Sometimes it's just nice to see it on a graph. It seems obvious, as we know that government doesn't produce efficiently, so the smaller government is the better the economy works.
When the economy produces more wealth, well, that's a good thing, no? Less poverty and associated misery? As Patri Friedman writes, "... our mission should not be to argue the left away from their ends, but educate them away from their means."
"When the economy produces more wealth, well, that's a good thing, no? Less poverty and associated misery?"
Depends on how much is spread around. How much will go to minimum wage workers? How much for homeless shelters? How much for medical clinics for the poor and uninsured? How much for food banks? How much for programs to teach people tools to lift them out of poverty? How much directly to those under 200% of the poverty line? And so on. I'm less concerned with the associated misery of making over $200,000 a year. And less so with those making over $2,000,000 a year.
But, certainly I agree it must not be a zero-sum game, and that increasing the overall wealth of a society is a virtue and a necessity. Distribution, however, does remain crucial.
Posted by: Gary Farber at February 1, 2005 10:02 AMYup. But wealth has to come first. Most third world countries don't have enough wealth to support their entire societies even if the upper class had all its assets confiscated to serve the lower. It's been tried.
I'll take Mexico as an example. Mexico has universal healthcare - a mix of private and public systems - very much like some proposals made for the US system. However, I don't think that many would like to use MX as an example of what our system could be. The reason is simple; MX just doesn't have the resources to build the facilities necessary to serve the whole country at a level to which we are accustomed. In fact, I think it's safe to say the uninsured in the US get better care than the poor in Mexico.
This in spite of Mexico's status as (roughly) a middling economy. About half of the world is poorer than Mexico.
Posted by: Walter at February 1, 2005 06:57 PM