Population, Poverty and Production

Thousands Feared Born In Nigerian Population ExplosionPopulation Explosion
We all have written essays on” population bomb” in our school exams. Increasing population is a problem; the degree of severity of the problem may vary with situation. In 1947, Indian population was merely 36 crores(360 million). With medical advancements, booming biotechnology and serviceability, death rate decreased a lot, and hence the population increased abruptly. With new situations Individuals and families started learning that in order to have a better life, birth-control is necessary. Obviously with private TV channels, various news channels and newspapers and movies, such social-sex- education are spreadable quite efficiently, that is, family planning is working, yet the population increment rate is high.
Is population explosion a drastic problem with catastrophic consequences?
It is assumed that population has a constant tendency to outgrow food supply and production. The immediate consequence of Population is poverty. The socialist plan to save India from this problem until 1992 was, to strongly apply population control measures and redistributing the wealth and it failed.
The reason of failure was, by redistributing wealth, (coercively or voluntarily) we do not remove poverty, we remove the difference between the poor and the wealthy. Yet, the problem remains same, limited resources and increasing demand.
The only solution is to increase the productivity, innovation and improvement in technology, increasing the capacity of the poor to produce, thus creating jobs, works, and services, creating options of production.
Precisely what is Poverty?
Poverty is a subjective issue. If we compare with the top 10% earner of India, we all other 90% are poor. If we say, the poor are those who are not now maintaining a decent standard of living—those whose basic needs exceed their means to satisfy them, then each of us might have our own understanding of standards and our own personal needs, and needs have no limits, thus all are poor. To minimize this subjective illusion, we say Poverty is the inability to satisfy the “minimum” needs.
The term “minimum” is flexible. It includes food, clothing and shelter, and various other needs can be added subsequently, like education, health-care etc. Thus, poverty is subjective and we can never get an objective reasonable definition of poverty.
Can a welfare state like India fulfil the requirement of these “minimum” needs?
A welfare state works on redistribution of wealth via taxation and subsidies, reliefs, reservations and special helps etc. We have discussed “why a welfare state fails” here at this page objectively (please read).
Welfare states assume that some people are poor because some other are rich and by taking away the richness of rich via compulsory taxation, coercive confiscations, penalties and governmental loots, and distributing it in poor via subsidies, free distribution of food, education, shelter, cloths, water, health-care and other facilities. Thus, the difference will be reduced, equality will be achieved and then there will be no poor. For gaining equality, they tend to bring whole society at an assumed arbitrary economic line. This fails because some people are NOT poor because some other are Rich. Some people are poor because they are less productive. They are unable to produce or earn. So, to remove poverty, need is to make them able to produce more, to increase their productivity, to provide employment.
Government help increases Poverty
We all know that Government cannot provide employment entrepreneurs create jobs. The proof is the increased employment options in India right after 1992 when Indian socialist government decided to allow leniency and liberalization. Thus, government’s welfare programs always fail. The welfare programs always decreases productivity and as poverty is inversely proportional to productivity, poverty increases. By providing free subsidized food, water, education health care and other reliefs, government creates laziness, lethargy. Why should a person work if he is getting free food? Government induces a habit of begging, hence a prospective producer who might have produced his wealth for his own, turns out to be a parasite dependent. Moreover, by taxation and looting the rich, middle class, and poor too, government weakens the individual citizen’s ability to create jobs and employment and options for production of wealth. Why should one devote himself in making wealth when the government is ready to loot him? Also if a person have X amount which he want to invest in producing some employment and hence wealth, and government takes away Y amount from his capital, then X reduces to (X-Y), hence less is invested in creation of employment and production of wealth. Above all this, the government interference acts as a dissipation of potential to create wealth and employment. We all know how lethargic, unprofessional, unproductive government departments are, suffering from ills of corruption, malinvestment, and non-productive-activities and hence causing Inflation, which in turn further reduces chances of employment creation and wealth production.
Cure of Poverty
It is fashionable to say today that “society” must solve the problem of poverty. But basically each individual—or at least each family—must solve its own problem of poverty. Poverty is Not by fate, a rich by his own mistakes can loose all his property and be a poor, and a poor by his hard-work and self-reliance can become rich (again, richness and poverty are subjective terms).
As poverty can be reduced by means of Increasing Productivity, society and government, in place of looting the citizens under compulsory taxation and subsidies, should keep away from economic activities completely. Citizens in place of going for giving charity for beggars should help the genuine unemployed poor by creating options for employment. A genuine unemployed poor is one who is willing to work and hence produce his earning with self-esteem, yet is not able to get work. Before deciding to help someone, one must check if he deserves the help or not? Because by helping an Undeserving one, you abort the chances of help for the Deserving person. Free-market Capitalism is the only possible practical solution to reduce the extent of poverty because of two basic characters it has. Free market Capitalism provides a competitive market in all sectors of production creating an environment of innovation in technology to increase production. As production increases, poverty decreases.
Free market Capitalism removes the chances of wastage, corruption and non-productive-activities.
Population is a problem but not as severe as it is talked about. Population increments are slowing down with increasing awareness. Government’s welfare state programs can never reduce poverty; on the other hand, they reduce productivity, which increases further poverty. Indians must realize the importance of individual effort and support the efficient-productive system of Capitalism to reduce poverty and hence help whole society progress positively. We must realize that equality is not the aim; aim is reducing the poverty, increasing the producing capacity of every individual and hence providing him chance to make his own fortune. We must produce and support entrepreneurs, free-market capitalists.

