Search This Blog

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Should the Rich Be Condemned?

Walter Williams: Should the Rich Be Condemned? -- Unfortunately, far too many people do not want to know these truths.
Posted by Ilíon at 11/26/2011 10:44:00 AM
Labels: , , , , , , ,

5 comments:

Crude said...

One problem I have with Williams' article is that he's picking out some of the best of the best wealthy of all time, highlighting their best acts, and then using that as the standard. What happens to the argument he's making when Bill Clinton or Al Gore is the millionaire in question? How about when we look into the sort of games Edison got into with his rivalries, or Carnegie? Or those who are wealthy due to government bailouts or government intervention? I hear some owners of solar companies make quite a nice check.

That's not to say I disagree with Williams' overall point. But a major line he's working here is "Rich people are rich because they did great things that benefited many people and they deserve their wealth!" Absolutely true for many rich. Absolutely false for some. And then there's the grey area cases (Guys who legitimately made a lot of their money, but sometimes crossed a line.)

November 27, 2011 at 1:09 AM
Ilíon said...

I don't think you're understanding him, at all.

November 28, 2011 at 12:42 AM
Crude said...

I'm understanding him entirely. His presentation has flaws. Particularly when it comes to Gates, since Gates built his empire on intellectual property - and that opens a complicated can of worms. To see that in starker relief: was the Mickey Mouse Act an example of capitalism at its height?

No, high incomes do not always represent the democracy of the marketplace. You know damn well that socialism benefits businesses, for example. Now, you can tell me, "Right, well, his argument isn't praising businesses or individuals who make money on those terms." Maybe not. But that just goes back to the blind spots in his argument.

November 28, 2011 at 4:27 AM
Codgitator (Cadgertator) said...

Here's a definition of "rich person" I like to air now and again: "someone who excels at meeting others' needs and satisfying others' desires". I think that is true in a profound sense, notionally and historically. What I will grant, however, in a Marxian vein, is that successful concentration of capital is not socially inert, for the rich can more and more easily influence public tastes, and thus, more and more easily satisfy others' needs as they have shaped them.

November 29, 2011 at 2:58 AM
Ilíon said...

"No, high incomes do not always represent the democracy of the marketplace."

Crude,
You are not representing Williams, and you don't even appear to be trying to do so.

“Now, you can tell me, "Right, well, his argument isn't praising businesses or individuals who make money on those terms."”

Indeed, I might. Or, to put it in other terms: it appears that you do understand that and how you’re misunderstanding Williams, yet you are bound and determined to misunderstand him anyway.

"You know damn well that socialism benefits businesses, for example."

Actually, no. Socialism benefits some businesses ... at the coerced expense of everyone else.

"To see that in starker relief: was the Mickey Mouse Act an example of capitalism at its height?"

Mickey Mouse represents the liberty of individuals to spend their some portion of wealth, to be determined by themselves, on frivolity.

December 4, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)