(7/14) A day before I left Spain this year I stumbled upon an article in a magazine
titled “El Estado del Bienestar”, or, in English, The State of Social Well Being.
It was written by a Spanish economist who shall go unnamed here because it
could have been written by countless conservative thinking economists who’ve
been postulating the work of fiction they refer to as socio-economic theory. His
assertions could almost be considered clichés by now, so repetitively and predictably
enunciated as they’ve become. As is often the case, this conservative
economist made his pitch in a dialect of beautifully written intellectual jargon
that can intimidate and impose its will on laymen reading such prattle. This layman
is not intimidated. El Estado del Bienestar is just another way to describe a
capitalist system with a social safety net of public services that have become the
signature of a modern, post WWII nation-state. The extent to which this network
of public services should exist or not exist has become the fulcrum of conservative-
liberal debate and affiliation. The Spanish economist whose article led to this
essay is obviously a conservative who wants to shrink this sphere of publically
funded social services, if not eliminate them altogether. Although he eventually
attacks The State of Social Well Being as a negative force in the emotional formation
of the citizenry (we’ll get to that later), he devotes about 2/3 of his article
trying to convince us we cannot afford this form of capitalism anymore, that it is
unsustainable, we’ve been living beyond our means, etc. and hidy ho, you’ve
heard this all before, right? The Spanish economist in question here makes his
claims based upon the deficits the government has been running up in trying to
maintain this social safety net. I do not doubt his numerical facts, but in framing
the problem in such a narrow way he is failing to take into account the amount of
wealth created in the socio-economic system as a whole. If we were to add this
wealth up, put it in one place, and decide how to divvy it out, you cannot convince
me there is not enough money to fund El Estado del Bienestar. Now, before
the professional economists and financiers begin to snicker at my naivety, I must
explain I make this claim with the complete awareness that the distribution
mechanisms of the system’s wealth creation machine, cannot compromise the
incentives to get wealthy, even mega-wealthy. With this in mind, I still say the
system creates enough wealth to both support the social safety net and encourage
investment in wealth creation. Obviously, the wreckage left by the Crash of
2008 has put a great deal of stress on the financial obligations of the whole socio-
economic system. And yet, in spite of the fact that business practices at the
very top of the private sector --- that is, amongst the spheres of influence with the
most hegemony over what happens to the rest of us --- pretty much destroyed
the system’s ability to create wealth, there was enough money around in the
public sector to cover their asses and make them whole again. In other words,
there was enough of everyone else’s money to put them back in business. We are
not talking about millions of dollar-euros, or billions of dollar-euros, or hundreds
of billions of dollar-euros, we are talking about trillions of dollar-euros, numerically
written like this: $X,000,000,000,000. This quantity, which somehow found its
way into (and out of) the public coffers, represents only a small part of the wealth
created by the socio-economic system we live in. Just imagine, if you will, that
this financial debacle had never happened; that the titans of industry and the
lords of finance were not the reckless, greedy, even criminal swine they turned
out to be; that they were the prudent, shrewd, creative investors and entrepreneurs
their wealth supposedly represented for us “little people”; that the economy,
due to their good judgment and business acumen, was creating the wealth it
should be and none of these bailouts had been necessary. Just imagine that.
