Skip to main content

Simply cutting the deficit is a poor economic goal

It is relatively easy to create an economy that works for the rich but it is difficult to create one that works for the poor.  But it isn't rocket science. The huge public investments in health, education and housing in the three decades following world war two demonstrated it can be done, lifting people out of poor housing and providing them with opportunities in education and work inconceivable before the war.

The Tories and the Tory government, as did the Tory-LibDem coalition have instead targeted the deficit. They have not learned from history.  Despite Britain being bankrupted by the war, and inspire of massive national debt, both Labour and Tory governments invested in social infrastructure and welfare - more so did Labour.  As the economy grew, the national debt fell precipitously. A healthy workforce became a more productive one; a skilled workforce become a more adapted one.



Yet, now, cutting down the deficit has become an objective for a 'strong' economy with robust growth, but it is growth predicated on making the disadvantaged poorer.  The government hails middlingly small growth as a sign the it is working.  It isn't. Not for the poor it isn't  Furthermore it is poor economics whether or not you care about the poor.

 This is why we need a more balanced economic strategy. Growth is necessary, but not sufficient as an answer.  We need also a social strategy.  Simply putting the nations finances 'in order' is not in itself an answer. A family could have a healthy balance in the bank but if the roof leaks it is more damaging than if the family had borrowed money to repair the roof.

Putting the nations finances in order is also used by the Tory government as a cover for an ideological attack on the poor, but not on poverty.  First they create a narrative of the 'undeserving', 'work-shy' poor.  The Secretary of State for works and pensions has used this language time and again.  They also talk of 'helping the poor help themselves'.  The truth is that the vast majority of those receiving benefits are in work.

Another part of the narrative is what is called 'welfare dependency' as if those on benefits are on a kind of benefits drug from which they have to be weaned with cold turkey.  And so it is with working tax credits.  Government ministers say that somehow this will miraculously increase wages.  Yet, there is no process in any economic text I know that demonstrates this principle. The one I do know is that if you cut benefits to the poorest without lifting their wages then they will be pushed deeper into poverty.  They won't be able to afford their rents and so are more likely to become homeless, their health will deteriorate and we end up with a poor, unproductive, unskilled workforce.  It is simply bad, bad, bad economics.

The government has no social agenda other than that of a Victorian era of 'self help'. But even the Victorians began to understand the importance of public health and invested in infrastructure to promote it.  This government has lost sight of the social goals of good governance.  To create health and wellbeing. It follows bad economics for bad social reasons. It pushes the poorest deeper into poverty for the sake of the illusive goal of 'cutting the deficit'.   Cutting the deficit is a poor economic goal.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba