Secure Society

   Politics and economics are often a poor mix. Some say we should not try to mix the two at all. But in the real world they interact every day.
   Historically, the academic study of what people do with what's available was known as political economics when considering a large community -- city, state, or nation, based on the Greek term polis, (many), and on a family level it was called home economics.
   Those of a certain age may remember that girls in secondary school studied home economics (cooking, sewing, etc.), while boys took shop classes (carpentry, auto repair, machine shop). Also, at that time, only girls were allowed to learn how to use a typewriter, on the assumption that they would become secretaries to the boys who would be company executives.
   Those days are long gone. The advent of computers meant knowing how to use a keyboard was essential, so boys learned that. It would still be many years, however, before women attained equal status as computer programmers.
   Are we there yet?
   Women have made great strides in business, economics and politics, even as many claim that, too, is a poor mix. Realists, however, insist they can and do mix, and any problems that arise are because of a clash of ideas and principles.
   At one time -- the 19th Century -- before the study of economics became a widespread academic discipline, business leaders maintained that just as women had no role in company management, government likewise had no role in managing a national or even a regional economy, and government should stay out and  things would find their own way to prosperity.
   Some still hold to that guideline. Or, to use the French phrase popular at the time, it was laissez faire economics (let it work alone).
   That changed, however, when it because obvious that government was a major component in any nation's activity, and to ignore it was silly. Moreover, when the private sector hit a snag, government could step in to help.
   To them, government spending -- even when it outpaced tax revenue -- was an essential tool for economic recovery. Later, when the private sector was doing well again, government should step back and get out of the way -- to stop competing for access to resources.
   Even in good times, then, realist economists measure government spending as part of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), the total value of all goods and services produced in a nation.
   To insist, as some still do, that government has no role in helping to guide an economy through difficult times, is not only unrealistic, it is blind to reality. Government does indeed have a role in an economy, so the issue is really this: How much of a role is appropriate?
   Complete absence, as in laissez faire (leave it alone) economics, is disastrous, as has been shown numerous times in American history. Complete government control, the other extreme, also doesn't work and too often leads to a dictatorship. This extreme has also been documented several times in world history.
  Somewhere in the middle, then, would be the safest and most practical place to be -- somewhere between pure capitalism and pure socialism, neither of which succeed in the real world.
   The current American election season presents voters with a choice of approaches to an appropriate role of government in the national economy.
   Much as conservatives might deny it, moreover, the role of government in promoting social welfare has been expanding steadily since the Great Depression of the 1930s. At that time, there was no such thing as government assistance for those out of work, who lost their source of income through no fault of their own.
   There also was no government-run pension system for retired workers whose employers did not offer pensions. Coincidentally, one of the reasons to encourage retirement at age 65 was to make jobs available for young workers. Moreover, the average life span of many American workers was only about 70, which helped to minimize government responsibility. In addition, there was no government-run program to help the sick whose employers did not provide health insurance and did not pay enough for workers to buy their own.
   All these were the start of government  activity to help provide security to every member of society. That's why it's called Social Security.
   So if the private sector cannot or will not cooperate to help build a healthy, secure society, it falls to the people themselves, through their elected government, to do so.
   In America recently, all three segments of society, have been cooperating to secure the health and well being of all. And unless a demagogue succeeds in radicalizing the economy and the government in either direction, society will be secure.