The WHO’s blueprint for increasing global poverty

The WHO last week released its long-awaited report on the "Social Determinants of Health" - the social and economic factors behind disease.

As the report lands in the in-trays of ministers all over the world, they would do best to file it under ‘B’ for ‘bonkers’.

Declaring that 'social injustice is killing people on a grand scale', the report proposes a vertiginous list of government interventions to help iron out inequality, from taxation to town planning. Many of their recommendations are particularly aimed at developing countries.

Over the course of 247 pages, the authors make the case that only the wholesale socialisation of society and the economy can improve health. Economic growth, open markets and free trade cause ‘inequality’ and must be rejected.

Most of the recommendations – such as beefing up state welfare and employment regulation, and soaking the rich with tax – would almost certainly create economic stagnation and structural unemployment.

And calling for an end to free trade is perverse in the extreme. Free trade has been demonstrated to be the biggest weapon ever against poverty. Since China recommenced international trade in the 1980s, 400 million people lifted themselves out of poverty in that country alone.

The WHO also willfully underestimates the importance of economic growth for health. Despite the report’s undergraduate-style railing against globalization, economic growth is causatively associated with improved health, because it allows people to afford decent living conditions, clean water and fuel.

Without economic growth, there will be no money to pay for these vital things.

In this time of global economic uncertainty, it is vital that WHO member states ignore every last word of this report -- unless they wish to consign themselves to economic oblivion.

...
written by Al, September 02, 2008

Just what developing countries don't need. Scary.

Marmot is a leftie
written by Phil Taylor, September 02, 2008

The guy who led this exercise is a Brit called Sir Michael Marmot who was Commission Chair.

Most of these British leftie great and the good types are good at hiding their real opinions.

I found this interview with him:

http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Marmot/marmot-con1.html

Of the last Tory government he says:

"... we had an intensely conservative government, from 1979 to 1997 ..."

He says of 1968:

"Australia was influenced by this worldwide epidemic of thinking. There was a sense that all the old canons were open to question, and one didn't necessarily accept things just because they had been accepted before. Now, within a medical education, that didn't change anything very much, but in the wider society and on student campus, that was all around. It was a wonderful sense, not terribly analytic, I have to say, but there was a wonderful sense that anything is possible. There was a sense that a focus on material goods was inappropriate. There was a sense that you didn't have to follow a conventional route. I suppose, in a way, my going off to Berkeley and stepping off the conventional ladder was a manifestation of that, because anything was possible. More money was being put into the universities, things were opening up, and that affected Sydney, as it did Berkeley and London and Berlin and Paris. Maybe it wasn't quite as exciting as Paris in 1968, but we knew about it and we understood it and we felt it."

I think that these two quotes mark him out as a man of the left.

Written by Philip Stevens
Tuesday, 02 September 2008
The WHO last week released its long-awaited report on the "Social Determinants of Health" - the social and economic factors behind disease. As the report lands in the in-trays of ministers all over the world, they would do best to file it under ‘B’ for ‘bonkers’. Declaring that 'social injustice is killing people on a grand scale', the report proposes a vertiginous list of government interventions to help iron out inequality, from taxation to town planning. Many of their recommendations are particularly aimed at developing countries. Over the course of 247 pages, the authors make the case that only the wholesale socialisation of society and the economy can improve health. Economic growth, open markets and free trade cause ‘inequality’ and must be rejected. Most of the recommendations – such as beefing up state welfare and employment regulation, and soaking the rich with tax – would almost certainly create economic stagnation and structural unemployment. And calling for an end to free trade is perverse in the extreme. Free trade has been demonstrated to be the biggest weapon ever against poverty. Since China recommenced international trade in the 1980s, 400 million people lifted themselves out of poverty in that country alone. The WHO also willfully underestimates the importance of economic growth for health. Despite the report’s undergraduate-style railing against globalization, economic growth is causatively associated with improved health, because it allows people to afford decent living conditions, clean water and fuel. Without economic growth, there will be no money to pay for these vital things. In this time of global economic uncertainty, it is vital that WHO member states ignore every last word of this report -- unless they wish to consign themselves to economic oblivion. Bookmark Comments (2) Subscribe to this comment's feed ... written by Al, September 02, 2008 Just what developing countries don't need. Scary. Marmot is a leftie written by Phil Taylor, September 02, 2008 The guy who led this exercise is a Brit called Sir Michael Marmot who was Commission Chair. Most of these British leftie great and the good types are good at hiding their real opinions. I found this interview with him: http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Marmot/marmot-con1.html Of the last Tory government he says: "... we had an intensely conservative government, from 1979 to 1997 ..." He says of 1968: "Australia was influenced by this worldwide epidemic of thinking. There was a sense that all the old canons were open to question, and one didn't necessarily accept things just because they had been accepted before. Now, within a medical education, that didn't change anything very much, but in the wider society and on student campus, that was all around. It was a wonderful sense, not terribly analytic, I have to say, but there was a wonderful sense that anything is possible. There was a sense that a focus on material goods was inappropriate. There was a sense that you didn't have to follow a conventional route. I suppose, in a way, my going off to Berkeley and stepping off the conventional ladder was a manifestation of that, because anything was possible. More money was being put into the universities, things were opening up, and that affected Sydney, as it did Berkeley and London and Berlin and Paris. Maybe it wasn't quite as exciting as Paris in 1968, but we knew about it and we understood it and we felt it." I think that these two quotes mark him out as a man of the left. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!