Envy
Published Fri, Nov 7 2008 12:14 PM
David over at Third World County has begun a series of posts on “first principles.” I recommend it to anyone that reads this blog. David has a solid head on his shoulders and you can bet that what he has to say will be worth the read. One of the first in his series talks about what to do with the disbursements from all of that redistributed wealth that the President elect has promised. There's some good advice in that one.
While David talks about living frugally, and investing those government welfare tax checks of money stolen from “the rich,” I'd like to talk about some of the language and ideas used by the people that justify taking money from “the rich” and giving it to “the poor.” In particular, I'd like to talk about “the growing gap between the rich and the poor.”
We are told, and I'm willing to accept it as a fact of life, that there is a growing gap between the wealth of the rich and the meager earnings of the poor. Certain people in the political classes tell us that this is a bad thing. I'd like to ask one simple question — and I know that there are some who can give me what they see as a reasonable answer, an answer that they might see as blindingly obvious — why is this a bad thing? That's it. I told you it was a simple question.
If you have an answer for that question then by all means feel free to let me know what it is. In the meantime I'll tell you what I think is wrong with that notion. The political classes like to bring up this growing gap between the “haves” and the “have–nots,” between the “rich” and the “poor” for a simple reason. It's a way to separate “us” from “them,” a way to divide us from one another. Further, it appeals to a rather base part of human nature — envy and greed. As far as I'm concerned that's a bad thing.
One interesting way that this growing “gap” is sometimes described is with the expression “the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.” Now that I don't really believe. What I believe is really the case in our society is that the rich get richer and the poor get richer, but the rich just do it a bit faster than the “poor.” In fact, America's “poor” have, in general, a better lot in life than the poor in other nations. That's why I use the scare quotes around the terms “rich” and “poor.” It emphasizes that rich and poor are simply artificial ways to distinguish two “classes” of people, again a way to divide us.
In our society we are not rigidly stratified into castes or classes. A rich person may easily become poor through bad decisions, and a poor person can (admittedly less easily) become rich by seizing upon the right opportunity and working diligently. In fact it is this possibility, this class mobility that is a part of the American dream. Emphasis on the “gap” though leads us to dissatisfaction with our lot in life and introduces class envy into our thinking — poisoning that same American dream.
Oh, it's true that there are some among the “poor” whose lot never seems to improve. There's a reason for that though, and it has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the “rich.” I'll refer you again to David's article. Living within your means and cutting out the non–essentials will usually permit you some small savings. Investing the money from the government's entitlement programs might even provide a faster way to escape “poverty.” Isn't that the stated purpose of those entitlement programs after all? To provide a way to the poor to escape their poverty?
In my years of struggle trying to get ahead, I've attended more than a few seminars purporting to tell me how to get rich. I've tried the multi-level-marketing schemes with their residual income plans. I've talked to more than a few rich people who earn millions of dollars per year in annual income. They've all generally had a few things in common in their advice: Live on a budget; Keep track of every bit of income and every expense; Stick to your budget; Work hard; Exploit your opportunities; Invest in your business and in yourself. It all comes down to wanting it, careful and meticulous budgeting, investment, and hard work.
I haven't exactly gotten rich. I'm living comfortably but I'm not rich. But then, I suppose if I really wanted to be I've been told how to go about it. It's those four things that get in my way. I'm comfortable with my lot in life. My wife and I meet our bills. We have the essentials and quite a few of the luxuries we want. We work as hard as we need to to continue to do these things. Oh sure, it might be nice to have more, but if we really want it we know how to get it. I do understand the principle of delayed gratification after all even if it hasn't gotten any easier to swallow after all of these years.
Some people want to be rich, and they want it enough to do what it takes to become rich. American history is filled with examples of men and women that have wanted wealth enough to learn how to amass great wealth and to do the work that it requires. There are enough of these success stories to continue to inspire the American dream.
Other people want to be rich as well but they aren't willing to do the work. They fall prey to jealousy, only seeing the wealth of others and not the work of others. Rather than pursuing their own happiness they complain that the deck is stacked against them. Some will complain that the wealthy got that way through the exploitation of others. Some will complain that the wealthy were simply born into wealth and don't deserve what they have.
There is a gap between the wealth of the rich and successful and the lesser riches of everyone else. A few will work hard enough and find the right opportunities to become immensely wealthy, but the vast majority of us will not. This leads me back to one of my problems with the notion of “the gap.” I mentioned it before and I really consider to be a bad thing — envy. The political class (and yes, I do mean to emphasize a class distinction here) seizes upon this envy and greed as a means to acquire and hold on to power.
Everyone who pursues wealth does so with the intent to keep it and spend it for their own purposes. This is true not just of the “rich” but also of the “poor” that are just seeking their part of the American dream. The man who works forty hours per week at some mind-numbing back-breaking task to bring home a paycheck does so to put food on his table, clothes on his back and a roof over his head. If that were all he worked for he'd have quite a poor life though. It's a good bet that he also puts some of that money aside for a rainy day and for luxuries and entertainment when he can have them.
If someone reaches into his pocket and takes his wallet from him he's likely to become indignant about it. Why? Because he has, as Virginia Representative Jim Moran has said, this “simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it” or as it might be better phrased, people who earn money are entitled to keep it. On the other hand, if he's of a charitable nature, he probably gives some to those less fortunate, either directly, through a charity, or through his church.
Do you see the difference? If someone takes his money they do him an injustice. If on the other hand he freely gives his money then he does his soul good. Rep. Moran on the other hand is railing that the profit made by “the wealthy” hasn't been shared with those that haven't made that profit. He doesn't believe that if you earn money you are entitled to do with it what you wish, and he doesn't want you to believe that either.
“Now in the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history. Highest corporate profit! We’ve had the highest productivity! The American worker has produced more per person at any time, but it hasn’t been shared, and that’s the problem because we have been guided by a republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.”
“[I]t hasn't been shared, and that's the problem.” This conveys the notion that people are entitled to the wealth and charity of others. “Now in the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history.” Corporate profit. Somehow, that's meant to be an evil thing, but isn't profit the motive for incorporation in the first place? Haven't we established that everyone has a right to pursue wealth if they choose to? Rep. Moran is playing upon envy here. He wants people to see that they haven't had the highest personal profit in American history, and he wants them to compare that to the profit of others. It's an appeal to greed and envy to justify “the means of redistributing wealth.”
In other words, he wants to reach into the pocket of the corporations and take their wallet! He wants to do this so he can redistribute the wealth that they've earned — to his constituents. And he wants people to believe that this is justified because somehow those who have earned wealth are not entitled to keep it.
Barack Obama, our President elect, frames this principle a different way. The idea of redistribution of wealth using the power of the state is a socialist notion. When this was pointed out during the campaign, Sen. Obama replied with this...
“John McCain… John McCain and and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. Now I… I don't know when… when uh when they decided that they want to make a virtue out of selfishness.”
Presumably, resisting the idea of the government “redistributing” your wealth is selfishness. But, as usual, this is an appeal to “class envy.” The notion here is that resisting an increasingly progressive tax system that taxes the “rich” in order to redistribute money to the “middle class” is selfishness on the part of the “rich.”
Leaving the ever changing definition of the “rich” aside (is it people earning $250,000.00 per year, $200,000.00 per year, $150,000.00 per year, or $120,000.00 per year?) the idea of “spreading the wealth around” is an appeal to the selfishness of the common man. The only way to “spread the wealth around”, other than voluntary acts of charity by the wealthy, is to forcibly take wealth from those that have acquired it and give it to those that have not.
If this isn't acceptable when a common thief picks a working man's pocket, how is it acceptable when government does it in the name of the “middle class” or the “poor?” Isn't this notion of government spreading the wealth around really an appeal to the greed of the middle class and the poor, justified by their envy of the wealthy?
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
— Exodus 20:17, King James Version
I believe that this applies to thy neighbor's wealth. The political class is making a virtue out of sin.
