This post is also available in:
العربية
Traditional Merchant Talk from Billionaire Naguib Sawiris; He Pulls the Fire towards Himself Even if Others Perish, Including the State and the People who Made Him Rich.
Perhaps the billionaire’s complaint about high interest rates sums up the whole matter. Monsters devouring each other.
In a report published yesterday by Al-Jarida newspaper, Sawiris complains about the situation and criticizes Egypt’s economic approach as “half socialist and half capitalist”, but he seems to want a socialist approach for the merchant, by granting him every possible project, facilities, and lands, while capitalist for the general public.
His Excellency the billionaire is mistaken when he cites the example of China and Russia’s economic approach, even claiming “they turned to the capitalist system.”
The truth is that they succeeded in creating a balanced economic system that is socially just precisely because it combines socialism and capitalism (similar to the Islamic economic system) all subject to the state, which flexibly manages some of its major companies.
More importantly, China and Russia’s main goal is to serve and honor the people of all classes and build a state for everyone to live a decent life.
China has succeeded in eliminating extreme poverty by about 88% over four decades, according to international reports, including the World Bank (source). According to the bank as well, poverty in Russia has decreased by about half in two decades from 24% to 12% (see the graph).
In contrast, several reports mention an increase in extreme poverty and inflation rates in Egypt during recent decades, including a World Bank report stating that about 66.2% of Egypt’s population lives below the global poverty line, while inflation rates remain high and volatile at about 28.3% recently. (source).
For decades, Egypt has been leaning towards privatizing services, manufacturing, production, and the economy, and modifying relevant systems and legislation to serve the private sector with a “throw the camel with what it carries” approach.
His Excellency Sawiris also criticizes the state’s lack of profitability, which is another fallacy.
It’s natural that the state doesn’t “profit” from its people like a merchant, as its goal is to “provide means for a decent living.”
But he doesn’t mind if a few of the general public take all the money and profits from the state’s udder, as evidenced perhaps by his statement: “Confirming that the unemployed currently bear part of the responsibility, because various economic sectors suffer from a large shortage of workers.”
The employee and worker need a salary that provides a decent life, and if it doesn’t achieve that, it’s very natural that they won’t accept a job that makes them a slave subservient to the rich master. Just as a merchant won’t enter into a high-risk investment and trade that’s certain to lose.
Also, there are practical life factors that may lead to rejecting certain jobs. Are the locations of these dream jobs close to the worker’s hometown and family? If they’re far, are they in or near existing communities and vibrant cities? Is there a solid, acceptable transportation network? Or are they completely isolated?
Perhaps because of this, the investment calculation is disrupted and interest rates rise, as he mentions.
