3 ms·

> The unspoken assumption in this theory is that growth is good. What about peace and love? Isn't that good too? Does one preclude the other? Generally, econom

> The unspoken assumption in this theory is that growth is good. What about peace and love? Isn't that good too? Does one preclude the other? Generally, economic resources are necessary, but not sufficient, for happiness. We still need growth because we do not yet generate enough resources either worldwide or in the U.S., to meet people's needs. If you question whether that's true about the U.S., consider health care; we can't afford to provide all that people need. > I wonder what Orwell would have thought about this. I'm not sure what Orwell has to do with it. Have I been trolled?

pjmorris 12y ago
> 'consider health care; we can't afford to provide all that people need.' I beg to differ. I argue that the US can afford to provide all that is needed, but chooses not to do so. As a fraction of GDP, no one spends more than the US on healthcare; many developed nations spend half. [1] For this spending, we get roughly the same outcomes, more medical innovation, higher profits from running health care operations, and millions of people with poor access to health care. We've chosen profits over people. I could judge the choice, but I'm only here to point out that it is a choice, not some fundamental lack of resources. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_heal...