Oh, by the way, David's current post in his “The Road Ahead” series is here.
Trackback URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/track.aspx?postid=1273
Permalink URI for this post: http://perrinelson.com/2008/11/7/1273.aspx
Subscribe to this entry's
comment feed. (Atom)
Layla responded with:
 | With such a great write-up like this Perri I believe I got the gist right here on your site. Thank you for such a thought provoking post. It is honest and truthful - something more Americans need to learn and embrace.
Blessings. |
David responded with:
 | “Now in the last seven years we have had the highest corporate profit ever in American history.”
Moran is either
1. A "ginormous idjit" or
2. A devil in congressional dress.
"[C]orporate profit" means profits, dividends to shareholders who are, by and large, NOT rich fat cats living large on the backs of the proletariat but common Joes and Josephines who have invested their pittances a bit at a time through their pension funds and savings, contributing to BOTH their own retirtements and to the common weal (by providing the collective wealth that creates jobs and promotes real growth).
Moran (whose name I believe is more properly spelled "MorOn") apparently believes that the ants who are beneath his mighty feet should not be storing away against a hard winter or a lean year but should instead be feeding grasshoppers. Apparently, I say, because I have not found any evidence (and I have looked) that MorOn is willing to raid HIS OWN pension to give it away to the grasshoppers he cares so deeply for. |
Stanford Matthews responded with:
 | This post in combination with what appears at the top of the page causes me to remember a Ben Franklin quote...
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Not on point you say? It can apply to the idea that our economic and financial security is being threatened as well. If we surrender the liberty of free markets and allow socialist principles to guide eonomici policy in this country the rest will fall as well. |
Perri Nelson responded with: On point!
 | It is on point Stanford. Economic liberty and personal liberty are intertwined, as is religious liberty and responsibility. If we abdicate our responsibilities, we will fall too, because someone must take those responsibilities up if our society is to continue. When we abdicate our responsibilities and they are taken up by government, we become slaves to government -- little more than serfs. |
Karma responded with: FDR Was Right.
 | Perri while I agree with you for the most part, I think that what FDR got wrong was only in his wordage. Statesmanship, he confused that with politician. As for the reast of what you said... do you remember years ago when I use to taut that Hollywood had gone communist? I believe that our fight is as much with them as it is with the politicians of this country. They have a way of influencing our nation (world) that not even the political partys with all their cunning and money could ever dream of doing. They have how ever joined hands with those they want in office and have absoultely shoved their agendas down the worlds throut.
Karma |
Perri Nelson responded with:
| Karma,
No politician should take it upon himself to redefine our God given rights. Rights do not come from government, they are given to us by God.
FDR's redefinition of our rights began with his interpretation of the right to life (the first of our unalienable rights as listed by the Declaration of Independence) as implying "the right to earn a comfortable living". That was a stretch to be sure. We don't have a right to earn a comfortable living as an extension of the right to life. If there's a "right" to a comfortable living, then it justifies government theft from those that earn more than a comfortable living, which is an infringement upon the second of those enumerated unalienable rights, the right to liberty.
What we do have is a right to seek a comfortable living. This isn't an extension of the right to life, but a part of the right to pursue happiness, the third of those enumerated rights. Pursuing happiness does not guarantee happiness, and the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but to the pursuit of it.
FDR and his policies institutionalized socialism into our federal government in a way that has them so entrenched that many people are now convinced that they are a part of capitalism and liberty. They are an affront to capitalism and liberty and their extension will eventually bankrupt our government.
As for Hollywood, you are of course correct. Arts and artists have for the most part tended toward license rather than liberty for ages. There's enough material there for an entire series of posts.
During the so-called McCarthy era, Hollywood was full of communists. Very few were actually blackballed, but the antipathy toward McCarthy today has to do more with the exposure of Hollywood's attitudes than with any of his excesses. It's fairly easy to see examples of people in Hollywood today that find the notion of liberty and responsibility to be a relic of a jingoistic bygone age. |