The Myth of Scarcity

[Hannah Bell]

There is no real scarcity in the world; quite the opposite...Between 1970 and 1990, the population of Canada grew 25% while the GDP expanded 647%. The population of Britain rose 3.2%, while the GDP swelled 964%. In the United States...the population increased 20% while the GDP climbed 440%.3

One might think that such massive increases in wealth...would result in a generous rise in the standard of living, including universal access to medical care...(but) wealth is socially produced but privately owned, so only a privileged elite benefit from rising productivity...The combined wealth of the richest 200 people in the world is close to one trillion dollars...greater than the combined wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population...

Modern Malthusians

The State protects the “right” of the rich to privately own the social wealth and propagates the ideas that justify this arrangement....Since the 18th century, Malthus’ theories have been used to defend social inequality. All social ills, from poverty and disease to famine and environmental degradation, have been mistakenly attributed to the problem of too many people wanting too much.44

Malthus was wrong.

The development of science and technology has made agricultural land so productive that farmers in rich nations are paid not to grow crops while mountains of stored food are destroyed or left to rot every year. The problem is not too many hungry bellies. The problem is that food is sold for profit, and too many people can’t afford to buy it...

Modern Malthusians fill the mainstream media with cries of scarcity. Instead of praising the aging population as a medical and social success, they blame improved longevity for straining the system.... Discussions of what is medically effective are submerged by arguments about money. The myth of “never-ending crisis” is a deception practiced by all nations to promote public acceptance of rationing.45

The myth of scarcity is needed to reconcile the obscenity of growing wealth alongside growing poverty. According to the World Health Organization, around 300 million people live in 16 countries where life expectancy actually decreased between 1975 and 1995. Fifty percent of deaths of children under age five are associated with malnutrition. At least two million child deaths a year could be prevented by existing vaccines and most of the rest could be prevented by access to clean water and other basic necessities. Nearly 1.3 billion people live in absolute poverty, and more than 15 million adults aged 20 to 64 die every year from preventable causes.46

The myth of scarcity insists that such suffering cannot be prevented, because there is not enough to go around. This argument hardens our hearts, erodes our humanity, negates centuries of human progress and reinstates the law of the jungle, where only the strong can hope to survive.

We are expected to accept the unacceptable: beggars in the streets of the world’s most prosperous cities; an abundance of food, while millions starve; treatments for disease that the poor cannot afford; one part of the population being overworked, while the other part is desperate for work; surplus wealth growing alongside, and at the expense of, destitute populations. As American author John Steinbeck wrote in 1939,

“There is a crime here that goes beyond denunciation. There is a sorrow here that weeping cannot symbolize. There is a failure here that topples all our success…In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for the vintage.”47

The goal of modern Malthusians is to ensure that the grapes of wrath are never harvested, to justify the dominance of the few and the misery of the many, to obscure what would otherwise be obvious: that ordinary people create all of society’s wealth and deserve their share of it. The elite who rule society can never accept this account of the matter. If they did, they would have to abandon their system of private ownership and competition; they would have to acknowledge the inhumanity of depriving millions to enrich a few. Since they cannot deny reality, they promote the myth of scarcity.48

-Susan Rosenthal


http://susanrosenthal.com/articles/the-myth-of-scarcity-managed-care-and-modern-malthusians#_edn3

[bottomtheweaver]

1. That's an outstanding article.

So much of the evil afoot in the world is directly attributable to Malthus and his successors it's ridiculous.

[glowing]

2. Rather disgusting the whole system.... the whole Game. Unity and sharing

would end a lot of this shit... We are all kept in borders of imaginary lines drawn over maps of the world.. and within those lines we are taught Nationalism and protectionism and learn to war instead of share. The illusions of our rules may one day be shed.. It sure is happening faster with the internet at our disposal.

[bobbolink]

23. Wellllll, I think what's DISGUSTING is the propaganda that keeps us buying the whole myth!

We MUST find a way to break through the wall so that 'Murkins can learn to detect and reject propaganda.

