Monday, April 25, 2005


Scott Burgess reports on the elementary, poverty creating, and worthless bugaboo of leftist economic thinkers: income inequality, which was Marxism's only real economic goal.

«But is income inequality, in and of itself, really so terrible? To put the matter into stark perspective, consider this question: Would you rather live in Canada (tied for second in this survey) or Belarus?

Think carefully - those who emphasise the importance of income equality as an overriding social goal should seriously consider the latter, considered by the CIA World Factbook to have the highest level of income equality in the world. Egypt and Rwanda are other places to be considered, as preferable to Canada in this respect.»

Scott cites what the author thought was key - which it was, just not in the way the author could register:

«"While 17 per cent of those born in the UK in 1958 made it from the bottom quarter income group to the top, only 11 per cent born in 1970 did so."

A little thought raises an interesting idea concerning this conclusion - one which Mr. Brown, strangely, finds unworthy of mention. Given the importance of the 26-34 young adult years with respect to increasing an earner's income level, it's intriguing that the more successful older group would have spent that period (not to mention the previous four years) entirely under Tory governments. OTOH, the younger group will have spent nearly all of that period (except for 1996-and-a-bit) under Labour.»
Time and time again, history has proven that dwelling on income difference improves NOTHING. It is an excercise in class-warfare and amounts to lillte more than a display of envy. Why then, do the bobo crowd not want to learn from a century of disproof?

No comments: