|
leonine -> Why "socialism" is good for business (and people) (1/3/2014 10:40:47 AM)
|
My wife's nephew (nephew-in-law?) and his wife have a baby with an obscure genetic glitch (a mutation, apparently, neither parent has it) that means he can't eat properly. He gets most of his food through a valve straight into his stomach. Despite having nearly starved before they found a way to feed him, he seems to be developing normally now apart from being half the size he should be.
Since they live in Sweden, I wasn't surprised at the quality of care they'd had from the state hospitals, from the prenatalists who'd seen that the pregnacy was going wrong, to the geneticists who identified the problem and the surgeons who fitted a stent on a patient the size of a child's doll. I'd have expected as much from our own NHS. But what impressed my socks off is that, now that he's coming up to the age when all Swedish children are entitled to free daycare, the local nursery has arranged a special attendant for him, and a separate room where he can be introduced to normal children two or three at a time till they get used to having to treat him carefully. There, the UK is still way behind.
The thing is, this couple are not welfare scroungers. They bought a local business that was ticking over, and are working their tails off building it up till it's employing local labour and bringing trade to the area. They're exactly the kind of enterprising capitalists that conservative theory says can't exist in a "socialist" economy like Sweden's, but who in reality are the basis of Scandinavia's prosperity. And they can go on doing what they do, creating wealth and employment, because they have that kind of safety net when a personal crisis strikes.
Without that system, they'd have had to sell everything they own trying to pay for the baby's treatment, including the business. And then they would be welfare scroungers, and the state and the local area would be poorer for it. For that, they pay taxes at rates that would make most Americans reach for a gun. But Scandinavia's economy came through the storm in good shape (due to their old-fashioned belief that factories are more useful than banks,) so they can afford it.
When I read "Atlas Shrugged" I noticed that there are no children in it, no very old people, and nobody in the least bit sick. (There aren't even any doctors, except once when the plot absolutely demands it, and he's hustled away in two paragraphs.) Rand's "root, hog, or die" philosophy only works for the young and fit: so like most economic theorists, she rewrites reality to fit the theory.
There was once a large faction in conservatism that recognised that keeping everyone healthy, and raising educated civilised kids, was good for the country and good for business, and that it was smart business to leave jobs like that to the government so that money people could concentrate on making money. Nowadays, they'd be damned as socialists.
|
|
|
|
