People in socialist Vietnam and China have high support
for free market capitalism and its inequality than people against it. Also high
support of people in Nigeria, Turkey, Malaysia, Philippines.
Pew's survey question was, "Are people better off in a
free-market economy given the wide disparities in wealth that might
result?" Agree or Disagree.
And another interesting chart from that report -- optimism of people who say that children will be better off financially than their parents, socialist Vietnam and China are again outliers. People in Chile, Brazil, Bangladesh and India are catching up to the optimism.
In a related thread on inequality and "inclusive
growth", I argued that inequality is good. Up to what level of inequality,
like gini ratio?
There should be NO ceiling on the degree of inequality.
There is no way to stop some people from being too intelligent or too efficient
and too hard-working + some luck. Almost all the things that we so enjoy --
facebook, youtube, google, laptops, cars, airplanes -- were created by very
intelligent, very hard-working and efficient people, and they have become super rich. And we benefit from them and their invention. So why put a "cap" on
their wealth?
More inequality, the better for society and humanity. Notice also that the richer they become, the more that they give away their
wealth. From Bill Gates to Warren Buffet to Zuckerberg, they all have
foundations or donate to foundations whose main business is to give away their
wealth via charities.
I think the endless call for forced equality is simply
driven by envy.
The role of government should be limited
only to setting fair rules for everyone, ensuring the rule of law. To have
equality before the law, equality in opportunity for everyone, but NOT equality of outcome, like those
endless calls for forced equality via endless subsidies and welfare programs and endless taxation of the rich.
On the other hand, there are people who have zero
ambition in life except to eat and drink/party, 5-7 days a week. Even if government will give them $2,000 a month in various subsidies, they will remain poor as they will simply spend $2,100 a month or more and be in
debt, the money is spent on interest payment and other wastes, forever.
An anarchist commented in my wall,
“there must be a LIMIT as to the wealth you can generate."
Huhh? An anarchist advocating zero government now advocates
"LIMIT to wealth"? The one that will
enforce that limit is government, via endless taxation, fees, penalties, mandatory contributions, etc. And
guns and prison if they evade those endless taxation.
-------------
See also:
Inequality 22: Ten Men Eating Equally but Paying Unequally, February 27, 2015
Inequality 23: On Poverty, Agriculture and Motorcycles, March 10, 2015
Inequality 24: Inheritance, Poverty and Envy, April 17, 2015
Inequality 25: On High CEOs Pay and Legislated Minimum Wages, April 30, 2015
Inequality 25: On High CEOs Pay and Legislated Minimum Wages, April 30, 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment