Debate Challenge: Economic growth should be #1 priority

Who is brave enough to disagree?

---

Let it be resolved: Promoting long-term widely-shared economic growth should be the #1 priority of government.

Speaking in favor of the motion: Michael Magoon.

Speaking against the motion: TBD (is this you?)

Let me get right to the point, as this is a very easy motion to support. Long-term widely-shared economic growth has so many positive effects and so few negative effects that it should clearly be every government’s #1 priority.

1. Economic growth directly benefits all employed persons and members of their household.

2. Economic growth is not zero-sum.

3. Economic growth generates revenue for every government program.

4. Economic growth empowers individuals to solve their own problems.

5. Economic growth enables people to think about more than their own self-interest.

6. Economic growth does far more to help the working class and poor than government redistribution.

7. Economic growth promotes political stability.

8. Economic growth promotes peace.

9. Economic growth provides funds that can be used to protect and rewild natural habitats.

10. Economic growth provides funding for national defense.

11. Economic growth provides increased funding for technological innovation and entrepreneurship.

12. Economic growth provides funds for nonprofits.

13. Economic growth provides export markets for developing nations.

14. Economic growth builds resilience against natural and man-made disasters.

If anyone wants to provide greater support for any of the above claims, I am happy to provide more details in the comments.

Undermining Potential Counter-arguments

1. Though some consequences of economic growth do hurt the natural environment, most do not.

2. While economic growth helps the rich, it helps the working-class and poor even more.

3. While economic growth helps rich nations get richer, it helps developing nations even more.

4. Though economic growth can sometimes undermine traditional values, economic stagnation will undermine them even more.

What does this mean in practice?

It is one thing to say that long-term widely shared economic growth should be the #1 goal of government, but what does this mean in practice?

I am open to rival interpretations, but I believe that it means:

• Elected officials should spend 50% of their time on legislation that promotes long-term widely shared economic growth.

• Every potential policy action should be assessed on whether it undermines the #1 goal and by how much. There should be the political equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath:

  “First do no harm to long-term economic growth.”

• Given our nation’s deplorable fiscal situation, the focus should be on rolling back government programs, spending, and regulations that undermine long-term economic growth. Implementing new government programs that require additional funding should be of a lower priority.

• Every bill, regulation, and executive order should be assessed for its potential impact on long-term economic growth.

• We should have some kind of standard that says something like, if you pass legislation that undermines long-term economic growth, you must within the same bill pass legislation that has at least double the positive effects as the original legislation’s negative effects.

• The same as above goes for regulations and executive orders.

So who is brave enough to come forward with a rational argument against the motion?

You can also read and respond to my other challenges.

As usual, the rules for Commenting are as follows:

1. Read the entire post first.
   Given that my opinions are unorthodox, do not assume that you understand my point of view from the headlines or skimming the article.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Be respectful and open to learning. I will do the same.