The reader who asked the question about ambition commented “In high tax countries you will find very few poor people but you will also find very few rich people, and lower growth overall.”
Is lower growth such a bad thing? One assumes that the resources of the planet are finite and that God is not out there busily creating new iron and rare earth deposits. We are now searching for oil and gas in the pristine Arctic. The Chinese are gobbling up the raw materials of Africa at a frightening pace. Can this go on?
One could argue that moderation is the key – let talented people do well, but at a modest pace that looks after the less fortunate. But we in the West are not likely to have the say-so in future. Other parts of the world now demand a share of the prosperity we have enjoyed for so long, one billion Chinese to start with. I personally doubt the sustainability of a capitalist system that demands constant growth. Maybe it’s the best system we have out of a poor bunch, but the cost to the planet is scary. It will work less and less well as time goes on. The neo-liberals are delusional.
The OECD, some years ago, was reported to be working on a huge plastic dome. Under this dome a select few who could afford it and who knew the “right” people, could live when global climate change has made the planet unliveable and the underlings (or “losers”) are fighting for food, water and survival. How far they have progressed with this project is not known to me, and in any case it will be top secret.
Despite the enormous social problems, it must have been exciting to live in America during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, because of the thrillingly high growth rates and expansion of civilisation that took place at the time. The same applies to China today, high growth rates make people optimistic about the future. So sure, the European countries have good social welfare states. But their economies are stagnant. If you are old (as an increasing number of Europeans are), than this isn’t so bad. But if you are young, and the future of your country looks ordinary at best, then actually low growth is frustrating, as the chances of you vastly exceeding your parents’ standard of living is slim. More importantly, low growth economies are distinctly boring. I would rather live in unequal but growing and exciting London than equal and eco-friendly but stagnant rural continental Europe.
I agree with you about the unsustainable way we are using the planet’s resources. But I don’t think having higher growth rates would necessarily come at the expense of the environment. If you invest in nuclear power, hydroelectricity, or other zero-carbon forms of energy production, then I think we can have our cake and eat it. I believe you underestimate the detrimental effects of perpetually low growth on the working class. Manufacturing, construction and heavy industry would be in terminal decline, only to be replaced by more eco-friendly but less blue-collar sectors like banking and office work. One of the reasons I no longer support the Green Party is their belief in a zero growth economy. This is a stupid idea perpetuated by out of touch middle class intellectuals who would not the effected by such a ruinous policy. The British working class reject the Green Party in favour of those who actually want growth, such as Labour or UKIP.