Skip to main content

Inclusion

So I read this article this morning:

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/03/16/economic-inclusion-key-growth-prosperity/?utm_campaign=Brookings%20Brief&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=61599999

It's a bit technical, but the last line is the point of the article, anyway:

This admittedly wonkish analysis thus points to a simple insight that should guide regional economic development efforts: although it may be elusive from year to year, in the long run, inclusion may provide the key to true economic success.

I won't pretend to understand all of the sordid details in the article, much less the social implications of what is there. What I would like to point out is that this idea is at once fairly intuitive as well as revolutionary. As in, literally revolutionary. This is what Marx was talking about nearly 200 years ago, when the industrial revolution was just in the throes of making a bourgeois plutocracy even more distant from the proletariat than the original aristocracy. I don't subscribe to Marx's theories, but on some things he was right on. This is one of them.

I've written about this before (here and here). But now you have some empirical proof of what I'm on about. Economic progress does not just equate to growth - it implies stability and diversity. Those economies (in this study, the metro areas are noted, but I believe it applies to regions, nations, and globally as well) that are most inclusive are also the most progressive and therefore the most robust and resilient. And eventually the disadvantaged will take power unto themselves and work to achieve a more equitable solution. Whatever that is, and however it is achieved.

The solution? Easily said, but immensely difficult to achieve. I believe the solution is love. It's love on behalf of those who could have more for those who are disadvantaged, where they share what they have so that the poor can be better off. It's love on behalf of the disadvantaged, recognizing that people who have things are not inherently better or worse than they. It's a willful and proactive elimination of pride in an effort to support, respect, and care for one another.

So, yeah. Probably not going to happen. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ephesus

Paul got around. Ephesus is right on the Aegean Sea, on the coast of present-day Turkey. Yesterday he was in Galatia, which was much more towards the middle of Turkey. And when he actually wrote these letters, he was in Rome... So the man could travel. He probably walked. Today's item of interest comes from chapter one in Ephesians. Verses 18 and 19 are particularly interesting: 18 The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power This is not the first time Paul talks about an inheritance. In Galatians he talks about the inheritance that comes of being part of the Abrahamic Covenant. He notes that we are joint-heirs through and with Christ. In Ephesians, he uses the word "adoption" - that we are adopted as the Children of Jesus Chris...

Engaged

Three Dog Night got it wrong.  One is not the loneliest number. They were more accurate when they said Two can be as bad as one.  I really wonder how people can survive Without being fully engaged. How they live through each day Without the intimacy I so very much crave... Maybe I am unusual in my desire  To have this intimacy, To want to feel that soul So close to my own Sharing light and warmth, Sharing love and passion, Sharing life. Alas! Alas! Alas! For when I do seek to share It is often only to be rebuffed Denied Or used up, Sucked dry, And left an empty husk.  I want SO MUCH to share And all I have is the cold, digital world Of typing out a blog.

The Other Art

I'm not sure we appreciate photography as much as we do other art forms. Part of this comes from the reality that surrounds and permeates a photograph - it's very, very real, and the photographer strives for clarity and crispness in the representations. Perhaps this is why black and white images continue to be relevant - they strip away extraneous information (color) and leave us with something that is at once familiar and also non-existent - for nothing exists in black and white. Nothing. I also think that pictures are becoming too common-place... Everyone has a camera in their pocket, and while that's a very democratic thing (everyone can express themselves in a picture easily and readily, and can find an audience for these images, which are casually taken and casually viewed, and perhaps just as casually forgotten) I think that we embrace that casual attitude, and it spills over to all aspects of the media, making it impotent. So I read this article this morning: h...