[glowing]

36. Its hard because many are comfortable.. Don't think the images of homelessness

and countries with dying children and genocide haven't escaped the eyes of people. Sure its bad, but its not happening to them. Many are comfortable with eating, sleeping, and having general security. When mass amts of people start losing that comfort, ie, like now with this depression, they are more willing to act in order to save themselves going thru the alternative of other countries. Like I said, imaginary lines drawn on a map to utilize Nationalism and Specialization.. and ultimately to keep the rich, rich and the poor from taking over.

[bobbolink]

39. I don't think people will "wake up" just because they begin to suffer.

There is STILL the idea that *they* are suffering righteously, but others are suffering because of their own fault.

I don't think that dynamic will change.

:(

edited to add: this idea will be the subject of the next Poverty In America essay, coming out Friday! It is written by DUer MaryF...look for it! :hi:

[glowing]

41. No there are some people who cannot see things being connected.

They are like Bush, an idiot.. and with some studies it been proven that these persons are normally republican and have a hard time dealing with the flow of information.. Then there are others, normally libs, who do see this and understand... I beleive that the reason we have Obama is because enough have woken up to some aspect of the game. It surprises me daily when I hear someone say something like, the real numbers of unemployment are like 15%, of another say something about the corrupt FDA. The reality is that one must realize that their govt is not a benign, too big fuck up, but purposely lying and deceiving in their practice. Once realizing that they lie, its a matter of weeding thru the rest to understand what is right and what is a total lie. You would be amazed at the many people waking up. You'd be surprised at the many who went out and worked for Obama's election and do not want to go back to their lives as before... many want to continue to make their lives and their community better. Yes, there are still many who don't get it, but many do. The last 8yrs have been really bad for people. With the internet and its usage up, many are learning. Unity is the key.

[Joe the Liberal]

3. k & r............

:kick:

[RandomThoughts]

4. Good article

But most real wealth is not hording of 'things' at least for the mega rich the Bush group helps.

Wealth is about being able to make more wealth off of other peoples lives. Owning stock, Owning land, getting interest from loans.

The only place wealth is spent besides making more wealth, is controlling the thoughts and actions of others, or advocating for ones own ideas. This is done through media ownership, lobbying, buying laws or people that make them.

And dangling the carrot, which is why creating scarcity is advocated by some of the wealthy. Which is also why Materialism, and worshiping money is also advocated.

The exception is when people honestly spend what they have to help others, but even this says a few people should decide who gets helped and how.

[Hannah Bell]

6. wealth is control of assets, resources, cash flow & labor. Yes, "things".

The ruling class restricts the flow of food to children in Africa as surely as if they hoarded the world's food in their collective basements. And so with everything that money can buy.

[RandomThoughts]

13. Control of assets

To make more wealth, or to control people or groups.

easiest way to control 'things' is to modify production, instead of literally holding the assets, or to control the pricing, or ability for others to afford the things.

But you are right, I should have added production control, or 'thing' allocation control as a method to promote an agenda or make wealth.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

5. One of the prevalent crimes against humanity.

Indeed, this Myth of Scarcity is one of the pillars of the Game some of us discussed in the thread entitled "The Game" by the DU member Time for Change.

[Hannah Bell]

7. I agree, & his (her?) post was one I was thinking of when I put this up.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

10. What I fail to understand...

Is why even well intentioned and seemingly intelligent members of the species fail to see that there is actually a rather simple solution to the problem of the global economic "crisis".

And that there are equally simple solutions to the age old issue of war as well.

In my view we would all be better off cooperating and not competing.

[IMPERIUM V]

35. A very, very simple solution...

[lostnotforgotten]

8. One Problem - Peak Oil Tied To One Misdirection - Capitalism Vs Socialism

eom

[Hannah Bell]

9. could you explain? sounds suggestive, but not clear what you mean.

[RC]

12. When the oil runs out, there will be mass starvation.

All that "Surplus" food was grown with oil based fertilizer and oil fueled machines. We have no real replacement for oil that will support the current human population of this planet.

[bertman]

19. Vietnam was/is considered the "rice basket" of the SE Asia. In my brief eleven-month

government-sponsored visit there I never saw one ounce of chemical fertilizer or one machine plant or harvest that rice. Unless of course, if you consider human beings to be machines.

When the oil runs out there will be helluva lot more agricultural workers to do the labor for planting and harvesting. Not to mention that we might actually go back to the use of plant and animal wastes and long-standing, organic farming methods to produce food.

I personally know organic farmers whose small acreage yields unbelievably large quantities of vegetables.

It's a mindset problem in many ways.

But, I do admit that there will be some major adjustments to be made in urban areas. Getting food to and from those markets will be challenging. On the other hand, as the oil runs out, I'm hopeful that we will develop fuels other than oil to transport food.

The prospect of intensive, organic food production at local farms should be a challenge we welcome, not one that we dread.

[Hannah Bell]

33. you're saying it's misdirection to attribute millions of malnourished to capitalism

because in the future we won't have oil?

???

[eridani]

11. Peak Oil is not a myth.

Not to say we shouldn't be doing something about all overconsumption on the part of 1/5 of the world's most well-off people, though.

[The2ndWheel]

14. Yeah, everyone can have everything

"The development of science and technology has made agricultural land so productive that farmers in rich nations are paid not to grow crops while mountains of stored food are destroyed or left to rot every year. The problem is not too many hungry bellies. The problem is that food is sold for profit, and too many people can’t afford to buy it"

But the problem is that the only way agricultural land has been able to be made so productive(to the point that we're destroying it, which is why more energy is needed to increase production), is because the food is sold at a profit. The only reason the agricultural land has been made so productive is that...and here's the good part...we've privatized the land for human beings(and obviously privatized it within the human species). We've socialized the costs to the rest of life(some of which are humans), through expansion, pesticides, etc, etc, etc.

We do live within physical reality, and it is limited. We don't get to break through those limits without cost.

[Hannah Bell]

25. We already produce enough food to provide everyone in the world over 2500

calories a day, & then some.

In the US, we already have enough housing to house every person, & then some. We have housing sitting empty, & no one to buy it.

We have work that needs to be done going undone, & 13% of the population unemployed.

We already have acres of new automobiles sitting in storage - but no one to buy them.

We already pay, exhorbitantly, for the healthcare of the poor - but they can't have it as a secure right, no, they have to live in fear for some reason, & everyone else must live in fear of being bankrupted from medical bills.

Our military spending equals our social security spending, yet we "can't afford" social security".

You say, everyone can't have everything. No, if "everything" = thousand acre estates, multiple factories all over the world, millions in stock holdings, weekend flights to Europe.

But everyone *can* certainly have secure food, housing, work, medical care, old-age, leisure & participation in civil society.

[The2ndWheel]

37. Would progress end if everyone had what they needed?

If everyone had this...

"But everyone *can* certainly have secure food, housing, work, medical care, old-age, leisure & participation in civil society."

but did not strive for this...

"You say, everyone can't have everything. No, if "everything" = thousand acre estates, multiple factories all over the world, millions in stock holdings, weekend flights to Europe."

...what would we do? Would history end?

The system that has been built on the momentum and history of the last few thousand years is not one where everyone has access to whatever they need. We wouldn't have all that food sitting there, all those houses sitting there, all those jobs needing to be done, all those cars not used if it were.

To me, the problem is that our solutions seem to always include increasing the amount of people in that unequal system.

Why?

"The State protects the “right” of the rich to privately own the social wealth and propagates the ideas that justify this arrangement"

Possibly because we're not about to get rid of the state. We're also not about to get rid of the corporation, as those two dominant institutions are increasingly the same side of the same coin.

[Hannah Bell]

40. Who cares? What is "progress" for? better lives for people, which is possible NOW.

But imo, "progress" wouldn't stop, it would just be different. Much of what we now call "progress" is theft, fraud, cruelty, puffery.

"Strive" = compete, be used, dominate or be dominated & controlled; "climb". One can "work" & "produce" without "striving".

[HamdenRice]

15. Outstanding article! I've had a running debate with DU's resident malthusians

and I wish everyone of them would read this.

