Marc My Words… 20 April 2007
Political comment
By
Marc Alexander
('Policy change needed to end growing inequality of wealth' The Christchurch Press - 16 April, 2007)
I enjoy opinion pieces. My mornings are never complete until I feel challenged by a perceptive outlook on an issue of note. Sadly, I am often forced to read much lamentable drivel in the local rag. But occasionally I read a column of such monumental tripe that I must question the direction of human evolution. Such a column disgraced my table this week. It was entitled "Policy change needed to end growing inequality of wealth" and was scribed by the perpetually remonstrating apogee of the ideological loony left, John Minto. Is it just me, or does he need a prescription? Anyway for better or worse this is my response.
Socialism is slavery with a designer label
To some, the idea that a number of people get rich while others (usually themselves) do not seems obscene. It is often argued by people who hold such opinions that no society that prides itself on being egalitarian should ever allow a disproportionate distribution of wealth - never mind what the distribution of effort might have been to create it. The appeal to some kind of deeper humanitarian prerogative to share and share alike is always couched in the language of fairness and social justice but is nevertheless, always accompanied by the threat to remove that wealth at whatever level is deemed to be justified. It’s a perspective that is rarely challenged in the media. Partly I suspect, because to do so invites claims of greediness and a mean spiritedness to those who are alleged to have accumulated more than is deemed sufficient for a decent lifestyle.
Besides…the number of presumptions usually presented is commensurate with the level of economic jealousy. To argue, as columnist John Minto did, that "many of the wealthy don't work at all", or that if they do, it was no harder than say, a waitress (his example) simply panders to the vanities of those who feel cheated by their financial position. It shifts the burden off self appraisal and finds a culprit in a system that supposedly favors those more materially successful. The elegance of the argument is that if you succeed its only because you must have been triumphant in taking advantage of the loopholes. It therefore follows that the wealth so amassed must have been derived dishonestly and, in turn, justifies its removal and distribution to those whom it must therefore rightfully belong.
In his article Minto begins with an incitement to outrage over the 'fact' that the richest 10% of New Zealanders now own 52% of the nation's wealth. He goes on to say that "most of us feel uneasy when we read statistics like this."
Well I don't feel uneasy at all. I'm not sure what those 10% of kiwis did to accrue such wealth but I feel quite confident they didn't achieve it by spending their days watching Coronation Street re-runs, languishing around the inner city getting jacked up on party pills and spending quality time drinking their livers into the Guinness book of records.
I'm equally convinced they are the main providers of jobs - a consequence of which is that a huge number of families can now afford to put food on the table, shoes on their kid's feet, and provide a future. The group Minto identifies as having too much have also sacrificed much to get there. Long hours largely unpaid, these people have mostly worked hard to save, risk, and invest in their dreams of a better life. Many have put family life on hold as they devote their energies to get ahead. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not out to paint them as a bunch of martyrs struggling to help society. They are making a choice to shape their lives as they see fit. In fact, no differently than the vast majority of people who want a different life; one that puts the immediacy of other life goals in preference to long-term material gains. We all have choices in life, albeit some less restricted than others, but we each have the capacity to forgo today's pleasures to put aside for the possibility of a greater one in the future. What we should not do is criticize the abundance of others because they made better choices than we were able to make.
Individuals with wallet envy like Minto don't see any of this because their power derives from indulging the easy emotion of resentment by those for whom work is a necessary evil to be engaged with minimal enthusiasm. That is why he can come up with ridiculous statements such as, "no-one becomes a millionaire by their own work" rather than seeing the more obvious 'no-one becomes a millionaire without providing a product or service (or employment opportunities) that the public has not placed a sufficient value on so that they would choose to purchase it'.
Minto persists in the Marxist economic perspective that all profit must be the consequence of paying workers less than the value they create. Aha…exploitation! What he conveniently chooses not to notice is that the value of labour, like everything else, is subject to the market forces. The reason why cardiac specialists are paid what they are is because the monetary reward is in proportion to their scarcity. The education, skill and experience required to be such a medical practitioner notwithstanding, if their availability were multiplied by a hundred, their ability to attract such payments would surely diminish.
The alternative applications of work to meet the needs of society are solved by the constantly changing inter-relationships of costs, prices, and profits. A house may still have utility as a house but if no-one wants it, in a sense it has no value. Similarly we don't see too many blacksmiths these days. Their work, no doubt, would be hard, long and strenuous but since no-one is keen to engage their services, they effectively have no value - (though the more enterprising might try their hand at artworks and find a receptive paying market).
The sheer volume of Minto's assertions against the economically successful would be almost funny if it weren't so pathetic. Not once in his diatribe did he consider, (in keeping to the a medical theme), that hundreds if not thousands of kiwis are alive and well because 'evil' companies satisfied a therapeutic demand in order to accrue profits to be distributed to the shareholders. And if you similarly want to enjoy the benefits of shares, well then…nothing prevents you from purchasing them.
Instead of berating the basis of our wealth because some did better out of it than others, it would perhaps be a fair question to ask Mr. Minto what has he ever done to increase the prosperity of our country? How many jobs has he created? What products or services has he brought us that have improved anyone's life? Apart from ranting against those who do provide us with all of the above, what has he done?
And that, I'm afraid, is the point. Capitalism has outlived the short, brutal, and terrible reign of the soviet system. It has raised living standards for more people than any other alternative we know of. The fact that some will use their ingenuity, creativity, and effort to have more than most doesn't cause me any discomfort whatsoever. Because in order to achieve their success, my world is generally better. So I'll do the precise opposite of Mr. Minto. I'll thank them instead.
