Skip to main content

Marketing war, disease, and genocide

Over the weekend, I spent some time reading the first few chapters of Bill Bonner and Lila Rajiva's brand new book, Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets.

This is shaping up to be a very interesting book so far, so I'll probably write a brief review when I've finished the book, but for now I want to mention something more topical.

During a chapter on war and its accompanying atrocities (with some exaggerated and others ignored), the authors discussed Belgium's colonial rampage through Africa.

They cited the Congo, where agents of Leopold II had, "treated the local blacks worse than slaves; they were rounded up, starved, beaten, and worked to death in forced labor camps. An estimated 10 million died." This is suffering and death on the scale of (or greater than) the Holocaust of the 1930s-1940s, but it is little mentioned today.

This may be due to the passage of time, or the fact that the Congo remains far removed from our location and thought to this day. In its own time, the Congo was a subject taken up by writers such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Joseph Conrad, and Mark Twain, and in recent years by Thomas J. Fleming and others.

Still, very little is said today about the past suffering in the Congo. For that matter, there seems to be little attention to the ongoing strife and suffering in the Congo today, which is where the following Chicago Tribune article comes in.

The question that this article poses is this: with 4 million people killed and 800,000 displaced in the Congo over the past 10 years, why aren't more people paying attention?

From, "Congo: The invisible war".

Three years after the Bush administration officially labeled the crisis in Darfur a genocide, thus elevating it above other wars in Africa, many Congolese -- and not a few aid workers -- are asking essentially the same question as Masirika: With the Congolese death toll now 20 times higher than that of Darfur, and given that the worst killing in Darfur ended in 2004, why aren't outraged U.S. activists lighting candles in Central Park to "save" hapless Congo?

As the article points out, the crisis in the Congo has taken second stage to the genocide in Darfur. Is it because the tag word genocide has yet to be applied to the killings in Congo?

Maybe the attention deficit is due to the fact that we've yet to see our first Hollywood movie detailing the tragedy and the plight of Congo's people. All these ideas and more are mentioned in the article.

Which brings me to this point. It seems that war and disease must now be marketed with celebrity advocates in order to draw public attention. Just as the hit song or movie is propelled to the top with a positive-feedback loop of success and advertising (success breeds success), it seems the same is now true for the currently fashionable example of disease or war. Today, some genocides are better marketed than others.

But we have to ask the following question: given an unlimited amount of public attention to each global conflict, what good can we expect as a result?

Does increased foreign aid to war-torn countries help people in need, or does it actually have a negative effect for the common people by enriching tyrants and warlords while prolonging human suffering, as globetrotting investor Jim Rogers has argued?

Is there a way to ensure that the people who need help and resources are getting it, rather than having these resources surreptitiously plundered by the outlaws in control? Do sanctions work? Will foreign trade and increased international contact and involvement actually provide a positive, stabilizing effect on war-torn lands?

These are some of the questions that need to be examined if we are truly seeking to help people, instead of just boosting our own conscience and sense of altruism by donating money to the fashionable cause of the year.

Popular posts from this blog

Seth Klarman: Margin of Safety (pdf)

Welcome, readers! Signup for free email updates at the Finance Trends Newsletter . Update: PDF links removed due to DMCA notice. Please see our extensive Klarman book notes below. New visitors, please check the Finance Trends home page for all new posts. Here's something for anyone who has been trying to get a look at Seth Klarman's now famous, and out of print, 1991 investment book, Margin of Safety .  My knowledge of value investing is pretty much limited to what I've read in Ben Graham's The Intelligent Investor (the book which originally popularized the investment concept of a "Margin of Safety"), so check out the wisdom from Seth Klarman and other investing greats in our related posts below. You can also go straight to Ronald Redfield's Margin of Safety book notes .    Related posts: 1. Seth Klarman interviews and Margin of Safety notes     2. Seth Klarman: Lessons from 2008 3. Investing Lessons from Sir John Templeton 4.

Moneyball: How the Red Sox Win Championships

Welcome, readers . T o get the first look at brand new posts (like the following piece) and to receive our exclusive email list updates, please subscribe to the Finance Trends Newsletter .   The Boston Red Sox won their fourth World Series title of t he 21st century this we ek. Having won their first Se ries in 86 years back in 200 4, the last decade-plus has marked a very strong return to form for one of baseball's oldest big league clubs. So how did they do it? Quick background: in late 2002, team own er and hedge fund manager, John W. Henry (with his partners ) bought the Boston Red Sox and its historic Fenway Park for a reported sum of $ 695 million. Henry and Co. quickly set out to find their ideal General Manager (GM) to help turn around their newly acquired, ailing ship. This brings us to one of my fav orite scenes from the 2011 film , Moneyball , in which John W. Henry (played by Ar liss Howard) attempts to woo Oakland A's GM Billy Beane (Brad Pi

William O'Neil Interview: How to Buy Winning Stocks

Investor's B usiness Daily founder and veteran stock trader, William O'Neil share d his trading methods and insights on buying winning stocks in an in-depth IBD radio interview. Here are some highlights from William O'Neil's interview with IBD: William O'Neil's interest in the stock market began when he started working as a young adult.  "I say many times that I didn't get that much out of college. I didn't have much interest in the stock market until I graduated from college. When I got married, I had to look out into the future and get more serious. The investment world had some appeal and that's when I started studying it. I became a stock broker after I got out of the Air Force."    He moved to Los Angeles and started work in a stock broker's office with twenty other guys. When their phone leads from ads didn't pan out, O'Neil would take the leads and drive down to visit the prospective customers in person.