Income Inequality and Kim Jong-un

Categories:

Time to Read:

6–9 minutes

byChrisWhite – 2016

I reckon you’ve caught wind of these latest phrases, “Income Inequality” and “Wealth Inequality,” buzzing about like a swarm of self-righteous hornets. They’ve been wafting through the airwaves, rattling the newsprint, and, most irksomely, lodging themselves in our dinner conversations. And, dear reader, forgive me for being blunt, but this whole racket irks me to no end. There, I’ve said it. There’s nothing I loathe more than a political tirade, except perhaps a political tirade interrupting a perfectly fine evening of silence at home. Yet, here I am, sounding off like a preacher at a revival, if only to spare my dear wife another ill-timed lecture on socialism right there in the bedroom.

With this new national election on the horizon, featuring an admitted socialist among the hopefuls, it seems like a hidden drawer full of old socialist catchphrases has been thrown open, and all the moths of communist creeds are flying about. These moths have been there all along, of course, lurking quietly under the guise of modern rhetoric, but there’s something about election season that brings them out into the harsh light of day.

Now, I generally steer clear of political rhetoric, like I’d avoid a rattlesnake at the doorstep. It’s not that I lack opinions, I have them aplenty, but because nothing seems to breed discord faster. And discord is to politeness what vinegar is to honey. As much as I try to entertain my audience, and myself, this kind of discussion only serves to aggravate half the crowd and, well, ignite the other half. But I’ve come to realize that, sometimes, I need to write what I think, even if I might alienate those who were perfectly fine just two paragraphs ago. After all, I write for me as much as for you, sometimes more. And if that means folks disagree, well, as the old saying goes, the world needs variety, even in complaints.

Let me begin by saying that the very term “income inequality” rankles me to the core. It assumes we are all destined, by some divine right or cosmic design, to draw the same paycheck. It whispers, in its roundabout way, that socialism is the cure to what ails us, that there is something amiss if we aren’t all taking home the same wages at the end of the week. It’s almost laughable, except I can’t laugh at something so fundamentally wrongheaded. If we were all made to be equal in every respect, well, we’d still be living in caves, scratching out a living with flint tools and discovering fire.

I must admit, my stance on capitalism versus socialism is not exactly impartial, and perhaps I’ve lost the right to argue by the sheer irony of my own position, I’ve become a farmer, after all. I’m not blind to the fact that I might apply for subsidies when the season takes a hard turn. It’s a bit like asking a fox to preach about henhouse safety while holding a feather or two in its mouth. Nevertheless, irony or not, I’ll say my piece, because there’s a lot of confusion afoot, and someone ought to put a voice to common sense.

If we’re going to address this whole “income inequality” nonsense, let’s first agree to leave the vocabulary of socialism behind. Income inequality isn’t the devil they claim it is. No, the real problem is poverty, plain and simple. It’s social dysfunction and systemic despair that plagues us. Taking from the so-called “haves” to give to the “have-nots” won’t fix a broken wagon, especially when the wheel that’s busted is ambition itself. And there I go, losing half my audience already.

The truth is, America already spends a good deal of its resources on redistribution. We have programs, and tax credits, and a thousand schemes designed to help those at the bottom. The Earned Income Tax Credit and similar programs effectively mean the government writes checks to folks even when they don’t pay income tax. We’ve devised a peculiar system where, if one doesn’t work much, the rest of us have to foot the bill, and we do it without much thanks.

But all of this seems to encourage people to stay where they are. It rewards inactivity. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not one to preach against a safety net. Heaven knows I’ve needed one myself during lean times. Back when the building bubble burst, I was out of work for nearly a year. Instead of wallowing, I went back to school, worked on ideas, failed, succeeded a bit, and failed again. That is how progress goes. It’s messy, it’s unpredictable, and it’s full of days when you wonder if it’s worth it. But that’s life. And at the end of it all, my small successes and education led me to this very moment—to these words, which, even if just a few folks read them, are worth their weight in the satisfaction of effort spent.

Now, as for socialism, I’ll just put it simply, it’s an economic fallacy. It thrives on the naïve belief that government knows best how to handle all our resources. It means putting everything in the hands of bureaucrats who set the prices, the wages, the rations. It sounds ideal until you realize that someone else decides what your labor is worth. That someone else decides whether you deserve that loaf of bread or that warm coat. And as history has shown us, the inefficiency is staggering. Black markets bloom wherever socialism sets root because no one wants to live under a system that refuses to reward their hard work.

Take a look at North Korea by night, in those satellite images. There it lies, cloaked in darkness, while South Korea shines bright, an image as literal as it is metaphorical. Why anyone would wish for such a system upon themselves or their neighbor is beyond me. Even in places like Venezuela, where they touted the triumphs of socialism, you have violence, rationing, and inflation running amok. And don’t get me started on Europe. It might be a charming place to visit, but they’re knee-deep in a financial mess of their own making. Greece, Spain, unemployment is rampant, poverty is rising, and hope is a commodity in short supply.

The simple truth is that capitalism works because it lets people dream and work and create. It doesn’t promise equality, but it does promise opportunity. And in a nation where people can move up and down the income ladder, where fortunes can be made and lost, that’s all one can truly ask for, a fair shot, a level playing field, a chance to try.

The top 1%, the folks often painted as villains, are not a permanent class. People enter and leave that bracket over their lifetimes. Some make their fortunes, some lose them. That’s what freedom gives you, the ability to grow or stumble. It’s not about everyone having the same, but about everyone having the chance to make what they will of themselves.

What we have here in America is unique. It’s a system that has allowed us to build, to innovate, and to thrive. It has provided medicine, technology, progress beyond anything dreamed of in the centuries that came before. Capitalism gave us this. It gave us a society that can support the bottom 80% while still allowing the top 20% to push the limits of what’s possible. It isn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything else that’s ever been tried.

Income equality? Sure, it sounds like a noble goal, until you look at what it really means. It means mediocrity for everyone. It means taking away the incentive to work, to innovate, to push boundaries. And ultimately, it leads to stagnation. The real enemy isn’t inequality. It’s poverty. And if we want to address that, we need to stop shaming success and start fostering ambition.

We need to inspire the next generation, not lull them into complacency with false promises and handouts. We need to remember that nothing of value ever comes easy. Wealth is not the enemy; it is a reward for those who strive and create and add value to the world. And for those who genuinely need help, well, that’s where our responsibility as fellow human beings comes in. But help should uplift, not imprison. It should inspire, not pacify.

In the end, it’s ambition and opportunity that will bridge the gap, not a redistribution of wealth. And if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, just ask them to look at a satellite image of the world at night. The difference between the glowing cities and the darkened lands tells you all you need to know.

Response

  1. Hairstyles Avatar

    Your place is valueble for me. Thanks!?

    Liked by 1 person