Economics is the tool, but the tool should not replace the goal. The psychological/sociological aspects must play an important role,

When globalization makes jobs disappear, it leads to disaffection with globalization. That’s a law of nature that has to be reckoned with, and unless it’s addressed, it will lead to a backlach rash of bad laws. Globalization can not bury the common good if it’s to be weathered.

When a pension fund ends up in the garbage of a business bankrupcy, but the CEO walks away with millions, that breaks the concept of the common good. The result is distrust of all business and warring societal classes.

When the market justifies what is clearly not perceived aa being in the interests of the common good, the bond that holds a nation together is broken.
How to repair that link is a big headache of a problem. The first step, at any rate, is to bring the necessity for the link out into the sunshine of recognition.

So, welcome back, ommon good.

The problem with “common good” is that it begs definition, and in particular there is a bit of a Barnum effect. One might think something like an extra lane on the freeway might be common good – but it may require houses to moved or destroyed, so even if it increases the economic pie, some people are worse off.

There are, however, several more precise definitions of “common good” that are not so vague that are worth thinking about.

According to the latest neuroscience research, there *is* data to suggest that caring about others is hardwired – even seeing an image of a sad or worried face for a fraction of the time of an eyeblink can make us less upbeat, and less willing to take investment risks. (here) Moreover, envy seems to be somewhat hardwired as well. Thus for people on both sides of the inequality divide, too much inequality reduces their satisfaction.

A second definition is to look at inequality versus macroeconomic growth. It’s been awhile, but as I recall, the more broad-based economic growth is, the more sustainable and stronger it is. I.e. if a small elite getting rich is associated with lower overall economic growth rates than a large number of people getting somewhat richer, all other things being equal.

A third situation is the tragedy of the commons, where short-term individual gains may lead to long term societal collapse.

Finally, still another interesting example is social insurance schemes – retirement insurance and health care to name a couple.

If you are planning for your retirement, one key factor is how long you live. The problem is that you don’t know that with certainty. Suppose there are just two cases, in a world with no social safety net.
1. You live 20 more years with 90 percent probability.
2. You live 40 more years with 10 percent probability.

Unless you want to starve to death, you pretty much have to save for the 40 year case. The problem is that over a whole society, that would mean everyone would have to save twice as much as they need to 90 percent of the time. Obviously if you can pool your risk with enough other people (without them short changing you) than everyone can save enough for 22 extra years, a much more efficient outcome.

In other words, there are situations where you can achieve better outcomes than acting individually. That is not to say they must be government run schemes – they could be some sort of clever cooperative.

If you think that the Democratic Party does not want to bring busing back, you should look at John Edwards campaign homepage or look at how Kozol is invited to speak at every progressive meeting. Many core groups of the Democratic Party are trying to find a way to bus in the last of the middle class white kids into the inner city.

Also, the idea of reparations have not died but will get a new emphasis as the Republican Party fades. Look at how all of the Democratic groups supported social engineering in the Seattle and Louisville school systems.

the idea that the government will conduct environmental policy for the common good is laughable. The current NEPA system does not allow for the consideration of economic costs. Nimbyism will just redefine itself as Commom Good to protect elite whites (See wind generations in New England).

Also, I doubt that the elite in this country will give up their healthcare at the Mayo Clinic or Sloan-Kettering for the Common Good.

I wish it could be otherwise. Wishing won’t make it so, however.

The elite can implement the same concept as Common good by demonstrating leadership. When they move out of their mansions and put their children in public schools, then I will be convinced that they really care about the public and the common good.

When the elite in this country own multiple homes including mansions, fly in private jets, and send their children to elite, all white private schools, and employ private security then the rest of us can see how little they care about the common good.

No, it is not. There are such things as our nation, our society, our fellow citizens and the common good as it applies to them. We should not and cannot afford to be so limited as to think only of ourselves and those few that we come into close contact with in a nation of over 300 million individuals. If you expect a philosophy of the free market being adequate for all purposes and needs to appeal to those who the unfettered markets are letting down on a daily basis you are mistaken.

Special interest groups will begin to call spending on them as being good for the common good while cutting others as also part of the common good.

Once again, the era of big government is back with a vengeance with the white middle class getting the worst of the screwing from it.