24 Januarry 2009

We prefer to call it egalitarianism - we should all be equal.  We, of course, are not all equal but we should live as if we are.  Spread the wealth.

The problem that arises is, from whence comes this wealth that we are all to share?  The government?  And where does government get this wealth that we are to share?  Do we know?  Do we care?

Wealth come from individual initiative, supported by talent , ability and willingness to take risk.  It works best when initiative is rewarded; in fact when not rewarded it doesn't work very well at all.  Of course  in our egalitarian cacoon  we resent it when those who pursue initiative successfully are rewarded in such a way that we regard as excessive; it's not fair.

There have been a number of reports on studies that show pretty conclusively that people resent others having more than they have, regardless of effort.   Many, perhaps most, would prefer it if they just had more than others, even perhaps if it is less than they have now.  Well, not less than they have now - they would never put up with that.  But having more than others seems to be more important than just having.  Keeping up with the Jones comes to mind.

So we would prefer spreading less wealth, as long as it's spread equally?  Apparently.   If that is our decision, and based on the last several decades of progress it apparently is, we will increasingly get the opportunity to experience it.  Of course by the time we realize our mistake it will be too late, but that's life: spread the wealth - the lowest common denominatory is mediocrity.