I think that's true, Alistair. A moral and wise society has some obligation to lift up the least, with or without making value judgements about the source of their poverty. A bit of socialism ensures stability; without it, the economy swiftly becomes a race to the top for those few already standing at the pinnacle, and a race to the bottom for everyone else. We don't really need a reminder of what became of the one who said "Let them eat cake" or the events of a century ago in the Czar's courts, do we?skirtyscot wrote:That Zucman link shows that even the second-richest half percent have been flat lining. Only the top half % are getting richer. Remarkable.
Meanwhile here in the UK the government has decided to jack the minimum wage up substantially. Later this year it will go up from £6.70 to £7.20, and they have said it will reach £9 before the next election (spring 2020). The cynical view is that the govt are trying to cut the cost of benefits paid to low-paid workers. But it's still not what you'd expect from a Conservative govt, given that it's their supporters who will foot the bill.
But total socialism too has proven its own weakness and failures. I also believe, as do conservatives, that the best way to lift people is through work rather than welfare. It teaches and builds values and builds a sense of self worth - but only if there are fruits to that labor.
History has proven that trusting laissez faire economics to provide a meaningful boost to those on the bottom rung of the ladder is a fallacy. In the world today human labor is the most abundant and the cheapest economic resource. Without a society willing to declare that there is a meaningful bottom line to the worth of work, then the trend that must be anticipated is that wages continue to decline and poverty increases. The very laws of economics coupled with the endless supply of human poverty should make that obvious. Adam Smith and Ayn Rand would see labor as just another resource for exploitation, like a commodity. It is common human morality, however, that makes us care for our brother., and simple wisdom that reminds us of what the alternative to some measure of social stewardship has wrought in the not so distant past. That ultimately includes both institutionalized and effective slavery.
Unfortunately the first rule of American conservatism seems to be: The only history that matters is that which we choose to revise and exalt. The second rule is: The world only exists in binary form; black and white; good and bad; no complexities, no shades of grey; there are only square pegs and square holes to fit them.
And that's why I get so quickly irritated with the far right. It must be an easy POV to center one's life around, but a sad one nevertheless. Perhaps I should hold my tongue, but I see no merit in indulging voluntary ignorance.
