Monday, October 17, 2016

Income inequality

If you think about it, in a dynamic system income inequality means you can do better.  It is one thing to have a fixed aristocratic system--which is the latent myth being invoked--but another entirely to have a meritocratic system like ours where most rich are recent rich, and where in theory you can only become wealthy by creating something of value (abuse of government and law breaking are also possible; but when the system is working, neither is possible, because government is small an relatively detached from the economy, and because law breaking is punished).

In a coerced egalitarian system, there is nowhere to go.  There is no hope for better, if better is what you want, and some people clearly want that.

It seems obvious to me that what people are really hoping for, emotionally, in seeking income equality is community, is a group where they belong, which shares their values.  But that has nothing to do with money.  It is a wish they dare not even voice to themselves, because it would reveal to them their spiritual and social poverty.

It further seems obvious to me that if you can build a society with a high average standard of living where some people, if they apply themselves, can become wealthy to an almost unlimited extent, then that is the best possible system, and except to the extent we have cheaters and government abusers (and lost wealth through monetary inflation) that is what we have.

Free markets combined with property law and relatively laissez faire government have exploded human wealth to an astonishing extent.  There is no close second to this system economically for wealth building.  As I have posted before, even overt imperialism (invading a nation and taking their stuff) is inferior.

No comments: