Dignity

In the TED talk I embedded in my last post, R.A. Mashelkar talked about the dignity the Nano car brought to less affluent Indians.

He showed the example of entire families who had travelled on a motor scooter, all at once, having the dignity of being able to own a car.

He talked of the dignity it afforded a chauffeur who could now drive to work, and of the effect it had on the attitude of the chauffeur’s employer, who now provided a parking space for the chauffeur’s own car.

It costs just £1,277, allowing millions to buy a car for the first time. But green groups fear the planet will pay a heavy price…

This was the reaction in the Independent. The Guardian whinged:

The emergence of the Nano has caused concern among green campaigners, who have warned of an environmental nightmare on India’s roads.

Callous indifference to the living standards and dignity of less affluent Indians aside, the starkest contrast between those newspapers and the attitudes espoused in Mashelkar’s talk was the attitude to the relationship between what you spend and what you get, and for whom. Mashelkar talked about more for less for more: more benefits for less money for more people.

The extraordinary prosthetic limbs he showed cost $28. Retail. The car costs $2,000. Retail. Development costs were tiny in comparison with industry norms.

For the last decade or so, in this country, the entire emphasis has been on what we spend. It’s been, not ‘more for less for more’, but ‘haven’t thought about it for LOADS for, um… haven’t a clue’.

INCIDENTALLY, ‘more for less for more’ is just a longwinded way of saying ‘increased productivity’. The ‘less’ gives you the second ‘more’, intrinsically. If something’s cheaper, it’s available to more people.

One way to see poor people get richer is to give them money, no doubt. Another is to make things cheaper.