Yemen, continued

Last month, I attempted to unpack the massive poverty in Yemen. Lacking in resources and infrastructure, and floundering amid corruption, the country has its fair share of issues.

Nevertheless, the city of Sana'a is one of the fastest growing in the world (at 7 percent annually). But here's the catch: new numbers reveal that by 2017, the country will run out of economically viable water supplies and will stop profiting from oil.

John Stuart Mill wrote that eventually, all growth will end and progress will level. To him, this would be the ultimate sign that equality and prosperity had been reached. But Yemen does not fit this model, for he also wrote that "in the backward countries of the world … increased production is still an important object." (1)

Yemen is an unusual case within Mill's models. Most countries he examined were experiencing unprecedented growth, with no clear stopping point in sight. In effect, Yemen has an expiration date for its progress. With an economy based almost entirely on oil (90 percent of exports, 75 percent of government revenue), and an oil supply that is on the verge of disappearing, Yemen's "stationary state" is more than just a political construct. And what happens when Yemen reaches the point of no development in one of the world's most tumultuous regions? "For the safety of national independence it is essential that a country not fall much behind its neighbours," Mill wrote. Is Yemen doomed politically too, then?

Additionally, the breaking point make come sooner than expected. "Yemen’s crunch point will come long before the oil wells finally run dry," a local newspaper wrote. "The government currently needs to cover rising domestic consumption, as well as a fixed allocation to oil companies to cover their initial and ongoing investment costs. As production levels drop towards consumption levels, the share of crude oil sales available to support the national budget is shrinking. … High global prices place a unique strain on the national budget."

Mill advocated for international cooperation — and Yemen, though strong in pride, has expressed a need for foreign aid. This has long been the UN's solution, but is this only delaying the inevitable? Is foreign aid a permanent solution, or just a band-aid fix that will fall apart when the international economy can no longer support it?

_____

(1) Mill, John Stuart. "Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy."

Come on, get happy

Keynes and Mill both wrote about their ideal societies, which came with a "destination," a "stationary state," some eventual point when advancement would stop and a leveling off would occur. Keynes wrote that all absolute needs would be fulfilled; Mill said populations would stop growing. Neither could be certain when such an endpoint would arise, but they knew it was coming.

The concept of an "end date" for societal development is odd to picture. Though Keynes was writing at a time when technology was nothing compared to what it is today, it is still difficult to fathom how he thought we would eventually just stop developing new technology. There always seems to be a next step, a new moon to fly to. Innovation is an expensive investment, but it is what keeps us asking questions, moving forward. In a dynamic world, why would a population choose to become stagnant?

Defining the endpoint is also tricky. In discussion section, we struggled to understand what the theorists meant — is it the moment in which every member of the society has exactly the same possessions, the same income, the same occupation? This Stepford world does not seem ideal. How can a construct exist that defines when everyone would be happiest? Keynes wrote that "there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without a dread."

From my vantage point, this could not be farther from the truth. The values placed on work and leisure are cultural, even individual, constructs. It is impossible to delineate what would make an entire country happy, prosperous and complete. Gallup recently conducted a survey, measuring all 50 states on a "well-being" index. The variables that feed into such a measure do include basic access to necessities and a "work environment," but other aspects of living — healthy behavior, emotional health and life evaluation — are also considered. Is Hawaii the happiest state because there is no innovation, or because everyone has the same possessions?

Happiness, from my perspective, is achieved when individuals have the ability to choose. Some will choose to live without innovation, some will choose to work 15 hours a week, while others will choose to work 60 hours a week. What is vital though is that it was a choice. If we are to imagine that, like Keynes and Mill said, society will eventually level out, I believe that can only occur when all individuals have the ability to choose the work, the life, the environment that will individually, make them happiest.

The games we play

Monopoly's origins are contentious, but the popular board game has been in circulation since at least the early 1900s. Some historians trace it back to a British game introduced in 1904, "The Landlord's Game," which was intended to demonstrate the dangers of capitalism to children. The British viewed board games as "an instrument of moral instruction." Ironically, when the game was exported to the United States and patented by Hasbro in 1935, it became the ultimate exemplification of personal success and self-enterprise.

Monopoly is about "gouging and exploiting," a zero-sum game in which winning means that all other players have gone bankrupt. The game requires no skill — just a simple roll of the dice — and results in a wealth distribution that John Rawls would dub "arbitrary from the moral point of view." (1)

Despite any moral judgments that can be made about the game, Monopoly is a household name, holding the record as the best-selling board game in the world and boasting over 500 million players throughout its existence. Countless adaptations have been spawned — a version for children, editions based on popular television shows and boards honoring particular cities. The phrases of the game have become part of the American vernacular. (Just think about how many times you have been told "do not pass go.")

The game follows the liberal principles set out by John Locke and Adam Smith (in theory) — the rules are acceptable to the people who live, or in this case, play, under them. Anyone who participates in a game of monopoly understands that while someone will win and gain prosperity, everyone else will lose along the way. But unlike the founding principles of classic liberalism, the board game denies the role of hard work (there is no "best way" to roll a dice) and it does not permit all who play to succeed. It is a game of winner-takes-all; a state in which all that matters is the sum in your bank account.

John Stuart Mill would be appalled at the game. In applying his theory to political economy, he affirmed that "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer." (2) Monopoly advocates the opposite: get rich as a direct result of inflicting poverty on the poor soul who happened to land on your property.

Economics Professor Ralph Anspach felt similarly and in the 1970s, created "Anti-Monopoly" — a more "philosophically pleasing alternative." After being challenged by his students to show the dark side of monopolistic practices through an equally fun activity, he designed the board game. The goal in his version: destroy and dismantle economic monopolies.

(Somewhat ironically, he was sued by Hasbro for the use of their trademarked name. He won the suit, an event he framed as a direct illustration of what his game aims to do: the little guy fighting back against "Big Business." He continued marketing the game and views his secondary purpose as ensuring that the origins of Monopoly, as a game intended to warn about the capitalist dangers it now applauds, survives.) (3)

Regardless of which game best illustrates capitalism — The Landlord's Game, Monopoly or its antithesis — all demonstrate routes to prosperity. So which is the most fair? The most adherent to liberal principles? Should those who accumulate wealth, even if by luck, be punished? Or should all the spoils be (no pun intended) fair game?

From Rawls' perspective, and from the viewpoint of those who developed the idea of "luck egalitarianism" from his principles, there must be a mechanism to correct for the chance-based poverty. Rolling a two versus rolling a seven should not — in Monopoly or in life — seal an individual to an impoverished future. He proclaimed justice as fairness, not justice as "draw chance chard." As long as there was something to prevent extreme and unfair poverty, Rawls would probably be willing to play any of the three board games.

If you handed Mill Monopoly, he would probably behave like the toddler who throws the game he does not want to play on the floor. In countries that have already undergone development, he calls for "better distribution," and shows only disdain for wealthy individuals who increase their holdings simply because they can. He speaks of "levelling institutions," and could therefore, probably get behind Anspach's Anti-Monopoly. The Landlord's Game, with its warnings about the dangers of capitalism and amassing wealth, would probably also appeal to Mill.

If Adam Smith is to be taken literally, he would disagree with all three games. Every player performs the same tasks — however will the society inside the board game survive?

Regardless, it is reasonably safe to say that it would not be enjoyable to play Monopoly with any of these three theorizing men. After all, it is just a game.

_____

(1) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy: Property, Equality and the New American Dream, 2009. Chap. 2

(2) Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, 1848. IV.6.5

(3) Williams, Juan. "Monopoly." NPR: Morning Edition, Nov. 25, 2002. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/monopoly/index.html