Greenspan and the Commons
As far as I can see, Greenspan's pure conservative outlook has no place for the "commons." This is quite clear when he takes up the issue of climate change. His point is that climate change is (a) a real thing, but (b) it would cost money (reduce the sacred GDP) to fight it.
This is perhaps the most extreme case of commons-blindness. Basically, the idea is that industry would need to pay a "tax" to clean up after itself, which would reduce investment, lower productivity, and jobs would be lost.
Of course, in the long run, the cost of climate change may be vast - even to the point of destroying all of civilization. This is perhaps a debate for another day. The point is that Greenspan and his pals support. This is an example of "downloading" costs on to the public. It applies to pollution, habitat destruction, health risks and much more. These costs are not easily accounted for in GDP - they are, in fact, systematically ignored. One may also ask about how serious Greenspan is about job loss when balanced against millions of human deaths that will result from climate change. I suppose these people will die "off the books".
Actually, I that it's probably too late to do anything significant about climate change, partly due to decades of "cost-benefit" analysis by conservatives. Where, in Greenspan's world, do we account for such things parks, clean air, clean water, safe food, and world peace. Plainly these are all costs with benefits that are hard to measure yet of central importance to real human beings. Believers in Ayn Rand's philosophy would simply say folks need to look after these things themselves. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything. But this plainly runs against human nature. People the world over and in all times have appreciated assets held in common, along with the cost of maintaining and protecting these assets.
We see Greenspan floundering on this issue when he deals with the medical expenses of the aging population. The concept of health as a right - recognized in all the Western World except for the US - doesn't come up. He is obsessed with "entitlements" - the conservative name for "rights." Through tortured logic, he comes to the conclusion that the most amazing economy that has ever existed on Earth (guess which one) cannot afford to look after the health needs of its own citizens. The idea that society is better off if its citizens are healthy seems to slip by him. This is because health, per se, has no monetary value.
Issues like this block Greenspan's from imagining a very different world, where it is no longer necessary for most people to work at all. In such a world (perhaps possible), the "commons" would be vastly expanded along with "rights" to things Americans are used to pay for, such as health care and a modest income. In this, we see his doctrinaire assumption that "productivity" (his darling measure of goodness) need not be tied to "labor" or even (gasp) "profit." Why (the Marxist might ask), must the benefits of all improvements in efficiency in producing "stuff" accrue to the owners of the means of production? This is the core tenet of capitalism, usually referred to as "property rights" by Greenspan. Is any other system possible? In fact, other "systems" are all around us. We can all enjoy public parks, "owned" by all of us. Of course, we all actually do pay for these resources in one way or another. But to Greenspan, every example of this payment is a cost, deducted from GDP and a drag on "growth."
Of course, there are severe objections to having everything in common - most commonly referred to by Greenspan as "central control of the economy." Plainly some kind of compromise is needed. This compromise is not to be found in Greenspan's writings.
This is perhaps the most extreme case of commons-blindness. Basically, the idea is that industry would need to pay a "tax" to clean up after itself, which would reduce investment, lower productivity, and jobs would be lost.
Of course, in the long run, the cost of climate change may be vast - even to the point of destroying all of civilization. This is perhaps a debate for another day. The point is that Greenspan and his pals support. This is an example of "downloading" costs on to the public. It applies to pollution, habitat destruction, health risks and much more. These costs are not easily accounted for in GDP - they are, in fact, systematically ignored. One may also ask about how serious Greenspan is about job loss when balanced against millions of human deaths that will result from climate change. I suppose these people will die "off the books".
Actually, I that it's probably too late to do anything significant about climate change, partly due to decades of "cost-benefit" analysis by conservatives. Where, in Greenspan's world, do we account for such things parks, clean air, clean water, safe food, and world peace. Plainly these are all costs with benefits that are hard to measure yet of central importance to real human beings. Believers in Ayn Rand's philosophy would simply say folks need to look after these things themselves. Nobody should be forced to pay for anything. But this plainly runs against human nature. People the world over and in all times have appreciated assets held in common, along with the cost of maintaining and protecting these assets.
We see Greenspan floundering on this issue when he deals with the medical expenses of the aging population. The concept of health as a right - recognized in all the Western World except for the US - doesn't come up. He is obsessed with "entitlements" - the conservative name for "rights." Through tortured logic, he comes to the conclusion that the most amazing economy that has ever existed on Earth (guess which one) cannot afford to look after the health needs of its own citizens. The idea that society is better off if its citizens are healthy seems to slip by him. This is because health, per se, has no monetary value.
Issues like this block Greenspan's from imagining a very different world, where it is no longer necessary for most people to work at all. In such a world (perhaps possible), the "commons" would be vastly expanded along with "rights" to things Americans are used to pay for, such as health care and a modest income. In this, we see his doctrinaire assumption that "productivity" (his darling measure of goodness) need not be tied to "labor" or even (gasp) "profit." Why (the Marxist might ask), must the benefits of all improvements in efficiency in producing "stuff" accrue to the owners of the means of production? This is the core tenet of capitalism, usually referred to as "property rights" by Greenspan. Is any other system possible? In fact, other "systems" are all around us. We can all enjoy public parks, "owned" by all of us. Of course, we all actually do pay for these resources in one way or another. But to Greenspan, every example of this payment is a cost, deducted from GDP and a drag on "growth."
Of course, there are severe objections to having everything in common - most commonly referred to by Greenspan as "central control of the economy." Plainly some kind of compromise is needed. This compromise is not to be found in Greenspan's writings.
Comments
Post a Comment