Ultimately, malthusianism is a right wing, reactionary doctrine designed to justify massive impoverization of the masses for the benefit of the few. It's a bait and switch, social darwinian ideology that says we must make the poor poorer -- while the rich steal behind all our backs.

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

16. Kick and recommended.

With appreciation.

[davekriss]

17. k & r

[originalpckelly]

18. And yet planned economies didn't seem to solve the problems of the Soviets.

Didn't they have a problem or two feeding people?

[Hannah Bell]

24. Do you see "planned economy" in the OP? I don't.

[bertman]

20. I've spent the last few weeks trying to "downsize" my personal possessions, so I have

to agree that, at least at my house and my friends' houses, there is a massive OVERabundance of material goods such as clothing, furniture, dishes, pots, pans, blankets, etc. etc. The list is almost endless.

Granted, this stuff took a while to accumulate, but it is still surplus. And it is in very good shape.

I have a friend who just moved into a retirement community. She and her husband moved from a very affluent part of town. They spent WEEKS just giving away their personal belongings that they did not need. And they still live very comfortably and she says they have other possessions that they must find homes for. We have taken many items to a family that was burned out of their home, to the local thrift shops and second hand stores, plus she has given many very nice "things" to family and friends.

We Americans have far more than we need.

If you don't think so, just look in my attic. Sheesh.

[hfojvt]

21. as a modern day Malthusian, I resemble these remarks

and think they are wrong in two ways

1) There is scarcity

2) The purpose of recognizing the fact of scarcity is supposed to encourage people to waste less, consume less, re-use, conserve and recycle, and plan more.

World GDP was 54.62 trillion in 2007 (according to my google search). Divide that by a world population of 6.5 billion and that gives per capita income of $8,403. I hope everybody who R'ed this thread is willing to reduce their income to $8,403 per person. I know that I am not.

I think the myths of infinite growth and infinite greed are far more pernicious than the facts of scarcity.

[Blue_Tires]

22. ttt

[KoKo]

26. K&R It sure helped corporations grow wealthy to have "factory farms" didn't it.

While causing local family farms to get bought out so that a few could control the food for the masses.

[Morgan Wick]

27. Scarcity of resources is not the problem.

The real root of capitalism is the scarcity of labor.

Capitalism is based on the theory that people are lazy and need to be bribed to do the work that needs to be done.

Machines can help with this, but if machines do everything (and it's unclear that they can), what's the point of life itself?

If humans still need to do certain things, yet no one would do them if given the choice, how do you get people to do them?

To tie this in with other threads, are you sure the Democratic Party is drifting further to the right, or is DU drifting further to the left? It's practically Socialist Underground now...

(Or am *I* drifting further to the right? I have dabbled a little bit of time in Newsbusters from time to time since August, but always as devil's advocate...)

[Hannah Bell]

28. People don't need to be bribed to work for themselves, their family, their community;

when they have a voice in the process & a share in the reward. In fact, it's pretty likely they're hardwired to do just that.

But they do need to be bribed to work for someone's else's enrichment, when they have no voice & only a small fraction of the reward.

There's no scarcity of labor. There's a scarcity of power on the side of labor.

[Greyhound]

29. How, short of revolution, do we change this?

Not that revolution is a deal breaker, but I hope that we are bright enough to stop this insanity before it comes to that.

I've been trying to get this message out for well over a decade and even when confronted with the facts so many refuse to accept it. Why? Are we just that determined to wipe our species (as well as most of the others) out?
:kick: & R

[blindpig]

31. Nothing short, I'm afraid.

It would be lovely if those bastards just gave up and went away but they never have to date. They like the way they live, the power they have, I think they are junkies. Withdrawals could be ugly.

The nature of the revolution, well, seems to me that it's up to the capitalists. Given their junkie ways it is reasonable to expect trouble.

But what choice do we have? We can remain slaves amid a dying biosphere or we can demand justice and survival.

[maryf]

30. K & R

Another wonderful post Hannah Bell!

[Odin2005]

32. Excellent article. n/t

[ColbertWatcher]

34. Damn, too late to recommend. All I can give is my kick!

Another good find, Hannah!

[Tindalos]

38. Kick n/t