Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Values Question...What Choice Would You Make???

A most excellent opinion piece today in the New York Times by David Brooks.  It makes no judgements about the merits or demerits of healthcare reform but it's inevitable impact on the future of the US economy/society.  I especially like his use of a basic economic concept we learn in class the first day---Trade-offs that result in opportunity costs.  This paragraph strikes me as illustrative of this important concept:
"Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security..."

What choice would you make?

2 comments:

  1. What I don't like is giving citizens more ways to be dissatisfied with their government. I don't think it's so simple as vitality vs. security, for both have overlapping features. But I don't think it's a matter of a choice. We don't know how we'll value government provisions vs. the free-market alternatives 50 years from now. Not only does the economic climate change, but also the social and political ones. "Future growth" may be seen as growth not only in GDP, but possibly in happiness or wellness too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. True Mario, we dont know what the future holds. I think what Brooks is saying is that we KNOW with "aggresive" capitalism we produce significant innovations and technological advances that give us the MANY creature comforts we have today but what we dont know is if we harness that by diverting productive resource to govt/social welfare programs that it is going to come at the cost of innovations and technological advances. If all along (post WWII) we had "European-style" government can you honestly say we would have a Silicon Valley, the internet, MRI machines, longer life expectancies, an incedible Food supply, etc, etc, etc? Are we better off with those things or would we have never missed them if the private sector were smaller, "less vibrant" and society more "secure"...I think Brooks is saying that politicians on both sides are not considering the opportunity costs of the healhcare bill as introduced by the Senate. Those that want secuity have to realize that they are bequething less progress (most likely a lower standard of living) and unknown innovations, and those that want more vitality have to realize that they do so at the expense of present human needs and social equality...Can we strike a balance?? I hope you can tell me...:) Thanks for the response!!!

    ReplyDelete

View My Stats