Tweet
So an earlier thread started off discussing how we BOTL's are dealing with the 'Great Recession', as its been termed, and it led to something of a debate about the proper response to it, as well as how various political bodies could be blamed for its occurrence.
I can only speak for my side of the pond, but I should note that my prejudices are encapsulated by one of favorite philosopher, who said:
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
?Adam Smith
Rousseau had similar sentiments, and so the idea, it could be said, is not without a wide audience. I grew up in the time of Reagan, which also meant the time of Thatcher, and it has been my understanding, given the sweep of things, that the trickle-down theory is theoretically attractive, but practically ineffective. The U.S. has the greatest division of wealthy and poor since the 1920's, and much of that has to do with the consistent deregulation and reduction in taxation over the last forty years.
I concur that there is no feasible way to continue on as we are now, and I do not believe that all cuts are evil, but it strikes me that there has to be a balance of collective services requiring a collective buy-in, and I think that no society that has a majority of people who are poor or struggling will, as Adam Smith put it, flourish. Hence, even Smith argued for public schooling, and some general welfare functions of the state. The question is to what level and what effect. My understanding of giving more to those who have more is that they don't tend to spend it in ways that help the poor or middle class; the decline of the middle class over the very span that describes the increase in deregulation suggests that capitalists will spend their time increasing capital wherever that will happen, meaning that manufacturing will go over seas and capital will stay in their pockets as muc as not.
Ultimately, though, I think there is an ethical question within Smith's point, and he was already unto this when he began his Wealth of Nations by intending to find the greatest rise in happiness and flourishing for all. That question, in my mind, is what we owe one another as human beings who share a space, and what do we leave to the clearly erratic and uncaring workings of the economy? Once we decide that, we can make cuts in terms of what we want to preserve as well as what is most effective.
I think that most people over here want a sort of magic to take place: make cuts, but don't let them affect me (not my school, not my social security, not my roads, etc., and never increase my taxes).
So while I'm in agreement with the idea that excessive debt is ridiculous, it's not clear to me that it's always ridiculous, as your Keynes argued, depending on the situation. On the other hand, structural changes should be made in consideration of the fact that the less unfortunate, as Smith also argued, are not able to weather them like the monied class can.
Ok,, stepping down from my soap box. Anyone else want to take it?
I can only speak for my side of the pond, but I should note that my prejudices are encapsulated by one of favorite philosopher, who said:
No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.
?Adam Smith
Rousseau had similar sentiments, and so the idea, it could be said, is not without a wide audience. I grew up in the time of Reagan, which also meant the time of Thatcher, and it has been my understanding, given the sweep of things, that the trickle-down theory is theoretically attractive, but practically ineffective. The U.S. has the greatest division of wealthy and poor since the 1920's, and much of that has to do with the consistent deregulation and reduction in taxation over the last forty years.
I concur that there is no feasible way to continue on as we are now, and I do not believe that all cuts are evil, but it strikes me that there has to be a balance of collective services requiring a collective buy-in, and I think that no society that has a majority of people who are poor or struggling will, as Adam Smith put it, flourish. Hence, even Smith argued for public schooling, and some general welfare functions of the state. The question is to what level and what effect. My understanding of giving more to those who have more is that they don't tend to spend it in ways that help the poor or middle class; the decline of the middle class over the very span that describes the increase in deregulation suggests that capitalists will spend their time increasing capital wherever that will happen, meaning that manufacturing will go over seas and capital will stay in their pockets as muc as not.
Ultimately, though, I think there is an ethical question within Smith's point, and he was already unto this when he began his Wealth of Nations by intending to find the greatest rise in happiness and flourishing for all. That question, in my mind, is what we owe one another as human beings who share a space, and what do we leave to the clearly erratic and uncaring workings of the economy? Once we decide that, we can make cuts in terms of what we want to preserve as well as what is most effective.
I think that most people over here want a sort of magic to take place: make cuts, but don't let them affect me (not my school, not my social security, not my roads, etc., and never increase my taxes).
So while I'm in agreement with the idea that excessive debt is ridiculous, it's not clear to me that it's always ridiculous, as your Keynes argued, depending on the situation. On the other hand, structural changes should be made in consideration of the fact that the less unfortunate, as Smith also argued, are not able to weather them like the monied class can.
Ok,, stepping down from my soap box. Anyone else want to take it?
Comment