After having read your article , I would conclude that there is a delicate balance to be struck (if it can be struck) between 1) meeting our daily subsistence needs, so we do not revolt as a consequence of economic deprivation on the one hand and 2) once those needs have been met, navigating "moral issues that come into view once the specter of scarcity melts away" on the other, as you state in your article. Both can lead to societal dissatisfaction, unrest and stress. Would you agree? Also, what does this say about how the human brain works? Are we inclined to occupy ourselves with new problems rather than enjoying what we have?
Relating to the third 'flaw' in Keynes's argument: I believe that even when basic economic needs have been met, people may still experience a feeling of scarcity and politicians can frame "others" as posing a threat to our welfare. One example is the "immigrants taking people's jobs" argument, which I believe combines the issue of identity with a fear of not being able to meet one's economic needs (by having a job). It has proved to work as an effective argument for politicians in times of economic difficulty (1930s), but it even seems to work well for certain politicians in current times of relative prosperity. So while I do agree that 'moral issues' other than economic ones may grow in importance once economic needs have been met, economic uncertainty can still play an important role as well, even if only perceived. And this could lead to people experiencing more stress than necessary. At the same time, people do actually face economic challenges even in rich countries, as you also recognise. The 'cost-of-living crisis' has been high on the political agenda in the past years and to a large extent for good reason I believe.
Yes, historically, the greatest social unrest has happened when daily subsistence needs are thwarted. When gas prices shot up after the start of the Ukraine war, many leaders feared revolt--which is why energy costs were quickly subsidized in many European countries even by right-wing governments. I think your intuition about the brain is right. An efficient brain attends to things that are not in line with our goals or expectations; the rest becomes unconscious habit. This is however not a special feature of the brain, but makes sense for any control system, like a thermostat only jumping into action when the temperature drops below a set point. Your last point, then, illustrates the possibility that our collective set points have become increasingly demanding (we might say 'entitled') even in the absence of great deprivation. Scarcity is in the eye of the beholder. The interesting thing is that there are times when moral issues supersede the economic ones. During the second world war, for instance, US income and profit taxes were very high and food was scarce. But people understood this temporary economic scarcity served a greater moral good. Another example of the moral-economic tradeoff.
After having read your article , I would conclude that there is a delicate balance to be struck (if it can be struck) between 1) meeting our daily subsistence needs, so we do not revolt as a consequence of economic deprivation on the one hand and 2) once those needs have been met, navigating "moral issues that come into view once the specter of scarcity melts away" on the other, as you state in your article. Both can lead to societal dissatisfaction, unrest and stress. Would you agree? Also, what does this say about how the human brain works? Are we inclined to occupy ourselves with new problems rather than enjoying what we have?
Relating to the third 'flaw' in Keynes's argument: I believe that even when basic economic needs have been met, people may still experience a feeling of scarcity and politicians can frame "others" as posing a threat to our welfare. One example is the "immigrants taking people's jobs" argument, which I believe combines the issue of identity with a fear of not being able to meet one's economic needs (by having a job). It has proved to work as an effective argument for politicians in times of economic difficulty (1930s), but it even seems to work well for certain politicians in current times of relative prosperity. So while I do agree that 'moral issues' other than economic ones may grow in importance once economic needs have been met, economic uncertainty can still play an important role as well, even if only perceived. And this could lead to people experiencing more stress than necessary. At the same time, people do actually face economic challenges even in rich countries, as you also recognise. The 'cost-of-living crisis' has been high on the political agenda in the past years and to a large extent for good reason I believe.
(All views expressed are my own)
Yes, historically, the greatest social unrest has happened when daily subsistence needs are thwarted. When gas prices shot up after the start of the Ukraine war, many leaders feared revolt--which is why energy costs were quickly subsidized in many European countries even by right-wing governments. I think your intuition about the brain is right. An efficient brain attends to things that are not in line with our goals or expectations; the rest becomes unconscious habit. This is however not a special feature of the brain, but makes sense for any control system, like a thermostat only jumping into action when the temperature drops below a set point. Your last point, then, illustrates the possibility that our collective set points have become increasingly demanding (we might say 'entitled') even in the absence of great deprivation. Scarcity is in the eye of the beholder. The interesting thing is that there are times when moral issues supersede the economic ones. During the second world war, for instance, US income and profit taxes were very high and food was scarce. But people understood this temporary economic scarcity served a greater moral good. Another example of the moral-economic tradeoff.