Now just imagine what other useful things these trillions of dollar-euros could
have been used for. But that is not nearly the whole story. If the wealth creation
mechanisms of our economic system had not been so blatantly destroyed by our
aforementioned titans of industry and lords of finance --- whom, I’d bet, our
Spanish economist renders an almost religious kind of cult to --- there would be
what the economists call “full employment”. People would be working, earning
money, paying taxes on that money, spending that money, creating profits for
those ambitious enough to be in business, providing more tax revenue, etc., etc.,
and K-ching! And this is where I always get back to stating something our mainstream
media sources --- who, basically, work as the public relations sector for the
neo-liberal capitalism they make their money from --- would like us to forget: this
economic crisis and the shortfalls it has created, was not caused by the expense
of the social safety net. It was caused by private sector malfeasance. So don’t
come to me with this conservative mantra that we cannot afford El Estado del
Bienestar. Once our Spanish economist had tried to convince us these social
services are beyond the reach of our economic system’s pecuniary possibilities,
he turned to more esoteric objections. He claims that El Estado del Bienestar
“has created a society that has gone to sleep and expects everything to be taken
care of by someone else, which implies a weakening of society itself. (---) For too
long now we’ve been thinking the State will resolve all our social and financial
problems. This concept has ripped to shreds the culture of effort and individual
liberty. (---) In my opinion, this has brutalized our human dignity ---“ This is the
latest version of Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” accusations, and it is as misleading
now as it was then. The first time I came to Spain, now more than 45 years
ago, it was a quasi-third world country where people from more accommodated,
contemporary nations came for cheap “peseta” style vacations. In spite of the
general nature of its impoverishment, Spain’s picturesque obsolescence provided
smiley tourist photos for the cameras they wore like neck ties in a place where
animals were still used for transport and agrarian labor. “Oh look honey, a mule!”
Ah yes, sunny Spain, poor but soulful in its flamenco-gypsy passion, a great place
to visit and enjoy with the fair haired superiority complex of someone from a
more advanced, richer place. This was Franco’s Spain, and it was the antithesis of
The State of Social Well Being. If anyone ever wanted to find a nation that had
fallen asleep, that Spain of my first encounters was it. When Franco finally succumbed
to the mortality many people were beginning to doubt in him, Spain
began its transition to what we loosely call democracy. Spain, the Rip Van Winkle
of Europe, finally began to wake up. But it wasn’t until 1982, with the election of
Felipe Gonzalez and his center-left party, that the Spaniards began their journey
into the developed world. The catalyst for this journey was precisely the creation
of El Estado del Bienestar, which was instituted then. Contrary to our Spanish
economist’s claims, rather than dull the nation’s aptitudes, it invigorated them. It
not only distributed wealth in a more reasonable manner, it created more wealth.
It provided for more social mobility and is the primary reason why Spain is now a
full fledged member of the developed world with a higher standard of living than
it has ever had before. If these accomplishments are now being undermined, it is
not because of El Estado del Bienestar, but because of the gross mismanagement
of the private sector. The idea that the social safety net makes people apathetic
and lazy finds no empirical evidence anywhere. Nobody has ever accused
the Scandinavians or Finns of being loafing moochers overly dependent on government
hand outs, and the accomplishments of their private sectors --- accomplishments
that far outweigh the smallish populations they represent in the world
--- back this up. I remind the reader these Nordic nations are the oldest, most
devoted practitioners of the State of Social Well Being. Does anyone question
the “human dignity” of these people? Quite the contrary, the way in which thesetitled “El Estado del Bienestar”, or, in English, The State of Social Well Being.
It was written by a Spanish economist who shall go unnamed here because it
could have been written by countless conservative thinking economists who’ve
been postulating the work of fiction they refer to as socio-economic theory. His
assertions could almost be considered clichés by now, so repetitively and predictably
enunciated as they’ve become. As is often the case, this conservative
economist made his pitch in a dialect of beautifully written intellectual jargon
that can intimidate and impose its will on laymen reading such prattle. This layman
is not intimidated. El Estado del Bienestar is just another way to describe a
capitalist system with a social safety net of public services that have become the
signature of a modern, post WWII nation-state. The extent to which this network
of public services should exist or not exist has become the fulcrum of conservative-
