The Opposition…

The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time

Jeffrey D. Sachs,

Bono (Foreword)

Discussion: 2006-Jan-Feb-Mar

Why we're reading this: March 2, 2006
[close] March 2, 2006

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 3 topics — 3 comments total

2006-Jan-Feb-Mar

This topic has been closed to new comments.

* March 2006
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 6 views

last updated Dec 04, 2010 12:02AM

* February 2006
By Tiffany , WristStrong · 1 post · 5 views

last updated Nov 29, 2010 01:47AM

What Members Thought

Oct 09, 2020 Tiffany marked it as sounded_good_but_no · review of another edition

Okay, I would most likely never have read this book anyway, but chapter 3 of Mexico Unconquered begins with some of Sachs' ideas and basically says how far off base he is, so I'm going to quote/summarize some of John Gibler's comments from Mexico Unconquered.

Gibler quotes Sachs: "Let me dispose of one idea right from the start. Many people assume that the rich have gotten rich because the poor have gotten poor. In other words, they assume that Europe and the United States used military force an Okay, I would most likely never have read this book anyway, but chapter 3 of Mexico Unconquered begins with some of Sachs' ideas and basically says how far off base he is, so I'm going to quote/summarize some of John Gibler's comments from Mexico Unconquered.

Gibler quotes Sachs: "Let me dispose of one idea right from the start. Many people assume that the rich have gotten rich because the poor have gotten poor. In other words, they assume that Europe and the United States used military force and political strength during and after the era of colonialism to extract wealth from the poorest regions, and thereby to grow rich" (89). Gibler points out Sachs' immediate dismissal of this idea ("Let me dispose of one idea right from the start"), without even considering it or having a thought-out argument about it, as if "the idea has no basis in historical reality" (90). Strike one. Strike two: please prove to me that's wrong. If you're going to say that this is an unworthy view, tell me why it's not. Because, really, they did, right? Europe and the U.S. *did* use military force and political strength to extract wealth from areas and people who couldn't stand up to them.

Next: Sachs also says "The key fact of modern times is not the transfer of income from one region to another, by force or otherwise, but rather the overall increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" (qtd. p. 89). Gibler responds by saying that Sachs is basically considering enslavement, slaughter, land theft, and genocide as a "transfer of economic goods" (91). So, okay, you consider slave labor, land theft, etc., as a simple "transfer of income...by force," an "Oopsie, maybe they had to get rough a little." Also, an "increase in world income, but at a different rate in different regions" -- could those be the natives the Europeans took the land from, and the enslaved people they brought to work their ("their") new (Newly found! Look ma, I was just walking along, and tripped over this land that didn't belong to anyone! Can I keep it?) land? That's definitely a different rate in income: the natives and slaves had a rate of 0 (more like a rate of a negative number, what with their own resources and land being taken away from them), while the Europeans had an actual positive rate, and both situations have continued.

Gibler later quotes Sachs as saying "The Americans, for example, believe that they earned their wealth all by themselves. They forget that they inherited a vast continent rich in natural resources..." (92). Sachs seems to believe that the Americans inherited their land and resources. He forgets that the European explorers came over and forcibly took the land and resources away from the people who were living here, forced them off their home lands, forced people from other continents to come to this land and work the natural resources, and neglected to let them be free or own their own land, which, for both of these non-European groups, led to them living -- and continuing to live, thanks to years and years of systemic racism -- in poverty.

Sachs also says that the "white man's burden" was "the right and obligation of European and European-descended whites to rule the lives of others..." (qtd. p. 92-93). Now, Gibler takes offense to a different part of the quote, which I haven't included, and at first, I did, too, but on re-reading, I wonder if Sachs is actually making the same point Gibler is, but not as strongly. Still, my problem is with the white man's burden being "the right and obligation" of the white men. Not *perceived* right and obligation, or "they saw it as their right and obligation"; Sachs uses no language to imply or state that this was *their* view; he makes it sound like he's right there with them that The White Man's Burden Is To Civilize Everyone Else, And That's Just HOW IT IS. True, Sachs calls The White Man's Burden "infamous," but ... can we throw a qualifier like "perceived" or "they thought" or "they felt like" in there?

Based on just these few passages that Gibler quotes, as well as his overall summary of Sachs' book and the fantasy world he seems to be living in, I can't imagine what other tripe is in Sachs' arguments. ...more

3 likes · Like · see review

Feb 09, 2011 Letitia rated it liked it

Shelves: textbooks

Very interesting and very readable. Once again, Sachs outlines truly complex issues, but his solution is overly simplistic. It's a good read for the data and a good understanding of root issues related to systemic poverty, but in the end, Sachs wraps it up too nicely, as it seems many writers are pressured to do. It's like he can't write a book in which he admits to not having all the answers. ...more

Like · see review