevitable.
So, what hope is there?
Well, I was more than interested, and heartened, to read Robert Zoellick's OpEd piece in the NY Times, in which he made a good case for all developed countries to increase aid despite the dire financial condition of most, particularly the United States. As the President of the World Bank says, such aid – encompassing safety nets, expansion of infrastructure and development of small business – is more than just relief from hunger, poverty and such like: it's an investment in "human capital". Mr Zoellick is not the first to prod the developed nations in such a manner, and he won't be the last.
But, in doing so, Mr Zoellick is simply recognizing the very practical necessity of raising living standards in developing countries as quickly as possible because the "building projects abroad are likely to increase demand for American-made equipment." He could have added: And for a whole range of consumer products. That, instead, came from Robert Samuelson, of The Washington Post, when he opined that "if the rest of the world doesn't buy more from America, any U.S. recovery may be feeble."
He's probably right.
Which further emphasizes a truth that's now come home to roost for everybody: we are in fact all interconnected and interdependent, almost as though we are all part of one big Existence. Or, in the words of Tom Joad, near the end of The Grapes of Wrath, "a fella ain't got a soul of his own, but on'y a piece of a big soul", and with a common human purpose, I would add, and ever growing - like a global vine for the betterment of all, one hopes.
So, with continued help as outlined by Mr Zoellick, and others before him, coupled with the sensible application of financial stimuli, the catatonia that grips global capitalism might be reversed sooner rather than later. The caveat is that capitalism must be better restrained and controlled so that its benefits are not stolen again by the excesses of a relatively small group of greedy, financial extremists.
Pray that politicians heed the warnings. Quickly.
P.S. As to Steinbeck's ending that couldn't be shown in 1940, the last few pages describe how the Joad family – destitute, hungry and weary – come upon a barn where they can rest, particularly young Rose, who'd lost her baby in childbirth a day earlier. The barn, however, is already occupied by a sick and starving, fifty-year-old stranger and his distraught young son. With no food available, the man will surely die – until Rose, heavy with milk, readily agrees to suckle him at her breast. The social and religious symbolism of that ending is powerful reading.
Copyright © Roger Burke, 2009. All rights reserved.
Robert Zoellick, President of The World Bank.
Being a movie aficionado and admirer of Classic Hollywood cinema, I got around to watching, again, The Grapes of Wrath (1940), with a young Henry Fonda in the lead. I'd seen it when still a youngster in the late forties; being a sexagenarian now, it was almost like seeing the movie for the first time.
Just as an aside: while it was interesting to see the story unfold again, now with more mature eyes, I was actually more interested, at the outset, in finding out how the producer (Darryl F. Zanuck) and the director (John Ford) handled the controversial ending, as written by John Steinbeck and with which I am familiar. At the time of production, the Hays Code was implicitly under attack from film makers, but still exerted significant pressure upon the film industry to conform, voluntarily, to societal mores and expectations. Hence, as I expected, Steinbeck's ending was totally excised. Pity – it's an effective metaphor, though shocking for some.
Afterwards, I was thinking about the story, and how well it was presented. And, as I did, I was struck by the parallel that now exists globally with the continuing unfolding of the financial meltdown and its consequences.
I'm not the first, of course, to compare what's happening now with the social upheaval of The Great Depression, the theme of Steinbeck's classic novel. But, as a foretaste of things to come, perhaps, it's appropriate to consider.
As any reader of news knows, each day brings new bank failures, sweeping job losses, falling production, constricted lending and spending, and, naturally, projections of greatly reduced GDP for just about any country you want to name. And, while world wide banking continues tanking, the wallahs of Wall St make the Down Jones Index – and others – perform like a yoyo. Could it be they don't know what to do? Well, that might give my schadenfreude a daily boost, but it doesn't do anything for my – and billions of others – bottom line.
Hence, as a final comment on the purveyors of global financial ruin, and with apologies to the late Sir Winston Churchill, I can only conclude that never in the field of human commerce have so few owed so much to so many.
Now – regarding the almost-Biblical deluge of job losses, are we going to see hordes of global Okies moving to jobs in other countries, just as the share-croppers from Oklahoma moved west to California in the 1930s? Not quite.