Political comment
By
Marc Alexander
('Policy change needed to end growing inequality of wealth' The Christchurch Press - 16 April, 2007)
I enjoy opinion pieces. My mornings are never complete until I feel challenged by a perceptive outlook on an issue of note. Sadly, I am often forced to read much lamentable drivel in the local rag. But occasionally I read a column of such monumental tripe that I must question the direction of human evolution. Such a column disgraced my table this week. It was entitled "Policy change needed to end growing inequality of wealth" and was scribed by the perpetually remonstrating apogee of the ideological loony left, John Minto. Is it just me, or does he need a prescription? Anyway for better or worse this is my response.
Socialism is slavery with a designer label
To some, the idea that a number of people get rich while others (usually themselves) do not seems obscene. It is often argued by people who hold such opinions that no society that prides itself on being egalitarian should ever allow a disproportionate distribution of wealth - never mind what the distribution of effort might have been to create it. The appeal to some kind of deeper humanitarian prerogative to share and share alike is always couched in the language of fairness and social justice but is nevertheless, always accompanied by the threat to remove that wealth at whatever level is deemed to be justified. It’s a perspective that is rarely challenged in the media. Partly I suspect, because to do so invites claims of greediness and a mean spiritedness to those who are alleged to have accumulated more than is deemed sufficient for a decent lifestyle.
Besides…the number of presumptions usually presented is commensurate with the level of economic jealousy. To argue, as columnist John Minto did, that "many of the wealthy don't work at all", or that if they do, it was no harder than say, a waitress (his example) simply panders to the vanities of those who feel cheated by their financial position. It shifts the burden off self appraisal and finds a culprit in a system that supposedly favors those more materially successful. The elegance of the argument is that if you succeed its only because you must have been triumphant in taking advantage of the loopholes. It therefore follows that the wealth so amassed must have been derived dishonestly and, in turn, justifies its removal and distribution to those whom it must therefore rightfully belong.
In his article Minto begins with an incitement to outrage over the 'fact' that the richest 10% of New Zealanders now own 52% of the nation's wealth. He goes on to say that "most of us feel uneasy when we read statistics like this."
Well I don't feel uneasy at all. I'm not sure what those 10% of kiwis did to accrue such wealth but I feel quite confident they didn't achieve it by spending their days watching Coronation Street re-runs, languishing around the inner city getting jacked up on party pills and spending quality time drinking their livers into the Guinness book of records.
I'm equally convinced they are the main providers of jobs - a consequence of which is that a huge number of families can now afford to put food on the table, shoes on their kid's feet, and provide a future. The group Minto identifies as having too much have also sacrificed much to get there. Long hours largely unpaid, these people have mostly worked hard to save, risk, and invest in their dreams of a better life. Many have put family life on hold as they devote their energies to get ahead. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not out to paint them as a bunch of martyrs struggling to help society. They are making a choice to shape their lives as they see fit. In fact, no differently than the vast majority of people who want a different life; one that puts the immediacy of other life goals in preference to long-term material gains. We all have choices in life, albeit some less restricted than others, but we each have the capacity to forgo today's pleasures to put aside for the possibility of a greater one in the future. What we should not do is criticize the abundance of others because they made better choices than we were able to make.
Individuals with wallet envy like Minto don't see any of this because their power derives from indulging the easy emotion of resentment by those for whom work is a necessary evil to be engaged with minimal enthusiasm. That is why he can come up with ridiculous statements such as, "no-one becomes a millionaire by their own work" rather than seeing the more obvious 'no-one becomes a millionaire without providing a product or service (or employment opportunities) that the public has not placed a sufficient value on so that they would choose to purchase it'.
Minto persists in the Marxist economic perspective that all profit must be the consequence of paying workers less than the value they create. Aha…exploitation! What he conveniently chooses not to notice is that the value of labour, like everything else, is subject to the market forces. The reason why cardiac specialists are paid what they are is because the monetary reward is in proportion to their scarcity. The education, skill and experience required to be such a medical practitioner notwithstanding, if their availability were multiplied by a hundred, their ability to attract such payments would surely diminish.
The alternative applications of work to meet the needs of society are solved by the constantly changing inter-relationships of costs, prices, and profits. A house may still have utility as a house but if no-one wants it, in a sense it has no value. Similarly we don't see too many blacksmiths these days. Their work, no doubt, would be hard, long and strenuous but since no-one is keen to engage their services, they effectively have no value - (though the more enterprising might try their hand at artworks and find a receptive paying market).
The sheer volume of Minto's assertions against the economically successful would be almost funny if it weren't so pathetic. Not once in his diatribe did he consider, (in keeping to the a medical theme), that hundreds if not thousands of kiwis are alive and well because 'evil' companies satisfied a therapeutic demand in order to accrue profits to be distributed to the shareholders. And if you similarly want to enjoy the benefits of shares, well then…nothing prevents you from purchasing them.
Instead of berating the basis of our wealth because some did better out of it than others, it would perhaps be a fair question to ask Mr. Minto what has he ever done to increase the prosperity of our country? How many jobs has he created? What products or services has he brought us that have improved anyone's life? Apart from ranting against those who do provide us with all of the above, what has he done?
And that, I'm afraid, is the point. Capitalism has outlived the short, brutal, and terrible reign of the soviet system. It has raised living standards for more people than any other alternative we know of. The fact that some will use their ingenuity, creativity, and effort to have more than most doesn't cause me any discomfort whatsoever. Because in order to achieve their success, my world is generally better. So I'll do the precise opposite of Mr. Minto. I'll thank them instead.
