Death: A Post-Keynesian Analysis
by S. Cosburn Mortimer,
research director of the Bankers' Alliance for Responsible Freedom
June 7, 2006
John Maynard Keynes famously observed, when commenting on long-term economic projections and models, that "in the long run, we are all dead." The pessimism and proud short-sightedness of this statement are two reasons why contemporary economic thinkers have rejected Keynesian economics.
Similarly, Benjamin Franklin observed that nothing is certain except death and taxes. Well, we're getting rid of taxes. It's time to go to work on death!
Why, in the long run, are we all dead? Contemporary economists would point out that the economic system encourages death.
First of all, death is popularly believed to be an end to troubles. This belief is clearly one of the baleful effects of the decline of religion. People no longer believe that the sins they commit will be punished in the afterlife – they no longer believe that death is likely to be a step downward into an eternity of torment in hell, or at least into a lengthy period in purgatory.
Secondly, until recently there were so few elderly, and their life expectancies were so short, that no important social role was ever assigned to them. That is, the elderly were marginalized so that they had less to do and less incentive for remaining alive.
Thirdly, the increasing burden which public health care imposes on the public purse encourages governments to promote death to reduce health costs. While pretending to an interest in public health through anti-smoking and safety campaigns, governments actually attack the public health by continually reducing health care service and refusing to fund new treatments.
Similarly, governments balk at building new highways, so that the old ones become clogged with automobiles, the accident rate goes up, and the death rate goes up with it.
I know the skeptical will argue that life expectancy is increasing. Well, governments don't have a reputation for being highly effective. However, while their efforts have proven too feeble to reduce lifespan, they have certainly retarded its increase.
How can we counter the effects of these Keynesian policies so that in the long run we are not all dead?
First, we must bring back religion, and especially the religions of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition which leave their believers with the impression that there is a good chance that they will go to hell. If the afterlife is more frightening than one's current life, one will opt to prolong one's current life.
Secondly, the elderly must be dissuaded from retiring from their jobs, This could be accomplished in part by reducing wages so that employees are less able to put aside sufficient sums for retirement. As for pension benefits, pension funds could be made the responsibility of the banking industry, whose astute management would assure that benefits were reduced (for example, by the imposition of service charges) while management income remained the same or even increased. Current campaigns to persuade citizens that current pension levels are unsustainable will encourage them to accept reductions in benefits.
The revival of religion would also play a role in discouraging retirement. Religious figures would repeatedly remind citizens that idleness is a sin and exhort them to "work, for the night is coming when no man can work" (John 9:4).
Finally, the stranglehold of public health care could be broken and a free market system introduced in which consumers would have the opportunity to obtain better service quicker and at higher cost. Yes, at higher cost. As I have already noted, the less disposable income that citizens have, the less they will be able to withdraw from their rewarding roles as employees in prosperous corporate enterprises, and the less pretext government will have to dforce them into idleness.
We could encourage this development by transferring many soul-destroying public service jobs to the private sector. How much more engaged with their jobs public servants would be if they had to consider the possibility that they could be fired or laid off! An initial transfer of public education alone to the private sector would make work more exciting for one of the largest vocational groups in any advanced country!
There is no need to share Keynes' or Franklin's pessimism. If we take but a few simple measures based on tested principles of post-Keynesian economics we will soon be asking "Death, where is they sting?"
For more articles by S. Cosburn Mortimer, click the Comment link below. Death: A Post-Keynesian Analysis © John FitzGerald, 2006
Click the banner or click here for ACTUAL ANALYSIS
Commentary | Home