Jack Aubrey
Very inexperienced trader
- Joined
- 13 August 2019
- Posts
- 133
- Reactions
- 271
A view from an inner-city, leftist:
While I do understand the idea that recessions can be "good" for an economy, I think they are universally bad for society. A two or three year recession can destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and put young people, in particular, behind the eight ball for a decade or more. At a time when many people are already in precarious employment, a genuine recession would be likely to create a permanent class of "working poor" - as in the USA.
I know that many people now have a negative reaction to the whole idea of "the welfare state" but it has generally worked to create stable economies and societies where it has been applied since WW2. The social benefits are fairly clear - including lower real crime rates, an educated, generally healthy workforce and lower levels of inequality within and between generations. Yes, we can grumble about "free riders" and people "exploiting the system" but the actual costs of putting up with these things are really pretty low compared to the benefits we all receive. Personally, I think we are too judgemental of other people's choices and situations and we tend to react too negatively to the individual examples of "young dole bludgers" and " drug addicted single mothers" that are fed to us by a media that makes its money out of our outrage. I have never seen a situation where the moral panic over some class of people "getting away" with receiving welfare has been justified by the actual stats - the vast majority of welfare recipients are people who simply find themselves in a bad situation and would rather not be receiving assistance at all.
I know many people who, at one time in their lives, have fallen into one of the categories of "unworthiness". Either they or their kids have mostly gone on to become "good", productive citizens. I doubt that would have happened if they had been "thrown off" welfare when they needed it.
There's both a moral/ethical and economic basis for supporting a "welfare state" that goes beyond discussion of the worthiness of the individuals receiving any particular form welfare. I'd personally go further and say that the fact that we feel it necessary to differentiate types of welfare at all is questionable. A needs-based system (taking into account both income and capital), simply administered, with minimal coercion and enforcement, would IMO produce similar results at around the same economic cost. Any "sticks" we feel necessary to move people off welfare should be balanced by positive support such as financial counselling, retraining and helping the socially isolated reconnect with their communities.
It has been said many time before but taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.
Thus ends the sermon.
While I do understand the idea that recessions can be "good" for an economy, I think they are universally bad for society. A two or three year recession can destroy the lives of hundreds of thousands of people and put young people, in particular, behind the eight ball for a decade or more. At a time when many people are already in precarious employment, a genuine recession would be likely to create a permanent class of "working poor" - as in the USA.
I know that many people now have a negative reaction to the whole idea of "the welfare state" but it has generally worked to create stable economies and societies where it has been applied since WW2. The social benefits are fairly clear - including lower real crime rates, an educated, generally healthy workforce and lower levels of inequality within and between generations. Yes, we can grumble about "free riders" and people "exploiting the system" but the actual costs of putting up with these things are really pretty low compared to the benefits we all receive. Personally, I think we are too judgemental of other people's choices and situations and we tend to react too negatively to the individual examples of "young dole bludgers" and " drug addicted single mothers" that are fed to us by a media that makes its money out of our outrage. I have never seen a situation where the moral panic over some class of people "getting away" with receiving welfare has been justified by the actual stats - the vast majority of welfare recipients are people who simply find themselves in a bad situation and would rather not be receiving assistance at all.
I know many people who, at one time in their lives, have fallen into one of the categories of "unworthiness". Either they or their kids have mostly gone on to become "good", productive citizens. I doubt that would have happened if they had been "thrown off" welfare when they needed it.
There's both a moral/ethical and economic basis for supporting a "welfare state" that goes beyond discussion of the worthiness of the individuals receiving any particular form welfare. I'd personally go further and say that the fact that we feel it necessary to differentiate types of welfare at all is questionable. A needs-based system (taking into account both income and capital), simply administered, with minimal coercion and enforcement, would IMO produce similar results at around the same economic cost. Any "sticks" we feel necessary to move people off welfare should be balanced by positive support such as financial counselling, retraining and helping the socially isolated reconnect with their communities.
It has been said many time before but taxes are the price we pay for a civilised society.
Thus ends the sermon.