Wrong concept of wealth
Published: Tuesday, Jan. 1, 2013, 8:43 p.m.
During the fiscal-cliff debate, President Obama and fellow Democrats revealed that they don't understand how our free-market economy works.
Liberals see wealth as static, something that's always there, and they believe it's the job of government to divide it up more fairly.
However in reality, wealth is dynamic — it can be created or destroyed by the actions of humans. The dictionary defines wealth as all things that have monetary or exchange value.
Wealth is created whenever someone invents a new product or service, constructs a building, starts a business enterprise or builds a new factory. These activities expand our economy by generating more jobs and value.
Wealth is destroyed when businesses and factories close, buildings and property are destroyed or devalued, and when people stop investing in an enterprise.
Wealth redistribution penalizes those who grow the economy by creating obstacles to growth. But shouldn't we admire those who expand the economy instead of punishing them?
Class envy and the policy that it entails will not reallocate wealth more fairly, as liberals claim, but it will prevent new wealth from being created and even destroy existing wealth. And those at the lower end of the economic scale will suffer the most from this misguided thinking.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Choosing judges II
- Choosing judges I
- Prevailing wage downsides I
- Prevailing wage downsides II
- Lies and disrespect I taught …
- About Quinn & Rose I
- Valid comparison?
- Hucksters’ fates
- Us & them
- Thanks to our veterans