In My Opinion
In Praise of Uneven Wealth Distribution
This feature presents the opinions and views of Motley Fool readers as posted on our discussion boards. Posts selected for this feature are likely part of an ongoing conversation. To fully enjoy the whole conversation, click into the discussion board linked at the end of this article.
By AOLFoolman
January 16, 2002
[Editor's Big Honkin' Note: The following is a pretty provocative opinion from one of the hotbeds in Fooldom, the Political Asylum discussion board. As editors, we feel compelled to go beyond the usual "the opinions expressed here are not necessarily ours" yada yada. As we discussed this in the office, it was clear that many people in Fool HQ do not feel the same way AOLFoolman does here. But, that's what makes the world go 'round and we support AOLFoolman's right to speak his mind. We also invite everyone, including Fool staffers, to share their comments on the discussion board.]
U.S. Distribution of Wealth, 1998
Top 1 percentile of population possesses 38% of wealth
95-99..... 21%
90-95..... 12%
80-90..... 13%
60-80..... 12%
40-60..... 5%
0-40..... 0.2%
I think that I've really had enough of this. It is absolutely appalling to me that the smart, successful, rich and innovative, wealth creators, are as lambasted as they are in a free and capitalistic society such as ours in the United States of America, while the unsuccessful, poor, unfortunate, lazy and dumb get a free pass and are undeservedly pedestaled with the moral high ground.
Here's the problem with these numbers and charts above when viewed blindly without economic and progressive context.
Liberals, in general, have a peculiar, thickheaded, and an almost obsessive tendency to see and point out wealth disparities, that is, they decry and focus like a laser beam on "large" gaps in wealth concentrations between the highest and lowest of the socioeconomic strata. Rarely do they point out aggregate progress that we all enjoy. The richest of Kings 500-1000 years ago had very little of what the poor has today. They had no Internet, modern medicine, air travel, vaccines, mechanized vehicles, advanced composites... or even roach spray. We are all a quantum leap above the past in material progress from modernization.
Again, rather than focusing on collective, long-term progress, liberals, in general, like to pettily point out differences. Fundamentally it is the annoyingly indelible "Bourgeois vs. Proletariat" (haves vs. have nots) construct of the Communist Karl Marx that continues to haunt them. By inference or by direct accusation, somehow, the successful and/or the achievers are "responsible" for such differences, that they in some way "rob" the poor to greedily build their castles of gold. They possess this hallucinatory notion that there is a fixed amount of wealth lying around like a large pile of cash in an empty landfill to be dived into, physically fought over, shoveled up and hoarded. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is generally the rich, successful and productive who generate and create wealth that everyone enjoys.
It is the productive, rich, and successful who economically build this nation. They are the business owners (who create jobs, products, wealth, the rising stock market, etc), the entrepreneurs, the inventors, the movers and shakers that drive economic, scientific and technological progress. They are the money, brains, effort and the innovative drive behind the progress of civilization. They build the semiconductors, computers, automobiles, airplanes, bridges, cell phones, pharmaceutical drugs, defense weapons, Nintendo Game Boys, X-Box, and the like. They are the people who most of us, in theory, really aspire to in our economic lives. Yet partially or mostly because of the forever lingering human emotion of envy, they are socially attacked and fiscally confiscated (taxes) for their laudable efforts. Remember, the top 5% in income pay 50% of the taxes while the bottom 50% pay 5% of the taxes. Yeah, chew on that for a while.
One very obvious and incredibly ironic phenomenon that I see is that the economically unsuccessful are rarely ever socially chastised for it. However, when we got low marks while young in school because of the absence of effort, we are scolded for not trying harder. But somehow, once we become older and enter the "real world," the prevailing voice is that the system is rigged against us. Failure is "society's fault." Personal and individual accountability for your effort and success somehow vaporizes into thin air. Rarely is a thorough, invasive, honest evaluation ever conducted as to why one is not more successful. The high school dropout or even the college dropout, who is laid off, is never grilled by a television reporter outside of the auto plant as he leaves with his last paycheck. He/she is never asked by the reporter in front of the camera, "Well, I guess because you were lazy and dropped out of high school, you had it coming," or "You know, no one is stopping you from frugally saving your money, finding a market for a product, and starting your own business."
No, it is invariably the successful, the upper level management or owners (with a complex set of economic equations to deal with) who are ridiculously morally questioned for their layoffs and difficult business decisions.
Strangely in some way, the large wealth disparity only comforts me. It confirms the fact that our nation, despite its frequent ventures into partial socialism, is still largely Capitalistic, that is, it still practices and respects economic freedom.
In nature, many phenomenons are distributed along a normal curve (bell curve). Whether the subject is physical looks, athletic ability, height, weight, intelligence, personality, or effort, there exists a distribution from the very high to the very low, with the extremes being rare and the normal and average being very common.
As long as the wealth distribution described above in the beginning of the post stays in tact, it only confirms reality and nature for me. It also confirms that capitalism is alive and well, that any intrusions into freedom by social engineering and redistributing the wealth is still largely unsuccessful, and that for the most part, those who economically deserve the wealth in the free market place still have it.
Good for them.
[If you'd like to share your reactions to this post, you can do it by clicking here.]
RSS Headlines
Fool UK