Specialized industries, of course, will continue to attract workers from wherever. Location is the big factor, however. For example, as conditions deteriorate in Mexico, illegal border crossings of workers to USA will no doubt increase, even as the cancer of massive layoffs eats away at The American Dream. On the other hand, in Australia, the need for migrant workers from Asia has already dropped off the cliff as the resource industry contracts with BHP, Rio Tinto and others laying off thousands. And while poorer people from the African and Asian continents will continue to risk everything to find a better life somewhere else, I would expect governments to redouble efforts to oppose such activities. Which means that millions of workers will be forced to find work in their own country, or perhaps in bordering states. If they're lucky.
Hence, just as some areas of California resented the Okie incursions of the 1930s, the global community will tend to preserve and defend borders with even greater vigor because, as always, it's a question of survival: government must look to the needs of its own citizens first – if not for the citizens themselves, but also to ensure its own political survival.
All of which means that, as the financial debacle worsens, conditions for workers in developing and poorer countries will worsen dramatically and tragically. Signs of that are already emerging: China's GDP is nose-diving, with up to a projected fifty million out of work in 2009, and who knows how many in 2010? India's GDP is worsening also. And as for Africa – well, think of Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Sudan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo and so on.
As beneficiaries of international trade and globalization, the masses within those countries must now be experiencing, to some degree, a form of cognitive dissonance similar to that of the newly unemployed in USA, UK, and elsewhere: despite the relative economic advances of the last half-century the promise of the good life for most people still remains a dream – certainly in developing countries, and even in some more advanced.
Note that inequality of wealth is not the issue here: in a liberal democracy driven by capitalist enterprise, the rich will always get richer. Arguably, that is true regardless of the politics.
What's needed is to make the poor less poor. But without action to reduce the murmuring of the angry unemployed and the socially marginalized, social unrest can only worsen. Pushed to extremes, as seems likely in the short run, the murmuring may reach a roar.
However, disorganized masses are slow to act, as all politicians, anarchists and extremists know well: it's the nature of the Beast. But once on the move – and angry – governments cower in fear of the mob. And by all accounts, the government of China is already sweating blood in attempts to stave off what some see as inevitable.
So, what hope is there?
Well, I was more than interested, and heartened, to read Robert Zoellick's OpEd piece in the NY Times, in which he made a good case for all developed countries to increase aid despite the dire financial condition of most, particularly the United States. As the President of the World Bank says, such aid – encompassing safety nets, expansion of infrastructure and development of small business – is more than just relief from hunger, poverty and such like: it's an investment in "human capital". Mr Zoellick is not the first to prod the developed nations in such a manner, and he won't be the last.
But, in doing so, Mr Zoellick is simply recognizing the very practical necessity of raising living standards in developing countries as quickly as possible because the "building projects abroad are likely to increase demand for American-made equipment." He could have added: And for a whole range of consumer products. That, instead, came from Robert Samuelson, of The Washington Post, when he opined that "if the rest of the world doesn't buy more from America, any U.S. recovery may be feeble."
He's probably right.
Which further emphasizes a truth that's now come home to roost for everybody: we are in fact all interconnected and interdependent, almost as though we are all part of one big Existence. Or, in the words of Tom Joad, near the end of The Grapes of Wrath, "a fella ain't got a soul of his own, but on'y a piece of a big soul", and with a common human purpose, I would add, and ever growing - like a global vine for the betterment of all, one hopes.
So, with continued help as outlined by Mr Zoellick, and others before him, coupled with the sensible application of financial stimuli, the catatonia that grips global capitalism might be reversed sooner rather than later. The caveat is that capitalism must be better restrained and controlled so that its benefits are not stolen again by the excesses of a relatively small group of greedy, financial extremists.
Pray that politicians heed the warnings. Quickly.
P.S. As to Steinbeck's ending that couldn't be shown in 1940, the last few pages describe how the Joad family – destitute, hungry and weary – come upon a barn where they can rest, particularly young Rose, who'd lost her baby in childbirth a day earlier. The barn, however, is already occupied by a sick and starving, fifty-year-old stranger and his distraught young son. With no food available, the man will surely die – until Rose, heavy with milk, readily agrees to suckle him at her breast. The social and religious symbolism of that ending is powerful reading.
Copyright © Roger Burke, 2009. All rights reserved.
Print
Email