liberal debate and affiliation. The Spanish economist whose article led to this
essay is obviously a conservative who wants to shrink this sphere of publically
funded social services, if not eliminate them altogether. Although he eventually
attacks The State of Social Well Being as a negative force in the emotional formation
of the citizenry (we’ll get to that later), he devotes about 2/3 of his article
trying to convince us we cannot afford this form of capitalism anymore, that it is
unsustainable, we’ve been living beyond our means, etc. and hidy ho, you’ve
heard this all before, right? The Spanish economist in question here makes his
claims based upon the deficits the government has been running up in trying to
maintain this social safety net. I do not doubt his numerical facts, but in framing
the problem in such a narrow way he is failing to take into account the amount of
wealth created in the socio-economic system as a whole. If we were to add this
wealth up, put it in one place, and decide how to divvy it out, you cannot convince
me there is not enough money to fund El Estado del Bienestar. Now, before
the professional economists and financiers begin to snicker at my naivety, I must
explain I make this claim with the complete awareness that the distribution
mechanisms of the system’s wealth creation machine, cannot compromise the
incentives to get wealthy, even mega-wealthy. With this in mind, I still say the
system creates enough wealth to both support the social safety net and encourage
investment in wealth creation. Obviously, the wreckage left by the Crash of
2008 has put a great deal of stress on the financial obligations of the whole socio-
economic system. And yet, in spite of the fact that business practices at the
very top of the private sector --- that is, amongst the spheres of influence with the
most hegemony over what happens to the rest of us --- pretty much destroyed
the system’s ability to create wealth, there was enough money around in the
public sector to cover their asses and make them whole again. In other words,
there was enough of everyone else’s money to put them back in business. We are
not talking about millions of dollar-euros, or billions of dollar-euros, or hundreds
of billions of dollar-euros, we are talking about trillions of dollar-euros, numerically
written like this: $X,000,000,000,000. This quantity, which somehow found its
way into (and out of) the public coffers, represents only a small part of the wealth
created by the socio-economic system we live in. Just imagine, if you will, that
this financial debacle had never happened; that the titans of industry and the
lords of finance were not the reckless, greedy, even criminal swine they turned
out to be; that they were the prudent, shrewd, creative investors and entrepreneurs
their wealth supposedly represented for us “little people”; that the economy,
due to their good judgment and business acumen, was creating the wealth it
should be and none of these bailouts had been necessary. Just imagine that.
Now just imagine what other useful things these trillions of dollar-euros could
have been used for. But that is not nearly the whole story. If the wealth creation
mechanisms of our economic system had not been so blatantly destroyed by our
aforementioned titans of industry and lords of finance --- whom, I’d bet, our
Spanish economist renders an almost religious kind of cult to --- there would be
what the economists call “full employment”. People would be working, earning
money, paying taxes on that money, spending that money, creating profits for
those ambitious enough to be in business, providing more tax revenue, etc., etc.,
and K-ching! And this is where I always get back to stating something our mainstream
media sources --- who, basically, work as the public relations sector for the
neo-liberal capitalism they make their money from --- would like us to forget: this
economic crisis and the shortfalls it has created, was not caused by the expense
of the social safety net. It was caused by private sector malfeasance. So don’t
come to me with this conservative mantra that we cannot afford El Estado del
Bienestar. Once our Spanish economist had tried to convince us these social
services are beyond the reach of our economic system’s pecuniary possibilities,
he turned to more esoteric objections. He claims that El Estado del Bienestar
“has created a society that has gone to sleep and expects everything to be taken
care of by someone else, which implies a weakening of society itself. (---) For too
long now we’ve been thinking the State will resolve all our social and financial
problems. This concept has ripped to shreds the culture of effort and individual
liberty. (---) In my opinion, this has brutalized our human dignity ---“ This is the
latest version of Ronald Reagan’s “welfare queen” accusations, and it is as misleading
now as it was then. The first time I came to Spain, now more than 45 years
ago, it was a quasi-third world country where people from more accommodated,
contemporary nations came for cheap “peseta” style vacations. In spite of the
general nature of its impoverishment, Spain’s picturesque obsolescence provided
smiley tourist photos for the cameras they wore like neck ties in a place where
animals were still used for transport and agrarian labor. “Oh look honey, a mule!”
