I was reading the business section of the newspaper today and I saw a book review of a new book entitled "Are the Rich Necessary?" Basically the book seems to be discussing whether or not rich people are necessary for a prosperous economy.
I haven't read the book and my intent isn't to debate it's points. I just found myself a little bothered at the title. I mean if you replace "rich" with any other subset of people, you have a title that seems to be promoting some sort of Neonazism. "Are the Poor Necessary?", "Are the Jews Necessary?", "Are the Handicapped Necessary?".
What is it about the rich that makes it acceptable? Why do we so malign the wealthy. Especially given that by world standards just about anyone in this country is wealthy.
Besides that I think it is only natural, no matter how socialist your society, that some people will have greater wealth than others.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I think, because on the face of it, is a horrendous scandal that some people should have so much more than others. Such gross inequality certainly needs justification. Just as we must justify the existence of the poor--do they really need to exist (as the poor)?
In one sense, no there do not need to be poor people. Poverty is certainly a great evil, that as Christians, we are morally obligated to fight.
However, regardless of what we do there will be those who are poorer. The rich get richer and the poor get richer, but still the gap widens. In the poverty I see around me, most of the impoverished would be able to live a much more satisfied life (dare I say without poverty) if only they made wiser choices.
And certainly the rich have a very heavy calling to give what they have to those in need.
I still find the question "Are the Rich Necessary?" to be quite troublesome. In part because if we answer no, presumably the response will be either to strip their riches from them or to simply to destroy them altogether (think French Revolution/reign of terror).
If we answer that the rich are necesary, then we can leave them alone. If we say they are unnecessary, then we need to ask: Is it just to strip them of their unnecessary wealth? Since stealing is wrong, the answer is no.
I can see your point that it is an unnecessary(!) question, but it might be useful for the rich to know the answer, so they can know whether their wealth is useful to others (even without being given away) or whether they ought to get rid of it.
I wonder how do they define "rich" anyway. When 2/3 of the world lives on one dollar a day or less...
I can see what you mean about how asking the question can be beneficial. I suppose I would have to read the book to know exactly what angle they were coming from.
My initial thoughts on the matter is that while it is not strictly necessary that their be "rich" people for the society to prosper, it is beneficial to the society if people are able to accumulate wealth. And what is it that makes people rich except the accumulation of wealth.
On a slightly related note, I think I saw a study where people were asked what income level makes someone rich. The vast majority of responses were "twice as much as I make".
In effect: I am not rich, 20,000 a year is hard to live off of, but 40,000 now that is rich. Next person: I am not rich, 50,000 a year is hard to live off of, but 100,000, now that is rich. Next person: 100,000 is hard to live off of, but 200,000, now that is rich.
I think after about $1M/year the trend broke down and people said they were rich.
Put that in the perspective that 2/3 of the world lives on less than $1 US a day.
So you're saying that everyone who lives on $2 a day is rich?
Rather than analyze the moral aspect of wealth, the book could also be analyzing the theory that I've heard in several places: that if there weren't 'wealthy' people (people with fairly large amounts of dispoable income), everyone else would actually be worse off. Why? As the theory goes, the wealthy are the only ones who can afford to buy the first of an item as it comes out. Only after a certain number are bought does it become feasible for the price to decrease (price of production goes down, etc.). After a period of time, the price reaches a point where the item is no longer a 'luxury' item. (I've heard TVs and computers being used as examples of this). How true is it? I don't know. I doubt the purchasing of an item by the 'wealthy' is the sole reason for price decreases, but it very well may accelerate it. Anyway, just my thoughts...
Now $2 a day, that IS rich.
I can agree that most Americans are rich, including me. For the most part, I live a pretty luxurious life. I am attempting to eat on $3 a day now, though, which actually makes me feel richer when I see all the excess income I have.
jg: I'm sure that's what they're doing, and probably talking about the need for wealthy individuals to invest in capital.
But there has to be a moral element lurking there. Otherwise, why the need to explain that the rich are useful to others, even if inadvertently.
Post a Comment