The idea recently came to me, as I was examining the role of ethnic stereotypes in Guyana, that there seems to be some historical rationale that is at the basis of our ethnic myths on attitudes towards expenditure - Africans are openhanded/spendthrift while Indians are thrifty/stingy. If we are to look at the initial conditioning of both groups, it is arguably easy to see how these polar attitudes towards expenditure evolved. For the African slave whose destiny was fixed and lateral at best, expenditure was necessarily experiential - you spent what you earned to enjoy whatever you could because you were born a slave, you lived a slave and you would die a slave without hope of owning assets or property since you were in fact property yourself. For the Indian indentured labourer however, expenditure - when made - was acquisitional since the initial contract was a temporary affair; you worked hard, saved money, invested it because as brutal as the conditions were, there was the realistic hope of exiting them after a specified time. One could easily recognise the merits and demerits of both attitudes - experiential expenditure in a stable, healthy economic environment aids in a better quality of life and stimulates the economy, as opposed to excessive acquisition which can lead to predatory hoarding or massive corruption. On the other hand, unsustainable profligacy can also lead to corruption in order to sustain certain lifestyles or can send you into the sort of economic stagnation that can be mitigated by reasonable, well-planned thrift or austerity. Thoughts?
Posted on: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 23:11:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015