Doug had written: >>So it's ok to piss away scores of billions in IPO money
because some virtuous innovation might result, but it's not ok to have a
public health insurance system, subsidized child care, or a decent minimum
income. The latter are wasteful, while the former is a reasonable price for
innovation.<<
David writes: >I get your point, but I really think you are comparing
apples and oranges. All of the "public goods" you mention are exactly that
-- goods -- and the society needs to generate wealth to purchase those
goods. Wealth creation may not look orderly or tidy, but it is what it is
and is absolutely necessary in order to purchase those goods that you
describe.<
what are the "public goods" that Doug mentions? They are "a public health
insurance system, subsidized child care, or a decent minimum income."
Clintonoids, e.g., Hillary in IT TAKES A VILLAGE, might say that such
"public goods" _are_ (or can be) types of investment that generate wealth.
If there's any validity to this point, it's illegitimate (as David seems to
do) to equate private investment with all investment (and the only use of
resources that promotes wealth creation) and to equate all public programs
with consumption.
Obviously, the private sector does a lot of consumption of resources which
is dubbed "investment" (such as on advertising campaigns, swindles,
rent-seeking, and speculation) while the government does a lot of
investment spending (such as on basic science, education, infrastructure,
and on public health), so David's implicit equations don't work. But let's
consider Doug's list.
If we could get a decent public health system in the US (i.e., not the one
Hillary proposed), it would lower the percentage of GDP going to health
care while not hurting health standards (or keep the percentage constant
while raising standards, or something in-between). If health standards went
up, so would the productivity of US workers -- promoting economic growth.
Further, if the percentage of GDP going to health care went down, that
would free up resources to use to promote economic growth. So improving the
health system could be an investment.
If we could get subsidized day care, that would allow an improvement of
child-care arrangements, which would (as Hillary would say) help produce
better kids -- and thus more productive adults.
As Adam Smith noted, a decent minimum income for workers can make them more
productive, allowing them to escape the self-defeating struggle for
existence that defines poverty.
In closing, I think the Clintonoid emphasis on "investment" is not
extremely good, since consumption is a good thing, too, while investment
and consumption are often mixed. The problem is not "investment" vs.
"consumption" but rather resources going to support the rich and powerful
(as with Dubya's tax cut scheme) vs. resources going to the people who
create the profits that the rich and powerful live off of.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
