How Today's CEOs Are Like Yesterday's Karl Marx

11.07.08 | Money, Work | 0 Comments | by Fred Siegmund

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

There's a comment on my 1929 and 2008 post from Mickey Blue Eyes that deserves a reply.

The problem with promoting an even distribution of wealth is that it is a euphemism for Marxist "from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need."

Doing a quick Google search, I could not find a global per capita income, but the per capita income for the U.S. in 2006 is $44,970. That's less than what I'm making now, and I'm not in evil top 2% of income earners.

Assuming everyone continues to be as productive (or unproductive, as the case may be) as they are now, everyone will receive a paycheck for $44K per year. That might be great to some high school dropout living off of welfare, but do we really expect productive people who studied in school and work hard for their >$44K/yr job to continue working that hard?

If the most you can earn is $44K/yr, are you going to work more than you absolutely have to to get your $44K paycheck?

Distribution of wealth, especially when forced by the government; e.g., USSR, N. Korea, Cuba, Maoist China, et al.; is a sure recipe for disaster.

It appears to argue that it is wrong to have social policies that reduce the inequality of income. It calls such a policy Marxian.

Marx was a 19th century guy who looked at the poverty and gross inequality of income he saw during the industrialization period in England. He could have said it is unfair, but instead he wrote a long boring book trying to convince people there is a natural and scientific reason that makes income inequality a bad thing.

Now we have free enterprisers that look at corporate CEOs who help themselves to millions of dollars of corporate funds. They could just say it is fair, but instead they write long boring books trying to convince people there is a natural and scientific reason that makes income inequality a good thing.

Truth is they are all posers and bluffers. Today’s free enterprisers are doing exactly what Marx did, only with the opposite conclusion.

If you think income inequality is a good thing you will have to convince people the current inequality is fair and should not be changed. Good luck, but my vote is no.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Tags: , , , , , ,

Subscribe to Email Updates

Enter your email address:

Read More Related Posts

Example: %customfield2%

have your say

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. Subscribe to these comments.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

:

:


« Why Alan Greenspan is Wrong on Economic Regulation
» Money Saving Links: 11/9/08