Friday 22 June 2012

Neither austerity nor growth are the answer

There's currently a significant disagreement between governments and political parties about the alternative policies of austerity and growth - and there is a great deal of discussion about this in the media.

Those who say we should maintain austerity measures make a sensible point when they say that the cure for a big debt is not more debt; we must learn to live within our means. But those who promote growth also make sensible points in saying that there is no point having large sections of the population unemployed, which is both costly and unproductive; we should be encouraging growth so that people are earning, paying taxes and in that way we can all pay down our debts.

I've already written about debt (see: We're still in denial about debt). But I think both the austerity and growth arguments are fundamentally wrong; they are both built on a delusion.

Both models assume that the measure of progress is financial, that the way forward involves getting back to 'business as usual' and depends on reinvigorating the consumerist and materialist society with which we are all familiar. The disagreement is merely over the best way to get to that goal. But it's the wrong goal!

If a system is flawed, don't try to reinstate it! And it is flawed. It is built on the belief that we just need to better control the financial systems. But the Bible - and painful experience - have shown us that when you worship money and greed, they inevitably control you! Money is a very harsh god indeed:

  • it promises security, but actually robs people of security
  • it sets one person against another, causing scheming and deceit
  • it will never bring peace, fulfilment, happiness or contentment
  • it breaks up families and communities in the pursuit of the individual
  • and it keeps the majority of the population in poverty, exploited for the benefit of the few.

We definitely don't need to get back to 'business as usual'. Moreover, it isn't a matter of making minor changes to the existing system - the very nature of the beast is built on a devilish lie; it is inherently unstable and definitely unsustainable.

But we have an unusual opportunity at present. When all is apparently going along 'like normal', then no one will contemplate or countenance changing course. But at present, it is abundantly clear that all is not well and a change can be considered, in fact it has to be considered!

I recognise that we cannot create a 'Christian society' simply through political change (see my blog on 'Why do we expect non-Christians to behave as if they were'). For that, a change of heart is required which is only possible through submission to Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. However, that is not to say that Christians cannot be 'salt and light', working for political change which is in line with the Bible.

We need policies that:
  • put families and community at the heart of policy; this has implications for tax, housing and working time policies ...
  • encourage local initiatives and local trading; this has implications for planning, food and transport policies ...
  • respect careers such as teaching and nursing over roles such as investment banking, and 'being a celebrity'; this will be reflected in the values seen across government policy and where time, resources and respect are allocated ...
  • create work, leisure and housing opportunities for the young; this has implications for apprenticeships, affordable housing, recreation and retirement policies ...
  • work to diminish pay differentials, say to 10 : 1 (i.e. top earners are paid no more than 10 times the lowest paid workers); this has implications for tax policy, pay and grading, and regulation of top salaries ...
  • look to long-term security and stability, not short-term financial or political gain; this has implications for cooperation between political parties on matters which require long-term planning ...
  • value good stewardship of natural resources rather than reckless exploitation of the world's dwindling reserves; this has implications for energy policy and would discourage the 'throw-away' society.

We would end up materially poorer, but how much infinitely richer!

No comments:

Post a Comment