“He would rather the poor were poorer, provided the rich were less rich.”
That’s former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, throwing down in one of those ass-kicking Q&O sessions the British Parliament likes to do.
Dan writes:
While it’s inspiring to watch Thatcher in action, it’s also painful to realize that the current crop of GOP presidential candidates seems generally incapable of making similar arguments. Can you imagine, for instance, Mitt Romney making these remarks?
Last but not least, Thatcher’s remarks remind me about Churchill’s famous quote, which is very appropriate for this discussion.
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
And if you want real-world examples, look at this chart comparing North Korea and South Korea, or this chart comparing Chile, Argentina, and Venezuela. Now ask yourself a simple question: Which societies have generated more prosperity and higher living standards for ordinary people?
Is it unfair that some have so much more than others? Sometimes, yes. But policies which restrict the tremendous growth of wealth also restrict the growth of wealth for others, even when top-tier growth rates seem offensive in their sheer magnitude and stratospheric distance from the rest of us. They restrict us. You. Me.
I’ll be the last one to claim that there’s no corruption among the rich. There’s corruption in the other economic classes too, of course, but the poor and middle class don’t get in on that incestuous relationship between Big Government and Big Business like the rich do. That’s one Big Target the Tea Parties share with the Occupiers.
But if your solution is to restrict wealth creation, to whom do you turn for those restrictions? Big Government. And if Big Government is already scratching backs with Big Business…well, you’ve just given Big Business incentive to scratch even harder.
Was that really the outcome you were looking for?
Comments are closed.