unemployment sanctions? (juicy enough to demand your attention for 580 words?)

Sam, I have to say I’m a bit disappointed that you feared I might not defend Galbraith. On that note, on to further defense.

I have to second Sam’s feelings that Rick and Jonathan might be giving Galbraith short shrift. The most important point which I took from his production discussions was that there truly is a hierarchy in the usefulness of production. If one accepts the idea of decreasing marginal utility, it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to accept the idea the production itself might have a decreasing marginal utility. This explains comments like, “The effect of increasing affluence is to minimize the importance of economic goals.”(134) Thus one could acknowledge that goods are indeed always going to be good but this increased good may just be incremental.

In general, I thought Galbraith really touched on an underlying fear/thought I’ve had over the past few years. Our society seems to be entirely fixated on growth. This thought has created the part of conventional wisdom that claims, “Any action which increases production from given resources is good and implicitly important; anything which inhibits or reduces output is, pro tanto, wrong.” (130) Such an attitude ignores the fact that there are positives (lets not get confused with goods) to social, communal and personal welfare which are not produced. In fact, many such positives might be negatively impacted by greater production. As a result, there is the possibility that after marginal utility of production has dropped low enough, increased production might not be implicitly important. Whether due to conventional wisdom’s inability to recognize that later production may be of lesser value to society than immediate needs or the complexities of externalities shrouding the total costs to society, we still find ourselves in a society which demands growth to settle our animal spirits.

This demand for constant production and growth has resulted in highly distorted situations which highlight the twisted necessity for new demand. Once again, I revert to readings for my International Politics of Food and Agriculture readings. This week descriptions of the dust bowl showed some of the development of farm subsidy programs. Accounts are detailed of government programs which would buy cattle only to have government marksmen shoot them; of crops being burned off to raise total prices. Currently subsidies have raised crop production to levels much higher than the market demand. Thus, the excess is shipped to other countries in the form of food aid. The libertarian economist may argue that such government intrusion distorts the system and is thus an invalid example. However, one must consider that our eternal search for reasons to produce, for sources of growth and for new markets may lay at the root of such government programs.

Whenever such thoughts have occurred to me, the nagging problem which came up was the need for the employment which production provides. Although many would gladly forgo the landscaping and housekeeping our school spends some of our tuition on, the liberal mind becomes troubled when one considers the lost jobs which would result from the termination of these services. It is for this reason that I think Galbraith’s discussion of unemployment insurance is incredibly interesting. If it is acceptable to society to pay owners of agricultural land (such as Scottie Pippin) not to produce in order to promote soil conservation, why are present attitudes so averse to government sanctions of selective unemployment? (Government created sabbaticals?) Hopefully lots to talk about tomorrow. . .