Sunday, December 27, 2020

As good to re-read as it was to read the first time ...

Two hundred years ago the American people were quite a bit more equal in terms of wealth, and life was marked by unrelenting drudgery. Those relatively brutal living conditions weren’t an effect of socialism, even though socialism would have eventuated the same outcome.

______________________________________________________________________________
Cooperative exchange is the highest form of human interaction.
______________________________________________________________________________

The shame of socialism is that the wildly talented are restrained from profitably improving the lives of the people around them, and perhaps continents away. Thinking about life two hundred years ago, distance was a severely limiting factor for the talented when it came to making things better for everyone. No doubt there were people with skills similar to those of the richest Americans today, and some became very well-to-do by early 19th century standards. But they didn’t become staggeringly rich simply because a lack of technology limited the ability of the ‘1 percenters’ of the early 19th to touch the U.S. (and the world) with their genius. Limited technology has socialistic qualities in the outcome sense for it restraining the brilliant from improving the lives of others while getting rich for doing just that.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2018/11/11/surging-wealth-inequality-is-a-happy-sign-that-life-is-becoming-much-more-convenient/?fbclid=IwAR3BbDsvASk_GAtBhFiiO3KtAxq5wHf8sSXies80B4IBUvXsc-McUme928I&sh=2657557064ca

The scarcity mentality leads folks to believe that if one person is rich, the wealth must come at the expense of another person. What the wealthy do in a capitalist economy is create more wealth - more stored human time and energy - through cooperative exchange.

No comments:

Post a Comment