I think that apocalyptic concerns about the relationship between wars and economic downturns are slightly exagerrated, but I want to take the relationship between war and economics in a slightly different direction.
There have been a lot of comparisons and critiques thereof of our current economic situation and the great depression of the 1930's. Likewise, there have been a lot of comparisons and critiques thereof of the way out of the economic doldrums, with some suggesting that it was government spending in the shape of the new deal that lead the way out of the dirty thirties, while others suggest that it was in fact the industrializing and expenditures associated with the second world war which were responsible (these are, admittedly, very general statements).
I wonder if the debate on whether it was social spending or war that brought us out of the doldrums is really the most important one to be having, or whether more attention should be paid to the increase in bottom line government budgets which took place in the 1930-40's and what seems to be the next step forward in increasing the size of government budgets. I'd like to see some more discussion in Canadian dialogue as to whether or not we are comfortable increasing the amount of money (and it's our money after all) being spent by the state as an institution. And, let me be clear, I am not necessarily making a libertarian argument, nor a partisan one. After all, the Conservative government in Canada has proven to be the biggest spender in Canadian history.
For explicit discussion: do we feel comfortable with what seems to be a giant step up in state expenditures? What does that mean for us as citizens, for our communities that are not the state? Does it strengthen them, or weaken them? Is it just? Winston Churchill was uncomfortable with it as war loomed, and then progressed. Then it became normal. Is the discomfort many of us are feeling about such massive government expenditures about to become the new normal?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Financial Wars
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good piece. I think you're right; and, of course, once you start spending the money, it's awfully tough to cut it.
What are the long term implications for individual and civil responsibility and democratic institutions? I'm not sure they're good.
The thing that I wonder about is whether such spending is the answer. Jim Skillen pointed out in a recent Root and Branch article that much of our problems lie in unjust systems and until we deal with those systems all our spending will do little. Alongside that idea is a recent conversation I heard that it was not spending, but monetary reform and regulation that brought us out of the depression. Such reform doesn't turn things around quickly, but it does give stability over the long haul.
With Adunare I too worry about other spheres being overrun by the government sphere. Will such spending make us consumers of the government rather than consumers in the marketplace? But one does think that perhaps if we are consumers of government there's at least a chance that we might get better parks and roads and electrical grids rather than a new pair of 100.00 dollar jeans. I am all for the former and not so much longing for the latter.
Of course major reform in international finance came after World War II, in the form of the Bretton Woods institutions which utterly collapsed in the 70's. There is no question that these institutions are tired, and need to be revisioned - even the WTO, whose infamous impotence is suggestive of the long, painful process of instituting a stable GATT entity.
There is no question in my mind, therefore, that Skillen is on the mark. But how do we proximately move toward fiscal reform? Some of the most creative ideas I've seen do come from economists like Joseph Stiglitz and it would be wonderful to sit down as Christian policy/economics people and pursue firm agendas from such worthy "grist for the mill."
Post a Comment