Skip to main content

INCOME INEQUALITY IS GOOD


What if everything you've heard about income inequality is wrong? What if it's actually a good thing for there to be people who are rich and people who aren't? John Tamny, the editor of RealClearMarkets, clarifies one of the big misunderstandings of our time.

 

There has been a lot said and a lot is written about income inequality – about how unfair it is that a few people are very rich and the rest of us aren’t; that the income gap between the wealthy and even the middle-class, let alone the poor, is so large.

There’s only one problem with this complaint.

It’s wrong.

Income inequality is actually a good thing -- when it is the product of a free market economy.

And your own life proves it!

An economy is made up of millions of individuals making decisions about their own lives – where and how much they want to work, what they want to buy, and so on.

You are one of those individuals.

In a country like the United States, you are free to pursue a path in life that you believe best suits your talents. That talent might be teaching, or making music, or banking, or starting a small business, or raising a family. Whatever it is, this freedom helps to make life enjoyable, exciting and meaningful.

But it’s also an expression of inequality. This is simply because we’re all different. We have different talents, different temperaments, different ambitions.

That’s okay because – again in a free society – we can seek out opportunities that play to our personal strengths; that distinguish us from others.

If you find what you’re really good at and work hard, you might have great success and make a lot of money. If you’re an outstanding athlete, I’ll buy a ticket to see you play. If you’re a savvy investor, I’ll give you some of my money to invest.

As long as you have the freedom to guide your own destiny, you have a chance to reach your full potential – achieving success, however you define it. But if someone, say, a government bureaucrat, told you that your ambition had limits, that there was a ceiling above which you could not rise, I doubt you’d be happy about it. You’d feel like you were in a straightjacket.

Forced equality means less opportunity to pursue what makes you individually great..

But what about the growing gap between the rich, the 1%, and the rest of us, the 99%, that one hears so much about? Isn’t that a bad thing?

Again, the answer is no.

Here’s why:

In a free market economy people become wealthy making what the rich enjoy today into something almost everybody can enjoy tomorrow. The rich are the test buyers.

Consider the cell phone. Now we all have them, but when Motorola manufactured the first one in 1983 it was the size of a brick, had a half-hour of battery life, reception was terrible, and calls were very expensive. It cost $4000. But if no one had bought that $4000 brick, there wouldn’t be a $40 cell phone today.

In the 1960’s a computer cost over a million dollars. Nowadays, thanks to billionaires like Michael Dell, we have incredibly advanced computers that cost us a few hundred dollars.

Remember what an out-of-reach luxury flat screen TV’s once were? Only the rich could afford them. Today your living room is essentially your own private cinema.

The free market is about turning scarcity into abundance. What was once available to the few is now available to the many. Wealth inequality is an important corollary to that truth.

So, should I resent the people who became wealthy because they have more money than I do, or should I be grateful for the economic system that allows them to enrich my life and the lives of millions of other people?

This feature of the free market – income inequality – can appear terribly unfair. But with a little further investigation, the real picture becomes clear. Income inequality makes what once seemed like impossible luxuries available to almost everyone; it provides the incentive for creative people to gamble on new ideas; it promotes personal freedom, and rewards hard work, talent, and achievement.

In sum, income inequality signals that individual liberty, opportunity, and innovation are all present in a free economy. Pretty good for something that’s supposed to be so bad.

Two final points:

The 1% Club is always open to new members. And you don’t have to be in the top one percent to have a very good life. And that, not the existence of the very wealthy, is what matters most.

I’m John Tamny, editor of Real Clear Markets, for Prager University.


Check out this episode!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Daily on Defense: Jeffries plots end run for Ukraine aid, Austin back working from home, Ukraine donor group meets, Russian warship sunk, Putin’s poor memory

Follow us on Twitter View this as website BY JAMIE MCINTYRE ADVERTISEMENT JEFFRIES: ALL LEGISLATIVE OPTIONS ARE ON THE TABLE: The pressure is on House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) to find a way to bypass House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to bring the $95 billion foreign aid bill that sailed through the Senate 70-29 to a vote on the House floor, where it would surely also pass with a wide bipartisan majority. "There are clearly more than 300 members of the House of Representatives, the overwhelming amount of Democrats and a significant number of Republicans, who would support the national security legislation, were it to receive an up-or-down vote on the floor of the House," Jeffries said on CNN yesterday.  Jeffries’s best bet is a long shot, a rarely successful legislative maneuver known as a "discharge petition," which would require at least four Republicans

Daily on Defense: New Russian nuclear threat, Stoltenberg calls on Congress to pass Ukraine aid, NATO defense spending soars, Trump repeats threat to NATO laggards

Follow us on Twitter View this as website BY JAMIE MCINTYRE ADVERTISEMENT TURNER'S CRYPTIC WARNING: The news of a dire new threat broke at 11:30 a.m. with a cryptic news release blasted out by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-OH). "Today, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has made available to all members of Congress information concerning a serious national security threat," the two-sentence release began. "I am requesting that President Biden declassify all information relating to this threat so that Congress, the Administration, and our allies can openly discuss the actions necessary to respond to this threat." And with that, the race was on to find out what "serious national security threat" he was talking about. At the White House, national security adviser Jake Sullivan was tight-lipped while expressing consternat

Daily on Defense: Zelensky cites new phase of war, poll shows strong support for Ukraine, Truce ends in Gaza, Tuberville targets woke officers

Follow us on Twitter View this as website BY JAMIE MCINTYRE ADVERTISEMENT ZELENSKY: 'WE DID NOT ACHIEVE THE DESIRED RESULTS': I n a wide-ranging interview with the Associated Press, conducted Thursday in the war-ravaged northeastern Ukrainian town of Kharkiv, President Volodymyr Zelensky offered a sobering assessment of the shortcomings of Ukraine's summer counteroffensive against Russian forces, while remaining resolute about the need to keep fighting. "We wanted faster results. From that perspective, unfortunately, we did not achieve the desired results. And this is a fact," Zelensky said. "We are losing people, I'm not satisfied. We didn't get all the weapons we