Hillary’s “Income Inequality;” Should Government Decide Incomes?

Hillary Clinton2Envy is a useful human weakness for politicians; they can point to someone with something you want, agree that you deserve it too and promise to take it from the undeserving owner and give it to you in return for your vote or your donation to their cause (preferably, both).

The American political Left did not invent this; whoever did, has been dead for milennia. But the Democrats are revving it up for the 2014 elections; Hillary has just requested business leaders help with U.S. income inequality. Right. Or more properly. Left. As in when the government has made income inequality right, you won’t have much income left. That’s the reality of course, but the sermon says it will all be taken from the “rich.” They just forget to inform you that “the rich” means you, too because there are too few rich. Gee, I forgot to mention that … silly me!

“Income inequality” is a useful political term since it lacks any accepted definition. It means as Humpty Dumpty told Alice in Lewis Carrol’s wonderful political satire “Alice in Wonderland,” exactly what the user wishes it to mean, no more and and less. So let’s pretend that for a moment at least, we have to live in reality; what does “income inequality” mean in that case?

A gardener normally earns less income than say, a Supreme Court Justice. Soldiers famously earn low pay. Women may (or may not) earn less than men, doing the same work. Blacks, again famously, earn less than whites (except when they earn more). So what is income inequality, really? Well, really, it’s just a political tool based on envy.

Prices in any successful economy in history (one that provides a lot of people a decent living) have been set by the market. None of the economies where prices have been set by the government have  provided a decent living, compared to market economies. None! In a market economy, a great ballerina whose talent and sacrifice are enormous, may earn much less than a popular rap star of mediocre talent who uses drugs instead of hard work. The market is chimerical. And it works. It took a market economy to develop a large middle class and as America shrinks back from the free market into government regulatory control, its middle class is shrinking as wealth distribution returns to the historical norm: a few elite with all the wealth and a lot of peasants with little.

Perhaps the most ironic feature of this is that it is being accomplished in the name of

Government Decides ...

Government Decides …

“Social Justice.” the elite governors who have sold their programs on improving the lot of the uneducated poor, have proliferated those at an increasing rate as the originally sturdy middle class, shrinks. And the hapless victims proceed about their business without noticing, until like a parasitized caterpillar, they keel over, eaten from within.

So Hillary wants business to ‘help. That means, pay as it is told to pay by the arbiter of what is ‘fair.’ How, pay everyone the same? Where will you find engineers at assembly line wages? Who will buy products priced to pay assembly line workers, engineers’ wages? It’s all just the current application of the ancient politics of envy. It goes back to the old allure of something for nothing that your parents, if they were doing their job, warned you about. The public schools once did that too, until they were unionized and switched to teaching entitlement.

Entitlement has one unsolved, problem; if we’re all entitled, who’s the unentitled sucker who will provide us all what we’re entitled to? Nobody works when the reward is confiscated  by the government … that’s what ended the Soviets and every predecessor back to antiquity. But Hillary and the Dems are pushing it and it resonates with their fans …  Amazing that such slow learners as we seem are still around!

About Jack Curtis

Suspicious of government, doubtful of economics, fond of figure skating (but the off-ice part, not so much) Couple of degrees in government, a few medals in figure skating; just reading and suspicion for economics ...
This entry was posted in Equality, Government, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Hillary’s “Income Inequality;” Should Government Decide Incomes?

  1. James Teague says:

    Hillary, Barack, Harry, Nancy, Barbara, John are very fond of income inequality as a tool to bring the masses nto their web. They are the “pigs at the banquet” in the final scenes of Animal Farm. As Cesar says,”some of us are just a bit more equal” This was written about Stalinist USSR. Its back folks and our leaders never lost their love for its charms, for themselves that is.

    • Jack Curtis says:

      Indeed, and for all of me, you may add Boehner et al to your list. It’s unfortunate, I think, that schools don’t inform us that Karl Marx’s ideas were likely already old when the ancient Greeks spoke of them …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s