This past Sunday on Fareed Zarkia’s GPS on CNN, Hillary Clinton said something that I found striking. Indeed, it sounds similar to Rawls. This is what she said roughly: There must be, what we would call a safety net, in society: things like health care and social security making the citizens secure so that they can spend.
Interesting. The point of capitalism is to make sure that the people spend money. If the citizens don’t spend money, the economy falters. What’s interesting about Clinton’s argument is that she’s saying that the best way for people to spend is to make sure that the citizens are first and foremost, secure. For her, this means some sort of safety net. So if people aren’t healthy or do not have some sort of social security, they’re not going to spend. Rather, it seems implicit that without some health care or social security, people will save the majority of their income, thus it won’t get circulated in the economy. I wanted to see what everyone thought of this argument. Like I said before, it sounds Rawlsian. Note again about my comment policy.