We live in a society, entrenched in a global economy, defined by westernized definitions of growth and expansion where the concept of enough does not exist. We are terrified that someone will steal our lunch money. The reality is that when given something, we want more of it and once we have more of it, instead of looking to share it out, we strive to hold on to it and make certain we have more of it than the next guy.
This is manifested in all aspects of society. In things as simple as driving in traffic, where the person jumping the red light must, at all costs, make it through in order to save that extra minute lest they are forced to wait for traffic to cross from the side. This behaviour is frowned upon by the inhabitants of cars from behind, forgetting of course, that had they happened to be one car further forward in approaching the intersection, that they might have been the car jumping the light to make up that lost time.
We live in a time where if we are not the holder of the advantage, we are left behind. This creates, in itself, a panic to ensure that we are first to market, best of breed and making the most profit, regardless of the cost required to make these profits. Nowhere is this worse evidenced in the expansion of Western culture into emerging markets.
The view that direct foreign investment is the saviour to backwards, undeveloped economies, has long been the platform for expansion into these markets, at the expense of domestic growth and sustainability. When “big brother” comes in to save the day, the long term cost is often far greater than the benefit initially perceived.
While it is not fair to paint all with the same brush, it must be estimated that the chance of sustainability of domestic growth once infused by the global market is at best, reduced. This is not to say that foreign involvement is not a good thing, but too much foreign flavour dilutes the taste of the local brew.
The next component is that of the benefit to the investor. If I, as a concerned citizen, look to start something that promises to create jobs, develop skills and enhance the economy, then surely everyone is a winner. At which point though, does the profit I make on this venture exceed the value created by it? Surely if these profits are not pumped back into the communities the venture aims to assist, then the long-term sustainability of the investment is nullified?
It is only when the initial investment is exponentially expanded into the greater community by those it seeks to benefit and becomes self-sustaining that it becomes truly beneficial. The true test of this is when “big brother” walks away and the investment continues to grow, and grows in such a way that it is not characterized by those who set it up, but by those who take part in it.
The dilemma here is that we live in a society where there is no such thing as enough.
Who looks to invest in something that shows no financial return and where the medium to long term goal is not that of greater wealth? It would be hypocritical to argue otherwise. We are constantly faced with a desire to increase our standard of living, driven not by what we need, but by what we didn’t have yesterday and what we would like to have tomorrow. This is the fabric of a society that is characterized by the haves and the have not’s.
It is only when we look to create growth without the promise of super-profits, where the growth is epitomized by the increased standard of living of the poorest of the poor, and where our involvement and investment is not merely to increase our own wealth, that we can say we are satisfied that enough is enough.
It is this question that shifts “big brother” from being the saviour and makes him the partner.
