Just inequality

Be wary of those who readily condemn “those greedy corporations” or “those greedy rich.” Be wary of those who practice class warfare and who hope to delude us all into thinking that we owe most of our problems to the “unjust distribution of wealth.” Be wary of those who deplore financial inequality as a malicious evil or scourge upon humanity. It ain’t necessarily so. In most cases, it just isn’t true.

As Ronald Reagan declared in his 1964 presidential campaign for Senator Barry Goldwater, “We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!”

As usual, the old Gipper was right. In most cases, the fat man did not get fat by taking food away from the thin guy. Capitalism is not a zero sum game. Capitalists get rich by expanding the economic pie, not by “stealing” a slice of the pie from someone else. In a free market system, they prosper largely by their own individual efforts, enterprise and initiative.

Most wealthy people succeed on their own merits. They work hard. They work smart. They plan. They save. They invest. They take calculated risks. They overcome failures and they persevere. They do not win by cheating others on a regular basis. They serve their customers well and are rewarded for their efforts.

Some liberals claim that all economic inequality is unjust. But they are wrong. There is such a thing as just inequality.

When two people compete in an athletic competition, in a race, for example, one of them will probably be the victor, in the absence of a tie or a draw. Has the winner, by exerting his best personal efforts, “victimized” the loser of the race?

And should some regulatory body–should the government–break the legs of the winner to make things fair for the loser of the race? Should the government place a handicap, place restrictions, on the able so others can have a greater chance?

Imagine compassionate big government regulating a baseball game! On the basis of affirmative action, some “disenfranchised minorities” would get free base walks. The best hitters–Sammy Sosa and big Mark–would have a maximum home-run ceiling. And the best (most winning) teams would be broken up by anti-trust regulations.

Of course, in the realm of economics, the “winner” provides others with many benefits: jobs, tax revenues, community contributions, better products and services, and so forth. As I said, market economics is not a zero sum game.

When a rich man builds a hotel or a garment factory, did he “steal” from the poor to get the money needed to finance his enterprise? Did he force the poor to pay for his investment? (Maybe if he is subsidized by the government–but the poor don’t pay most of the taxes.)

Certainly not. The “victimized” laboring classes are flattering themselves if they think that the rich are somehow ripping them off. Successful businessmen don’t remain successful by alienating their consumers. They must serve in order to be successful.

Strictly a personal view. Charles Reyes Jr. is a regular columnist of Saipan Tribune. Mr. Reyes may be reached at charlesraves@hotmail.com