Socialism or Socialy Concious Capitalism

Twentieth-century British economist John Maynard Keynes proposed a theory in the hopes of finding a balance between interference and non-interference in the free market system. Oftentimes governments talk about helping small and big business cope with economic downturn. More often than not however households are left to whether economic recessions on their own, while business are helped by the government. The average citizen is left to worry about their own household expenses. They are left to figure out how they are going to pay for their children’s school expenses, healthcare and keeping them young engaged in constructive after school activities. Governments should, rather than focusing investment on business, channel their investment towards households.

Governments usually try to keep away from spending on public programs opting rather to privatise. Governments are usually kinder to businesses than households in that they are more prone to provide subsidies and tax breaks to businesses instead of households. During recessionary times in order to increase output or stimulate their economies governments may inject moneys into the economy. The phrase “Stimulus package” simply means that governments are injecting monies into their economies in the hopes of getting it to grow faster and bigger. Businesses are the ones that usually receive the help, but these funds should be channelled towards providing health care, government sponsored education and robust youth programs.

Providing health care for citizens would mean that citizens would have to be taxed to receive it. There can also be partnerships between the public and private sectors to provide health care to citizens. Business can pay some of the premiums for their workers, the government can subsidises some and the worker will pays the rest. Such policies would ultimately benefit both the public and the private sector because having a healthy society means a healthy work force, one that is stable and productive. While providing public health care to every citizen may require a considerable amount of investment and expertise and is a long term goal, government will ultimately reaps the long-lasting rewards that comes with having a healthy society.

Guarantying education for citizens, up to the level of college or university is a policy that would be a wise investment for a government. A system that provides government guaranteed students’ loans would benefit the society. An educated society is a step towards ensuring sustainable development. The funds invested in educating the citizens of a society would be recouped. Through international banking graduates can repay their loans from any country. And apart from the monetary benefit that will be received, the country will also gain, when their citizens acquire skills and expertise from a more developed country.

Youth programs are especially important because programs that invest in the youth helps to develop adults that contribute to society. Instead of spending monies on treating addictions, incarcerations, juvenile detentions, homelessness, vagrancy, alcoholism, obesity and such problems, it is better to prevent them. It is more efficient, effective and ultimately more beneficial for governments to spend tax payers’ money on programs that help households shape upstanding productive citizens. Or it can be spent on rehabilitation programs. Governments should invest in sports, the arts and entertainment. In general invest heavily in programs that will keep youth gainfully occupied.

Rather than spending monies on households through social programs, most government policies direct government spending towards helping business. During recessions many businesses, private companies and certain industries may be helped out to avoid failure. You would expect that they would pass on the same generosity to households, but the usually do not. This is what happened with some banks in America after getting monies from the government. They took the monies, saved themselves from bankruptcy and did not pass on any financial relief to the American home owner.

Governments find it difficult to justify spending on social programs but if they are willing to spend to ensure business and commercial establishments’ thrive, they should be willing to spend to ensure that households survive. Business and civil society derive their human resources from households, the labour force and the tax payers are the young people of today. The next generation of entrepreneurs, all come from households. Investments that are made to ensure that society generates healthy and productive citizens generate exponentially better returns than spending monies on fixing the problems.

Oftentimes governments talk about helping small and big business cope with economic downturns and more often than not households are left to whether these same economic recessions on their own. There should be more spending on social programs, especially those aimed at preventing future social ills. Spending on education, addiction prevention, health care, housing, and youth programs are prudent investments by governments. Investing in the citizens today will reduce the prospects that governments will ultimately have to pay more tomorrow. One can either prevent negative consequences or deal with them after they have occurred.