Tim Worstall in his comments about the mechanisms for the role of economics and health affecting malaria victims misses the point that networking and advanced technology doesn't really create a basis for economic growth. I find his ideas surprising and frustrating as they come from a plausibly intelligent business analyst. But, perhaps I should not be surprised given how far Wall Street has strayed from sound economics and common business sense over the past two decades. I am inclined to think a major correction is coming because of such ignorance of the basic economics of employment.
It would wrong to assume that because computers are widespread, networked and fed into an educational system or that wireless systems are in place that this somehow means local populations experience better economics. One has to ask how these systems are paid for. Who saves to buy. Who earns income to buy, and what is the quality of what is purchased. Is there a long term process of transformation into self sustained economic growth that would reduce the malaria spreading mosquitos because of its impact on household size?
On the contrary, there could reason to believe that they experience the worst form of shallow consumerism and unemployment frustration. The link to technology change and household size has to be tenuous were technology be relied on to be the kick off to economic growth. It simply isn't / can't be / wasn't. Neither in America nor anywhere else in the world. Socialism is. Concerted effort by focused government programs are. Not capitalist market surprises. Government intervention that produces infrastructure is. Development assistance from the World Bank is! Special poverty reducing employment programs are.
In my view, it's best to tackle the question of health and disease immunity first, then that of economic development and subsequent growth. In the case of having good health, there is a chance of a healthy child performing work and contributing to a community. The necessity of governments concerned to assist over the long haul is there for all to see and to observe in the data.
A sick child will only force its dependency on the cost structure of the community. Poverty reduction comes from giving the basics then allowing the child to fight for survival rather than waiting for the parent to somehow get the income that leads to a reduction in household size.
The correlation Worstall alludes to seems to me to be unsustainable as a model. The fall in household size is at best a consequence of a long period of health within the spawning family, not something that happens within a household.
Is this model put forward by Tim Worstall as a conservative style agenda that somehow poverty is the fault of the poor. Perhaps, instead, poverty is the fault of the rich who take from the community rather than giving back. It certainly was before the revolutions in France and Anerica and before the American civil war. Market size grows with health and basic infrastructure provided by the state not by private industry. If one waited for the private sector to establish growth one would have an economy like that of the United States that has disappointed the world with its abysmal performance over several decades. We all know that this is due to a weak infrastructure in America, particularly it's health system which was primarily geared to the haves and whites. The war on the poor in America is there for everyone with eyes to see and interpret. American stock market dynamics and Republican politics represent a betrayal of America's poor. The American banking system is a disgrace to a so called advanced economy.
Racism continues to exist in America as a potent force and is at the forefront of its economic sluggishness. American benefited from social reforms affecting its poor and can continue to benefit as long as it shows leadership in the socialisation of its medical and educational fields. The notion that private industry does other than plunder the economy is somewhat ludicrous in a society that cannot save worth a bean and still demands, rather, beggars the world by borrowing against the future of its poor and unborn. Is it not enough that America spreads ideals of self reliance, but has rapidly become the most dependent state in the world.
