David Shemano wrote:
>The wealthier a society is, the more able it is to afford a generous social
>welfare system. In the future, assuming the economy grows, it will be
>better able to afford the present level of benefits. Is this controversial?
>It seems to me that if you are a believer in a big safety net, which is by
>definition more expensive than a small safety net, you should be in favor of
>economic policies that support the growth of the economy and the tax
>revenues that will flow from the growing economy. I guess I am envisioning
>your goods as golden eggs and the economy as the goose. Best to keep the
>goose happy and well fed.
That's what I guessed you would have argued. But that day when we
will be rich enough to afford a civilized welfare state never seems
to come. First there was the deficit to worry about, now there's the
surplus to protect. We couldn't afford it when we were a $3 trillion
economy, or a $6 trillion one, or now even less that we're a $10
trillion one. When will we be rich enough?
By the way, several Luxembourg Income Study working papers examined
the relations between the generosity of social spending and economic
growth and found little or none. But even if there were, I'd prefer a
society where people don't starve on the sidewalk to one where growth
was 0.2 points higher.
Doug
