Greed and poverty
Like black and white, war and peace, abundance and famine — greed and poverty is another inexorable, radical contrast of epic proportion and karmic relation. The world has seen the face of corporate avarice in the Enron debacle. It has witnessed greed’s aftermath, head bowed with eyes downcast in shame and disgrace, as the 150-year sentence was handed down to Bernie Madoff, perpetrator of history’s largest investment fraud. The aborted NBN-ZTE deal, which exposed the rapacity for “commissions,” prompted then Sec. Romulo Neri to utter his one and only apparent courageous censure, “Let us moderate their greed.”
The ancient Roman poet Horace put it very well when he said, “He who is greedy is always in want.” This explains why covetousness never seems to lead to contentment. The 3,000th pair of shoes does not stop the craving for the 3,001st new pair. The 10th car in the garage is merely the precursor of the 11th. A net profit after tax of 20 percent is still lacking. Earnings of US $24 billion from an IPO are enough to retire on. Or does it whet the appetite for more? At what point is the return on investment enough? Erich Fromm contemporized this reflection further when he wrote, “Greed is a bottomless pit that exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy need, without ever reaching satisfaction.”
Imagine an oligarchy, where power rests exclusively in the hands of the few. If that elite is filled with acquisitiveness and apathy to the plight of the marginalized, the disparity becomes starker. Picture an economy dependent on overseas remittances for growth, while its prime industries are totally reliant on consumer spending for profitability. Visualize the widening divide between the haves and have-nots as the middle class virtually disappears. All the elements in the equation for social injustice are present. Is the country reaching its boiling point?
In a recent study conducted by PSRC, the consumer is really feeling the pinch. But instead of anger and frustration, 53 percent of Filipinos have accepted fully or reluctantly that inflation is here to stay. To cope, they demand value for money. From premium brands, they settle for the less premium. Instead of image enhancing products, they have switched to a performance criterion, from imported to local, from branded to generic goods. They buy only the basic commodities and drop the non-essentials, resist impulse buys and scout for promo offers. They decrease usage and consumption to stretch the product’s life. They work longer hours, take on second jobs, and cut out entertainment. Still, when all else fails, they borrow from their SSS, GSIS or office paluwagan funds, or eat humble pie and turn to their friends and relatives. Indeed, the Filipino has become an expert in belt-tightening.
But what about the poorest of the poor? Those who see themselves as permanently underprivileged? Aristotle was right. He pointed out that “The mother of revolution and crime is poverty.” In today’s context, revolution can be replaced by terrorism. The faces of Abu Sayyaf , JI and Taliban reflect hatred on the surface but barely mask the destitution and ignorance underneath.
More than halfway through to 2015, the target deadline for the accomplishment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), a United Nations progress report found that although major advances in the fight against poverty and hunger have been made, it appears to have begun to slow or even reverse because of the global economic and food crises. The assessment by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Geneva, warns that, “despite many successes, overall progress has been too slow for most of the targets to be met.” The biggest challenge with one of the lowest hopes of possibility for success is the goal to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger in the world.
The Philippines is no exception and probably ranks as one of the countries with the highest probability for failure. In 1991, the proportion of the population living below the poverty threshold was 45.3 percent. As of 2006, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) reported that the percentage below poverty line has improved to 32.9 percent, still about 10 percentage points short from the target of 22.7 percent by 2015. However, even assuming that different methods of measurement and research were used by SWS the result was disheartening. A staggering 47 seven percent or 8.7 million Filipinos rated themselves poor in 2009, even higher than the starting point in 1991!
We don’t fare much better in the hunger markers either, which uses the prevalence of underweight among children 0 to 5 years old, as a primary indicator. In 1990, the base was at 34.5 percent and MDG is to reduce this figure to 17.3 percent by 2015. As of 2005, Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) report total prevalence of underweight children to be at 24.6 percent, still far from the achievement of MDG. To add more scepticism, SWS has pegged the percentage of Filipino families who have experienced hunger in the past three months in 2008, at 18.4 percent or a total of 3.3.M families.
Is the fight against destitution unwinnable? With billions of dollars in aids and grants that have been poured in the most underdeveloped nations, including the Philippines, why hasn’t poverty been minimized? Can the vicious cycle of destitution ever be broken? Or are the underprivileged doomed to permanent poverty?
In a free market economy that professes and practices capitalist values, the affluent brother is not his indigent brother’s keeper. But in the long run, social inequity could be the fuse that could finally ignite a class war.
All too often, the wealthy are as greedy as they are miserly. An old Serbian proverb says,” “A greedy father has thieves for children.” That is poetic justice. There is a cycle of greed to match that of poverty. Many of the richest conglomerates pay lip service to corporate social responsibility. If the advocacy and cause oriented budget is scrutinized as an expense of highly profitable companies, it will inevitably prove to be a drop in the bucket. Compared to the monies spent in trumpeting their so-called good deeds, it will probably account for .000001 percent of gross revenues and a mere pittance compared to marketing expenses. Carol Cone, who pioneered social marketing, has always preached that business cannot remain healthy in an unhealthy society.
The pharmaceutical industry has begun to slash its prices in a bid to make their medicines more affordable to more people. Whether this is an act of altruism, or a savvy marketing strategy that will expand their market, is irrelevant. At least it is one point that will tilt the scales of social justice toward a more acceptable balance.
If all companies just incorporate the concept of “decent” profit into their corporate vision, there would be immediate dents on poverty. Divide the profits into three parts, not necessarily equally. Give the biggest chunk to yourself and the investors. Then share a third with your employees and their families. Finally the last third can be allotted for the community where the business operates. This will have the ripple effect that cascades wealth to more people in society.
The Harvard Business School has a simple definition of poverty. It is badly distributed wealth. If only the fists of the prosperous would be less tight, to open and share with more heart, some of society’s worst cancers would be healed.
Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
* * *
Contact the author at e-mail ms.comfeedbacl@gmail.com.
