When I shared this on Facebook, here is what I added as my own comments:
"Although this video is too sensationalist in its agenda and vastly exaggerating reality, it has a great blend of shots in there." "All the really-concerned-social-technicians' gibberish in there can be safely ignored. Just to send out some impressions of my beloved city to you folks!"
Let me add, although all those well-off, middle-class sociologists, who are usually way more at unease with variations of income levels than the poor and rich and need whole theoretic constructions to deal with it, will probably dismiss this as 'neoliberalism': let's just let everyone move wherever they want to live, as long as they can afford it by their own means.
Still, a nice video somehow. I just cringe when I hear this kind of talk — I'm used to it from Europe, can't stand the way it's spreading elsewhere.
No one is trying to limit the movement of wealthy people. They're in charge, after all. The suggestion in the video is that the wealthy are running away from the unsolved (and worsening) social problems in the urban core; and that instead of directing resources at these problems, the wealthy are directing resources to building nice houses and golf courses for themselves.
I think you're glossing some of the real problems posed by the new developments – notably the issue of water availability and decent public transport for day workers in those neighborhoods. Obviously there's always been rich and poor, and they've always been segregated to some extent (although this segregates more since it's not easy for the rich in, say, Zamalek to ignore Bulaq or Imbaba across the river), but you have to remember these new developments are sprouting left and right while the government is conducting a failing middle-income and lower-income housing policy.
Philip: I think you're glossing some of the real problems posed by the new developments – notably the issue of water availability and decent public transport for day workers in those neighborhoods. Obviously there's always been rich and poor, and they've always been segregated to some extent (although this segregates more since it's not easy for the rich in, say, Zamalek to ignore Bulaq or Imbaba across the river), but you have to remember these new developments are sprouting left and right while the government is conducting a failing middle-income and lower-income housing policy.
@Phillip: I'm not really sure what kind of talk makes you cringe or what exactly you disagree with in this piece. The downtown is crumbling and the government is making it attractive for businesses and wealthy people to relocate to the desert instead of investing it its capital. The communities being created in the desert are to the detriment to the rest of the city and are environmentally disastrous for Egypt.
Sure, basically I agree to all the criticisms of what the government is doing wrong. But I'm coming from a radical no-government perspective (of which I have no illusions nor intentions of convincing anyone even here in Egypt, let alone Europe or elsewhere…). Consequently I'm never convinced when government criticism is accompanied by wishes 'what it could and should do better' — the best thing any government can do is resign, pack up and leave people alone, so they can, would and will for the most part voluntary go about creating a peaceful, wealthy society — and while sociologists and academics are smart enough to point out the failings of governments, officials and bureaucrats, they're unfortunately also always smart enough to realize that fully government-free markets would never fund them to the degree they get funding from governments, 'public education' and nation states — their funding would reflect the actual demand for their work — so they end up proposing all kinds of additional checks and regulations to widen the powers and scope of their beloved-hated-government-funders, only to potentially worsen the problem and the danger — from my market-anarchist point of view only, of course +D
Yeah, the man's got a point doesn't he? Who can argue against the U of C Econ Department after all? Not when we've got the shining examples Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Russia, Poland and now Iraq to look to. Yep, happy wealthy societies all, just as Hayek, Friedman and Rumsfeld promised (Father, Son and Holy Shit he's completely nuts?). Characterizing anybody who benefits from the leveling afforded by institutionalized government (or in this case, simply implies that maybe it's a good thing) as an undeserving bum standing in the way of progress (what could be more patronizing than "trickle down economics"?) seems to work well enough on the American electorate, but we don't all have to be such total dumb asses do we?
That said, I don't think you're going to have the least problem convincing hordes of people in Egypt of your point… well, not as long as you stick with the Katameya Heights crowd anyway. They know that there is no government in Egypt, unless you count that crowd of greasy-cuffed rent-a-cops in the Mubarak shop.
Notwithstanding, what happens in Egypt if you "abolish the government" exactly? (I dunno how, skyhooks maybe?) What are the steps by which "market-anarchy" in Egypt leads to a happy equilibrium between the market demand for the time and skills of Mohamed from Imbaba (who, ooops, has already been denied the benefits of a state education) and his needs to provide housing, medical services, food and the odd moment of recreation for himself and his friends?
Somehow, absent the current "government," I see the Katameya boys hiring a new bunch of rent-a-cops (let's face it, sourced from the same base stock as the last crowd), and relaxing in their hard won peace and wealth. Doh! I just proved your point! Well, I guess it's like Friedman said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
The issue of greenery reminded me of news stories I've seen in the US, about development out in Cali and Arizona. They don't have enough water, but are building houses with green lawns right out of New Jersey and Connecticut. Some innovative designer ought to come up with Desert Chic housing design, that is super luxury but has no green. Maybe Phillip's point could be revised to note that if the folks in the video had become market-oriented engineers and designers instead of whatever they are, they could busy making viable alternatives. You do that in Egypt, you'd be able to sell it to Arizona.
Another thing this video reminded me of were projects in the US to renew urban areas w/ light rail (trolley) systems. I saw a report just yesterday, about Baltimore I think, and how the new light rail had given previously unpallatable and unconnected neighborhoods a new life.
I don't know, I just found it interesting how similar problems arise in places so different.
The development patterns now in Cairo remind me of the issue of "white flight" in the US in the post-WWII era (through the 1990s), when white urban residents moved out to the new suburbs (Levittown, etc) and left very poor, disproportionately minority urban centers/ghettos. Eventually offices left the cities too, and the US ended up with massive suburban office parks. The result was really disastrous for US cities and their budgets and crime rates, and it took a long time and a lot of active government effort (money too) to reverse the trend by improving city housing and education and safety enough to get people to move back. I bet if you compare the sales brochure from Levittown to the sales brochures for these new Egyptian developments, the language would be very, very similar.
[…] Arabist posted a comprehensive video discussing the contradictions and new divisions in Cairo. Cancel this […]
When I shared this on Facebook, here is what I added as my own comments:
"Although this video is too sensationalist in its agenda and vastly exaggerating reality, it has a great blend of shots in there."
"All the really-concerned-social-technicians' gibberish in there can be safely ignored. Just to send out some impressions of my beloved city to you folks!"
Let me add, although all those well-off, middle-class sociologists, who are usually way more at unease with variations of income levels than the poor and rich and need whole theoretic constructions to deal with it, will probably dismiss this as 'neoliberalism': let's just let everyone move wherever they want to live, as long as they can afford it by their own means.
Still, a nice video somehow. I just cringe when I hear this kind of talk — I'm used to it from Europe, can't stand the way it's spreading elsewhere.
No one is trying to limit the movement of wealthy people. They're in charge, after all. The suggestion in the video is that the wealthy are running away from the unsolved (and worsening) social problems in the urban core; and that instead of directing resources at these problems, the wealthy are directing resources to building nice houses and golf courses for themselves.
I've been away for too long – is there now a new city called Beverly Hills? How ridiculous…
I think you're glossing some of the real problems posed by the new developments – notably the issue of water availability and decent public transport for day workers in those neighborhoods. Obviously there's always been rich and poor, and they've always been segregated to some extent (although this segregates more since it's not easy for the rich in, say, Zamalek to ignore Bulaq or Imbaba across the river), but you have to remember these new developments are sprouting left and right while the government is conducting a failing middle-income and lower-income housing policy.
Philip: I think you're glossing some of the real problems posed by the new developments – notably the issue of water availability and decent public transport for day workers in those neighborhoods. Obviously there's always been rich and poor, and they've always been segregated to some extent (although this segregates more since it's not easy for the rich in, say, Zamalek to ignore Bulaq or Imbaba across the river), but you have to remember these new developments are sprouting left and right while the government is conducting a failing middle-income and lower-income housing policy.
@Phillip: I'm not really sure what kind of talk makes you cringe or what exactly you disagree with in this piece. The downtown is crumbling and the government is making it attractive for businesses and wealthy people to relocate to the desert instead of investing it its capital. The communities being created in the desert are to the detriment to the rest of the city and are environmentally disastrous for Egypt.
Sure, basically I agree to all the criticisms of what the government is doing wrong. But I'm coming from a radical no-government perspective (of which I have no illusions nor intentions of convincing anyone even here in Egypt, let alone Europe or elsewhere…). Consequently I'm never convinced when government criticism is accompanied by wishes 'what it could and should do better' — the best thing any government can do is resign, pack up and leave people alone, so they can, would and will for the most part voluntary go about creating a peaceful, wealthy society — and while sociologists and academics are smart enough to point out the failings of governments, officials and bureaucrats, they're unfortunately also always smart enough to realize that fully government-free markets would never fund them to the degree they get funding from governments, 'public education' and nation states — their funding would reflect the actual demand for their work — so they end up proposing all kinds of additional checks and regulations to widen the powers and scope of their beloved-hated-government-funders, only to potentially worsen the problem and the danger — from my market-anarchist point of view only, of course +D
Yeah, the man's got a point doesn't he? Who can argue against the U of C Econ Department after all? Not when we've got the shining examples Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Russia, Poland and now Iraq to look to. Yep, happy wealthy societies all, just as Hayek, Friedman and Rumsfeld promised (Father, Son and Holy Shit he's completely nuts?). Characterizing anybody who benefits from the leveling afforded by institutionalized government (or in this case, simply implies that maybe it's a good thing) as an undeserving bum standing in the way of progress (what could be more patronizing than "trickle down economics"?) seems to work well enough on the American electorate, but we don't all have to be such total dumb asses do we?
That said, I don't think you're going to have the least problem convincing hordes of people in Egypt of your point… well, not as long as you stick with the Katameya Heights crowd anyway. They know that there is no government in Egypt, unless you count that crowd of greasy-cuffed rent-a-cops in the Mubarak shop.
Notwithstanding, what happens in Egypt if you "abolish the government" exactly? (I dunno how, skyhooks maybe?) What are the steps by which "market-anarchy" in Egypt leads to a happy equilibrium between the market demand for the time and skills of Mohamed from Imbaba (who, ooops, has already been denied the benefits of a state education) and his needs to provide housing, medical services, food and the odd moment of recreation for himself and his friends?
Somehow, absent the current "government," I see the Katameya boys hiring a new bunch of rent-a-cops (let's face it, sourced from the same base stock as the last crowd), and relaxing in their hard won peace and wealth. Doh! I just proved your point! Well, I guess it's like Friedman said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?"
The issue of greenery reminded me of news stories I've seen in the US, about development out in Cali and Arizona. They don't have enough water, but are building houses with green lawns right out of New Jersey and Connecticut. Some innovative designer ought to come up with Desert Chic housing design, that is super luxury but has no green. Maybe Phillip's point could be revised to note that if the folks in the video had become market-oriented engineers and designers instead of whatever they are, they could busy making viable alternatives. You do that in Egypt, you'd be able to sell it to Arizona.
Another thing this video reminded me of were projects in the US to renew urban areas w/ light rail (trolley) systems. I saw a report just yesterday, about Baltimore I think, and how the new light rail had given previously unpallatable and unconnected neighborhoods a new life.
I don't know, I just found it interesting how similar problems arise in places so different.
The development patterns now in Cairo remind me of the issue of "white flight" in the US in the post-WWII era (through the 1990s), when white urban residents moved out to the new suburbs (Levittown, etc) and left very poor, disproportionately minority urban centers/ghettos. Eventually offices left the cities too, and the US ended up with massive suburban office parks. The result was really disastrous for US cities and their budgets and crime rates, and it took a long time and a lot of active government effort (money too) to reverse the trend by improving city housing and education and safety enough to get people to move back. I bet if you compare the sales brochure from Levittown to the sales brochures for these new Egyptian developments, the language would be very, very similar.