The Rich Always Come Up With a Ridiculous Story to Justify Their Wealth
Nick Cassella
27929

And The Poor Always Come Up With a Scapegoat to Blame for Their lack of Wealth

Sigh. Why?! Why do people continue to buy into this ridiculous narrative. Galbraith was a Marxist so no surprise he would erroneously mislabel conservative position as seeking “…moral justification for selfishness.”

But the phrase is “self interest.” Nobody is better qualified than YOU to know what’s in YOUR best interests. When you surrender the power to pursue your own self interests you become dependent on the collective; you lose your free will. That never turns out well.

“Most wealthy people share a few common traits. They’re ambitious and terribly status driven. They love to hoard the majority of capital…”

No, most wealthy people (outside Hollywood) are not terribly status driven, you might stand next to one at the grocery store checkout and never know it. No they don’t “love to horde Capital” (do you even know what capital is?) they carefully consider how to most efficiently employ capital.

“In 1759, the top one percent in England and Wales’ controlled around 17.5 percent of total income. Currently, the top 1 percent’s share of total US income is at 20 percent.”

First, I’ll take 80% of the US GDP over 82.5% of 18th century Britain’s GDP any day. How did America, a backwoods outpost with no infrastructure, no domestic industry, and a sparse population outperform every other economy in the world? Free Markets.

Second, the Top 1% in 1759 England were all members of the hereditary landed nobility. Although inheriting a fortune in America does provide obvious advantage, it’s not the only advantage -it’s not even the biggest advantage. We do not have a static wealthy class, furthermore 30% of people born in poverty, POVERTY manage to escape it in America.

“How then did Smith’s idea of free markets end up promoting the very outcomes it intended to curb?”

Clearly you never actually read Adam Smith for yourself or you would know he was merely making observations about commerce. That his observations consistently discredit serfdom (dependency) and the guild system (unionization) is inconvenient for Marxists, but not contrived to promote a political agenda.

The 21st century so-called Progressive seems intent on stopping progress and dividing the spoils among our current generation. So please, instead of accepting some unknown author’s opinion on John Locke or Adam Smith, read them yourself. Then read Marx and see how you feel.

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Isn’t that what Southern slaveowners offered their slaves? 🤔 Mmm, no thanks.