…and the Left:
Just like the apparatchiks of the socialist regimes, the wealthy — including those who most yell about the injustices of income inequality — take very expensive vacations. They don’t opt for a day trip close to home or stay at a Holiday Inn a few days near a crowded public beach. Nor do they decide to give what they planned to spend on a luxury trip to the poor, so they could all have a vacation instead of staying at home the week or two they are off from work.
We know that these folks are hypocritical, and hope that no one will call them on their personal behavior. When they say that all their goals could be covered by higher taxes on the rich, they probably also realize that even if they raised the tax rate phenomenally for the truly wealthy, the amount they would raise would not cover any of the expenses for all the programs they support. Eventually, the category of “rich” will be lowered to those who earn, let’s say, $150,000 yearly in a big city, in which living expenses are so high and mortgages and rents also outrageously so. Such an income for a family of four puts one squarely in the mid ranges of the middle class.
They still believe that if inequality exists, redistributing the wealth is the only way to address the question. It reminds me of a cartoon I saw decades ago in The New Yorker, in which a king announces to the crowd that he wants an educated populace, so he’s awarding every subject a Ph.D. What the socialists who seek to make policy want is the equivalent: create equality by essentially making everyone more poor, so no one will have enough to go around.
Like equating “health care” with health insurance, leftists like to equate fighting poverty with erasing income inequality, because no one would argue that we shouldn’t fight poverty, while worrying about income inequality allows them to indulge in one of their favorite sins: envy.
But the two things are not the same. One can eliminate poverty (which in many ways we in fact have in America, as measured by the traditional definition (no or poor shelter, limited access to food and clothing and basic necessities) and still have income inequality. In fact, in America the “poor” have cell phones and fancy sneakers, and as others have noted, we are the first society in human history to have poor people who are obese. So curing poverty does not, in itself, end income inequality.
Similarly, one can eliminate income inequality by the very simple measure of impoverishing all. Which is what socialism and income redistribution tends to do, historically, for very good reasons. Well, except for the apparatchiks, who will always have theirs.
Wealth creation inherently causes inequality.
Picture a society with everyone making exactly $100,000, perfect equality. Someone with a “hot idea” that they tackle as a second job -> they’re the richest guy.
1) There was no ‘needs’ or ‘exploitation’ required at all – people willing to be part of a voluntary trade are responsible for their actions unless you’re claiming they’re non compos mentos. Or Democratics.
2) The converse is: =enforced= perfect equality is also enforced prevention of wealth creation. Zero rewards for innovation. Unless … you’re claiming significant non-monetary rewards. In which case you’re arguing for a return to barter – the whole point of money is to remove little hurdles like this.
3) ‘Wealth creation’ doesn’t mean ‘getting rich’. It means growing the pie. Yes, blasphemy to some.
4) It should also be repeatedly highlighted as being ‘beyond socialism’. It has nothing to do with people having their -needs- met, and everything to do with punishing the competent.
When my wife and I visited Vietnam in 2011, our guide said something quite interesting. This is as close to an exact quote as I can provide:
“Following Reunification in 1975, we were a socialist country. Do you know what socialism is? It’s where if I work hard and you don’t, we both get the same. So no one worked hard. About 20 years ago, the government changed the policy. If you work hard, you can earn more. Now things are much better.”
The Vietnamese government is officially communist but the people I saw were some of the most capitalistic I’ve ever seen anywhere. It seemed just about every home and building had a little shop where people bought and sold things. The markets tended to be quite small (think flea market stalls) because people liked their things fresh and wanted to haggle over prices which larger stores tend to discourage. They said that Saigon was a “city of 8 million people and 4 million motor scooters” and the place was bustling with economic activity.
The whole thing revolves around the fact that they don’t want to redistribute their income. They want to redistribute mine.
Propose a law in Congress tomorrow that would confiscate all wealth over $1 Million, from any person, Foundation, or other entity, and watch what happens to it. The Democrat Party would be screaming and running from it. They want my money, but they don’t want to have to give theirs up. Some animals are more equal than others, don’t you know?
And that’s the name of that tune.
Margaret Thacher famously said, “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
Of course, socialists make sure they never run out of their own money.
I heard this today:
“Under capitalism, the rich become powerful. Under socialism, the powerful become rich.”
I’ve traveled to 20 countries. One thing I’ve noticed is that the political class never has trouble spending vast portions of the nation’s wealth on their own comfort and entertainment. It doesn’t matter if their country is doing well or suffering, the powerful seldom feel any hardship. For example, I doubt Chairman Mao missed very many meals while millions of his countrymen died during his Great Leap Forward.
At the NewSpace conference last year, I saw some of the joy that Andrew Gasser and others representing the Tea Party In Space have to put up with.
I don’t recall who it was at the booth, but he expressed his appreciation for many of the things the TPiS was working on and congratulated them on some of the successes they were having, but he wondered if there might be a problem with the name.. “I mean, imagine if there was a group called the Communist Party In Space, would you want to work with them?” Andrew smiled, shrugged and said “we do our best to work with Socialism In Space”. Yeah, that’s an actual group.
Later that evening, with refreshments in hand, I was to meet one of the organizers of the Socialism In Space group, and another of the activists. The leader was petting her dog, a pretty little Shih-Tzu of some description, and the activist was tearing Andrew a new one. He wasn’t responding at all, and seeing me, took the opportunity to move to the side of the room I was on to get away from her, but as people continued piling in, we all inevitably got pushed back together and the ranting started up again.
I won’t bore you with the details, but after everyone was thoroughly tired of it all and had finally shut up, a stranger who knew Miss Socialism With A Dog comes over and asks what we’re all talking about. Eyes were rolled. She asks “Tom, what would you rather be in this conversation, one of the socialists or one of the capitalists?” Tom wasn’t happy with either choice, preferring to have a conversation that was, ya know, about space I expect, but resigning himself to talking about politics he asked most innocently, “I don’t know, how long do I have to be a socialist for?”
So I just said it: Until you run out of other people’s money! and Andrew and I headed back to the bar.
“Following Reunification in 1975, we were a socialist country. Do you know what socialism is? It’s where if I work hard and you don’t, we both get the same. So no one worked hard. About 20 years ago, the government changed the policy. If you work hard, you can earn more. Now things are much better.”
Had the Vietnamese read just a little American History – just a very little – they would have seen that the very same socialism experiment was attempted at Plymouth Colony. i.e. everyone got the same no matter how hard they worked. Result: only some worked hard and they all nearly starved to death.
The moment they switched from sociaism to earning what you get, the colony prospered.
It’s been demonstrated hundreds of times in History and Vietnam is one of the latest demonstrations.
And yet the love of the idealized result of socialism never wanes among the pony tailed, bespeckled, bow-tied, birkenstocked bum kissers. Their mantra?
THIS time we’ll do it right.
As to Jefferson101’s comment about the dems not wanting to give theirs up…..yesterday on my way to work I was behind a giant SUV with bumper stickers all over..”Obama/Biden”…..Elizabeth Warren….”War is terrorism”……but the very best sticker on this giant expensive SUV was:
“I am a 99%’er”