“I see no harm in drawing the picture of a society in which each individual is supposed strictly to fulfill his duties The happiness of the whole is to be the result of the happiness of individuals, and to begin first with them. No co-operation is required. Every step tells. He who performs his duty faithfully will reap the full fruits of it, whatever be the number of others who fail. This duty is intelligible to the humblest capacity. It is
merely that he is not to bring beings into the world for whom he cannot find the means of support.”8
If each of us adhered to this principle, no overpopulation problem would exist. Thomas R. Malthus

13 comments for “Population, Poverty and Production

  1. January 11, 2009 at 7:41 pm

    awareness is awakening.

  2. January 11, 2009 at 8:41 pm

    Your concept seems to be workable but not in India.
    Do you think that you can take muslims too into confidence and help them aware about problems of growing population in a place like India. I am myself a muslim and I don’t feel the religon would  succumb to other pressures..

  3. January 11, 2009 at 9:11 pm

    Your concept seems to be workable but not in India.
    Do you think that you can take muslims too into confidence and help them aware about problems of growing population in a place like India. I am myself a muslim and I don’t feel the religon would  succumb to other pressures..

    umm…what pressure you are talking about?

    See, your progress is not dependent on your religion. How does it matters if you are muslim or hindu or sikh?
    Irrespective of your religion, you need to work for a living, and you need to provide good healthy life to your children your family members too. Religion won’t be helping you, you will have to help yourself. You will have to work for your own progress.
    There is no need for you to think for all muslims collectively, or all indians. Just work for your own progress and productivity. You cannot take decisions for all muslims of India, nor any muslim religious leader can force you accept his decisions. You have freedom to use your own mind for your own progress, and freedom to renounce any sort of indoctrinations, and try to save your friends, kids and colleagues too from indoctrinations. That will be enough from your side.

  4. Dsylexic
    January 12, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    i disagree with the notion that ‘population’ is a problem in any form at all. such old malthusian ideas have been trashed long back. people are the the engines of economic growth -how can you ever call them as a problem. the problem might be the restrictions that the state puts them under.the lack of law enforcement including those of property titles is not because of population growth at all. it indicates a failure of collectivist statist behaviour.

    we in india have to be extremely wary of the so called noble hearted whites trying to ‘control’ population growth in india/asia -especially amongst the poor. Paul Elrich was one of those who predicted vast number of human beings dying because of population growth -now he sits on the board of many climate control committees of govt. he is essentially a control freak,a freedom hater. people like him provide false intellectual cover to ‘control’ and command activities of the state.

    the systematic attempt to reduce the population of the poor in asia is a dastardly attempt at eugenics and should be recogzined for what it is .

  5. renegade_division
    January 12, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    Don’t forget that socialist Govts also benefit from population control programs, it benefits them because now they will have to plan for less number of people. Population control programs only exist in Socialist centrally planned countries.

    In a free market society more poor people means more cheap labor, that means more profitable businesses. But for a socialist society, more people means more people to provide welfare to. Also since more welfare is being provided, market is unable to affect the poor people in making their decisions about their kids. If Market does not need more poor people then it will disincentivize them and they will stop procreating.

    For example if right now if Free Market was the only “welfare” to the people, the population growth rate will fall significantly, for next 10-20 years, after which the market will have fully absorbed these people and will need more of them.

  6. January 12, 2009 at 12:56 pm

    i disagree with the notion that ‘population’ is a problem in any form at all.

    So it is the answer for the question “Is population explosion a drastic problem with catastrophic consequences?”

    Yet, the answer itself is in sense of collectivism. it is for the Individual person or a couple to decide if they should go for family planning or not.
    Population may not be a problem on collective progress of a nation or earth, but for a family, the family makers will have to decide how much they wanna expand and why. There neither comes the question of capitalism or socialism or even religion. it is individual’s choice or the choice of a couple.

  7. GP
    January 12, 2009 at 7:09 pm

    Good One!!. Especially The definition of poverty and what can be done to reduce the poverty i.e. Increasing productivity of each individual.
    I also agree with your idea about cancelling welfare programs by Govt.(but I think exceptions shud be made to genuince cases of physically handicapped individuals who cannot work)
    But I think Indian govt. shud also keep a check on sensus by ensuring 2 child policy gets implemented in all section of society..It seems difficult though considering the democratic system in India
    and mass illiteracy and lack of awareness among few communities but I think we will get there sooner or later.
    I think India have to adopt regulated capitalism instead of free Market capitalism and of course we shud need strong foundation of primary and higher education to make sure we get highly qualified and trained manpower

  8. emigioutt
    January 20, 2009 at 7:39 pm

    I am unable to understand this post. But well some points are useful for me.

  9. Siddhartha
    September 9, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Most of the communities in the entire Indian sub-continent(such as Bengali) succumbed in ‘Culture of Poverty’(Oscar Lewis), irrespective of class or economic strata, lives in pavement or apartment. Nobody is genuinely regret ed or ashamed of the deep-rooted corruption, decaying general quality of life, worst Politico-administrative system, weak mother language, continuous consumption of common social space (mental as well as physical, both). We are becoming fathers & mothers only by self-procreation, mindlessly & blindfold(supported by some lame excuses). Simply depriving their(the children) fundamental rights of a decent, caring society, fearless & dignified living. Do not ever look for any other positive alternative behaviour(values) to perform human way of parenthood, i.e. deliberately co-parenting children those are born out of ignorance, extreme poverty. It seems that all of us are being driven only by the very animal instinct. If the Bengali people ever be able to bring that genuine freedom (from vicious cycle of ‘poverty’) in their own life/attitude, involve themselves in ‘Production of (social) Space’ (Henri Lefebvre), initiate a movement by heart, an intense attachment with the society at large is very much required – one different pathway has to create, decent & rich Politics will definitely come up. – Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, 16/4, Girish Banerjee Lane, Howrah-711101.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *