(no subject)

[chess]

I've been finding out lately that a disturbing number of you are conservatives/Tory supporters of some stripe or another. Being somewhat of a flaming red socialist myself, I'm interested in how you guys justify the belief that the rich ought to get richer and the poor ought to fend for themselves that seems to be the Tory standpoint to me...

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not an economist, and I've not studied it in any depth, so I can't provide you with anything formal to back up or refute the theory. Nevertheless, it seems to me absolutely clear-cut that you cannot have an increased standard of living without an increased amount of wealth (be that in terms of money, freedoms, or whatever) to allow it; you absolutely need economic growth and freedoms for people's standard of living to increase.

While economic growth is necessary to increase standard of living, it is not sufficient. Here there is a role for Government in improving public amenities and encouraging investment and development where living standards are poor. Education and healthcare are important components in this, and funding them requires that a country should be economically well off. It also requires a willingness on the part of the Government to spend the money, but these days such a willingness is shared by parties of all colours. The differences these days are mostly in balance, timing and mechanism.

(S)

[chess]

Increased equality can increase standard-of-living indicators (like lower crime rates and higher literacy rates, less public health scares (because everyone has medical care so diseases don't spread)) without there needing to be 'economic growth' in a strict sense.

Economic freedoms seem designed to drive down standard of living; if a company is allowed to get away with overworking people, for instance, it will.

[(Anonymous)]

Increased equality either costs money (for an equally high standard of living) or brings everyone down to an equally low standard.

Companies that are allowed to get away with overworking people won't necessarily do so. Most companies recognise that overworked people do not work well, and companies aren't evil ogres taking pleasure from grinding employees into the ground. (Which is not to say that we shouldn't have some mandatory maximum working hours, because some companies are less wise than others. It's in the wider public interest to do this because overworked people are more likely to become sick and less likely to contribute to the country outside work.)

However, that's not the sort of economic freedom I was talking about. I'm thinking of employees' freedoms: to move where there are more jobs, or where the air doesn't aggravate your asthma; to do something different from what your father and grandfather did; to go to work rather than be a housewife.

(S)

[senji.livejournal.com]

It's possible though that, say, the optimal rate to work your employees at from the point of view of getting the most work out of them isn't near the optimum for them to get the best out of their life.