A response from a friend to the cuts has triggered an interesting thought. There are arguments that go quite beyond the simplistic arguments for the bank balance cuts. There is a widening gap between the rich and the poor, known as the distribution of wealth, the issue of whether we should just increase the tax on people who are already affluent doesn’t even really seem to be on the table for discussion. This alone should really prompt some deep thought about the nature of the system we inhabit.
There have been alternatives to the system for as long as there has been a system and we are so entrenched in British politics, we don’t consider the theoretical alternatives and some of the modernistic alternatives. Keynesian economics, a theoretical response to neo-liberalism suggests that actually there are macroeconomic issues inherent to a capital based economic system which are too small to efficiently target and are open to corruption and waste. The suggestion being that there are key industries which require state management, to remove profitability as a driving guideline and to encourage ethical procedure.
State involvement is suggested to be required in many areas including a state bank which regulates business. This is more than evident as a requirement for so many reasons, many beyond those which are suggested by Keynesian economics. It is literally a framework that people argue consistently about the practical implications and the method of conversion to such a system. The point is, without getting too far into economics, there are alternatives that are modern, tried and tested and make a lot more sense for everyone with a practical element attached.
The classic alternative arguments that come from an ideological point of view are often met with resistance but this is because they ask for the change in its entirety automatically in many cases. This being the case, people treat the response with fear or anger at the transition period that would be required. If we consider state involvement it must be consistent however, if there are changes in the way in which a state institution is run, they spend more resources altering to fit the new regime than they do actually running a smooth and useful system. The point of a system, should be that everyone actually has at least everything they need or the system is unfair. The competition element of neo-liberalism / capitalism is not only useful for the people in the middle as a motivator and the people at the top as insurance beyond that it is tantamount to abuse.
The problems seen in American health care for instance, where corporations run university degrees in medicine, corporations sponsor entire universities and health care is tied in to only decent jobs, means by its very nature, that there are going to be people who have a right to health care as much as the next person who are just left to die because they do not have access to the most basic of healthcare because of health insurance and the marketisation of an organisation which ethically should be run by the state to ensure the primary objective of that organisation is to serve the people.