Ah yes, sunny Spain, poor but soulful in its flamenco-gypsy passion, a great place
to visit and enjoy with the fair haired superiority complex of someone from a
more advanced, richer place. This was Franco’s Spain, and it was the antithesis of
The State of Social Well Being. If anyone ever wanted to find a nation that had
fallen asleep, that Spain of my first encounters was it. When Franco finally succumbed
to the mortality many people were beginning to doubt in him, Spain
began its transition to what we loosely call democracy. Spain, the Rip Van Winkle
of Europe, finally began to wake up. But it wasn’t until 1982, with the election of
Felipe Gonzalez and his center-left party, that the Spaniards began their journey
into the developed world. The catalyst for this journey was precisely the creation
of El Estado del Bienestar, which was instituted then. Contrary to our Spanish
economist’s claims, rather than dull the nation’s aptitudes, it invigorated them. It
not only distributed wealth in a more reasonable manner, it created more wealth.
It provided for more social mobility and is the primary reason why Spain is now a
full fledged member of the developed world with a higher standard of living than
it has ever had before. If these accomplishments are now being undermined, it is
not because of El Estado del Bienestar, but because of the gross mismanagement
of the private sector. The idea that the social safety net makes people apathetic
and lazy finds no empirical evidence anywhere. Nobody has ever accused
the Scandinavians or Finns of being loafing moochers overly dependent on government
hand outs, and the accomplishments of their private sectors --- accomplishments
that far outweigh the smallish populations they represent in the world
--- back this up. I remind the reader these Nordic nations are the oldest, most
devoted practitioners of the State of Social Well Being. Does anyone question
countries manage their wealth has universally enhanced their dignity. Perhaps
the greatest myth propagated by conservative pundits like our Spanish economist,
is the extent to which these social services permeate the lives of the citizens.
Does the State of Social Well Being actually try to “resolve all our social and financial problems”? Just what exactly does the State of Social Well Being provide?
Although the “social safety net” can be an over bloated octopus whose
mechanisms always need to be scrutinized and pruned, its true purpose is to be
an emergency stop gap for those left in a precarious situation, in spite of their
honest efforts, by the market system. Depending on each country’s particular
brand of empathy, it can peripherally delve into some form of food relief or housing
aid and other accoutrements of minimal human dignity. However --- in its
most basic, distilled form, it does not provide a job, it does not provide food, it
does not provide clothing, it does not provide a roof to live under, nor a car to
drive, or a free subway ride, a vacation with a swimming pool, a ticket to see Real
Madrid, nor anything that could be described as “la dolce vita” those who’ve
done better in our competitive system have procured. To suggest, as our Spanish
economist does, that someone born into El Estado del Bienestar is simply handed
the good life (or any life really) without having to get out and compete in it, is
not reality based. First and foremost, the State of Social Well Being provides
medical attention, something we all earn not as competitors in our socio-economic
system, but as human beings. Our Spanish economist believes “that each
citizen should be responsible for the purchase of their own medical insurance”,
an idea that not only shows he has lost his concept of “humane” behavior, but
also shows he has never lived in the medical reality of the only developed nation
in the world that has adhered to such a market driven solution, the United States
of America. As an American, I’d probably burst out laughing at the suggestion of
such a “solution”, if the wreckage left by its practice were not so sad. The social
safety net is also vigorous in its quest to provide pensions and dignified retirement
possibilities for its elderly citizens. But the government does not simply
hand out money for free. It takes control of a certain percentage of the wealth
everyone helps to create so that its existence can be assured for those who are
no longer able to work or have earned the right not to. I agree, this can be considered
somewhat “paternalistic”, but it is a small price to pay in rectifying the
irresponsibility human nature has been known to show when it comes to deferred
gratifi cation. In addition, it is probably a cheaper way to deal with this than to
have to help unproductive older people to survive later on. El Estado del Bienestar,
as I’ve said before in these essays, is the reason why capitalism has continued
to thrive and exist. Our Spanish economist, and others of his ilk, should be
careful for what they wish for. If it is done away with, it won’t be long before some
form of popular unrest would begin to challenge the kind of capitalism left in its
wake.
Jerome Grapel
Phone: (305) 766-9576 • Email: postcman@hotmail.com • www.postcman.info
“IF YOU LIKED THIS ARTICLE, YOU SHOULD READ THIS BOOK”
“A collection of Mr. Grapel’s essays have been published by Absolutely Amazing eBooks and can be purchased on Amazon or through the publisher.”
