From where does prosperity come from

[grannywils]

Although I agree with you, HY, when you say that we have not had an effective government for quite some time; I must remind you that it is we who have continuously chosen our governments. This is still a democracy, and the people of this country must make a stand and get off it's collective butt, if we truly want an effective government. Thus far, we seem to be leaving it in the hands of a select few who seem to feel they have a larger stake in what happens (i.e. a monetary stake, if you catch my drift :whistling: ). No one has forced this government on us. We (myself included) jump up and down and complain a great deal but seem to feel powerless when it comes to making the necessary changes we so desparately want. Is it possible? I'm not so sure I know anymore. But deep in my heart of hearts, I still believe that it just might be...

 

This may be a tad off topic, as it does not really have anything to do with prosperity. I do not feel that it is the government's responsibility to create prosperity for the individual. However, it would be comforting to believe that the government was capable of creating and/or sustaining an environment in which all people were able to create the prosperity they needed to live decent lives for themselves. It would be comforting to know that the government in which we live had the interest of its people at heart; especially since the government "is" the people and is not some extraterrestrial being....

[Aurielius]

<SNIP>

I do not feel that it is the government's responsibility to create prosperity for the individual. However, it would be comforting to believe that the government was capable of creating and/or sustaining an environment in which all people were able to create the prosperity they needed to live decent lives for themselves. It would be comforting to know that the government in which we live had the interest of its people at heart; especially since the government "is" the people and is not some extraterrestrial being....

With this part of Granny's post I do agree, it's not the job of the government to provide individual prosperity but with the caveat that it is their job to provide an environment in which prosperity is at least possible. This nation was built on the principle of self reliance and the opportunity to succeed but there were never any guarantees that one would, that is up to the individual.

[sukeban]

An effective government is one which uses that leadership to delegate resources to meet the needs of their people. A good leader will continue to be elected because there will always be other concerns that will need to be dealt with and a proven track record and years of experience is what is most important in a leadership role. The standpoint of officials only working the 2 months between election cycles, being elected for "values" instead of results or plans is one of the reasons why many parts of the West have been falling into stagnation. A government which is based around inaction and never getting anything accomplished does not serve a purpose and only acts as a drain on the prosperity of the people.

"This," my heart sings, "This is correct!" The origins of "values-voters" and identity politicians is murky and not entirely straightforward, but really, it doesn't much matter anymore where they came from--but rather that they are here now. And that they are a problem. Most would agree, I am sure, with the premise that the best government is an efficient government, one able to regulate what needs to be regulated, but to otherwise step aside and allow people to do what they do best, be creative and industrious.

 

"Prosperity" is indeed an entirely subjective term, but I think that many of you have hashed out a pretty workable definition so far, i.e. having enough to make the majority of a people within a country happy. This is encompassing of material desires, but also--I would infer--includes things like being spiritually content and socially stable. Until very recently, the criterion of being spiritually content seemed to be a long-ago-solved bit of business, enshrined into the Constitution as it is that every man, woman, and child may worship (or not) anything that they so desired without fear (or the sponsorship) of the state. In the present political atmosphere, however, this all seems to be back under dispute.

 

It used to be that solving social and economic issues were the most contentious bones in an election year, and maybe, just maybe, they still are. Certainly, the government has a role to play in meting out social justice. Indeed, in many cases, righting social wrongs also has an economic benefit attached to it, as newly empowered citizens are able to more fully participate in the economic life of the country. If people think that the Deep South is the economic backwater of the nation now, just imagine what it would be like if we had preserved slavery or if Jim Crow was still in full effect. Ditto for improving the lot of Mexican-Americans (the desired endgame, IMO, for Mexican nationals already in America). And giving a helping hand to all of the white Americans that are presently struggling, as, Good Lord knows, there are many of them. You know what that sounds like? Helping out all Americans regardless of their ethnicity or background, because, as should be obvious, it is not socially nor economically advantageous to have permanent underclasses of citizens essentially denied from participating in the full range of economic activity based solely upon their background or present economic station. That is backward. That is inefficient.

 

So social justice writ large is, IMO, desirable. Both in and of itself as well as economically. Certainly, however, it could be argued that we have perhaps in some instances drifted too far afield in righting quixotic wrongs. I would probably agree with some of these arguments, though certainly not all.

 

Economically, however, I feel that there is a certain affectation of blindness that has overtaken many of the "greed is good" crowd in the United States and Europe. Greed might be a somewhat healthy motivating factor but it is not good in its own right. There is, after all, a Biblical admonishment against this. As, I believe, Quetzl was arguing, a company does not have any responsibility to its homeland, that it only bears a responsibility toward its shareholders, who could be--and are--from anywhere. That is fine, I guess. However, why do we then extend to corporations the benefits and entitlements of citizenship when they, in fact, bear almost none of the burdens of citizenship? Yes, they pay taxes, but no, they cannot go to jail, serve in the military, nor be executed. They cannot technically vote, yet they are entitled to free speech? And free speech is defined by the Supreme Court as money--something that corporations have a whole lot of. What. I would argue that if a company does not have any of the responsibilities of being a citizen, then we should revoke said citizenship--and treat them as guests in the United States rather than as an equal (or senior) partner.

 

Furthermore, most nations--Western or not--actually have industrial policies. They review the capabilities, resources, and talents of their nation and then put into place incentives for private citizens (ideally) to allocate their capital (human and otherwise) accordingly. Thus, they allocate their resources into (ideally) their most competitive industries and then do their best to keep their national industries on the leading edge of said market. Companies comply with this because a) it makes them money and b) they are compelled to do so by governments stronger than our own or c) their corporate leaders are more patriotic than ours. Thus, officials in Japan resign in shame and disgrace (and face real jail time) when their companies fail--even if the failure doesn't involve breaking the law (or is even their fault). And they apologize to the nation, to their people, for their failure. And they are remorseful. Can you ever imagine that happening here? I can't.

 

Other successful countries seem to actually take to heart the old saying, "With great power, comes great responsibility" and they actually apply it to their corporate leaders. IMO, white collar crime should be treated more harshly than ordinary crime, up to and including placing executives in Hunger Games-like scenarios for knowing and massive fraud that jeopardizes the fiscal health of millions living within the nation. Is there any real, rational way in which Bernie Madoff is better than a common criminal--or a murderer. Certainly, his actions affected the lives of more people than any killer ever could. And even if he is not made to pay the ultimate price, how is he any less of a terrorist than those presently languishing in Guantanamo Bay? Indeed, Goldman Sachs did more damage to our economy than al-Qaida could have ever dreamed. White collar crime is treated more leniently because the people who make our laws are more likely to be caught doing it. Or, more simply, because white collar crime is for rich people--and the people who make our laws are rich.

 

But, to answer the actual question, ultimately it is the citizens of a nation that create prosperity for themselves and for each other. Government should stipulate that nobody gets too large (monopoly or rigging the system) or too small (social safety net). Success is not guaranteed, but a certain minimum standard of living should be iron-clad. Corporations and people shouldn't be so myopic to think that their success is entirely of their own doing--because it isn't. And people shouldn't think for a moment that, though some unforeseen and unfortunate circumstance--that they will always be doing well. 'Cause that's hubris, and we all know what Greek tragedies have to say about that.

Edited March 27, 2012 by sukeban