The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Third Way: Can a healthy economy be an economy for health? > Comments

The Third Way: Can a healthy economy be an economy for health? : Comments

By Brian Mackenzie, published 24/2/2005

Brian MacKenzie argues that an economically egalitarian society is a healthy one.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
Competition certainly means that there are winners and losers but it also means that people strive to do their best. In so doing new and better outcomes in all areas of human endeavour result. The standard of living, including health, for ALL members of the community is raised. This has been the achievement of Capitalism, despite the restrictions and distortions placed upon it by governments of all persuasions.
You want "...equal sharing". How? Through the barrel of a gun? I propose that no other method is available.
Posted by RobertG, Monday, 28 February 2005 2:20:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian's outline of an economy for health is a good one. But there is a critical distinction to be made between these values and relationships at the inter-personal and community level (where smallness in scale is required for these things to operate and be effective), and the liberalism required for healthy economies at the level of state policy. This has has always been a problem for the Left side of politics, which tends to think that the state can run a society and economy on co-operative lines. It can't.

The value of the Third Way debate has been its introduction of the idea that you can have a pro-market pro-liberal regimes at the level of state policy, and simultaneously have an orientation towards co-operation and mutuality at sub-state levels (communities, association, families). It is not an either or, as Brian ends up suggesting. It is both/and.

Vern Hughes
http://www.peoplepower.org.au
Posted by Vern Hughes, Monday, 28 February 2005 4:08:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The argument is slightly different than "an economically egalitarian society is a healthy one"; it says that the even wealth distribution is a necessary - but not sufficient - condition for a healthy society. The argument isn't ideologcal - although it clearly has the capacity to be constructed as such - but is based on solid evidence about the impact of inequality on health status (see, e.g. http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/65b8566b2ac3a9684c2569660079de90/$FILE/SIHch8.pdf). Put simply, our experience of health is related to the degree to which we experience control over our lives, and wealth distribution has the greatest impact on that experience. This shows up in disease statistics. For example, given that around 96% of lung cancer is caused by tobacco smoking, you would expect that all smokers have an even chance of contracting lung cancer. The evidence shows, though, that poor smokers have higher rates of lung cancer than rich smokers. A consequence of creating a healthy economy as we currently understand it is that the healthier it becomes, the more people - poor people - will die prematurely.
Posted by Brianm, Thursday, 3 March 2005 7:04:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy