I guess the main thing that overshadows everything else is that if a guy got rich honestly, his money is none of your business. No matter how much he has, and no matter if he hoards it or invests it. And, if he got his money by theft, fraud, or by using government (yes, I just repeated myself there), then it doesn't matter if he is still hasn't gotten rich. Dishonest money isn't more dishonest just because there is more of it.
All in all, this Wong character sounds like a whiny, envious, "It's not fair" kind of guy, who also doesn't know the first thing about the reality of economics. Well, as Scott Adams so eloquently put it, fairness is "a concept invented so dumb people could participate in arguments". It is not a feature of reality.
There is just so much wrong with Wong's whine that I'm not going to even try to address everything he is wrong about. It would take a book.
So, by his numbering, here is what I think of his whine:
#6- He begins by saying that rich people who claim that $500,000 doesn't necessarily make you rich are oblivious. Maybe. I don't live in a particularly expensive area, or a big city, so I can get by on less. I'm not going to judge how much money someone needs to live where they choose to live, even if it's a "huge amount" by my standards. I also know that "rich" is subjective, and that's something Wong doesn't seem to get. Also, once again, whether someone is rich or poor, you don't get to decide to take their money away to use as you wish, even if you decide they have "too much". Sorry.
#5- He feels insulted that "rich" people claim to have worked hard to get their money. There's that old "fairness" thing again. Sure, I would like it if being a hard-blogging libertarian philosopher paid really well. But it doesn't and it isn't likely to ever do so. I do not have the inclination to do the kinds of things that rich people do to make money. Maybe I don't even have the ability. That isn't a rich person's fault, even if it also isn't my fault. Maybe that's just how the Universe works. Suck it up and move on. Sometimes, things you value are not things other people value. Sometimes "hard work" doesn't equal "valuable work". Or, they are things that anyone could do- no "skill" or unusual talent involved- so there isn't much reason to pay a lot for them. If that's the case, I'm sorry, but that doesn't entitle you to punish people who had marketable skills that pay well, or people who happened to be in the right place at the right time with the right talents.
#4- Wong then complains that rich people claim that if they got rich, so can you. I've encountered this one myself. A guy I used to know pretty well made money with everything he touched. He couldn't lose. He couldn't understand why everyone (particularly, me) wasn't wealthy. He kept telling me that making money was easy. Yet, here I am- still broke. But I don't blame him at all. There were things that were very easy to me that he couldn't do. It's just that my talents didn't bring financial reward while his did. I could have been bitter and jealous of him, or I could have kept counting him as a friend. I chose the happier path. Wong's error is the "slice of pie fallacy". Listen, wealth is not a zero sum game. It is not a pie where if you have a bigger slice, mine is automatically smaller. No, the bigger your slice of the pie, the bigger the entire pie grows, and the better my chance of getting a bigger slice becomes. Mr. Wong, your ill-informed rant hurts us all by misleading other ignorant people into agreeing with you, and damaging the economy as a result. I hope you get smarter before you do too much damage- if anyone is listening to you.
#3- Then he complains that rich people say he is just jealous because they "made it" and he didn't. I agree there. His whole tirade stinks of jealousy and envy (and the echo still repeats "but it's not fair!"). I am not jealous of "the rich". I'd love to join them someday (if I could do so without losing more than I gain- which seems unlikely). I think most people who bash the rich do so in the belief that by bringing them down, they will somehow gain. What a pathetic desire to have. You could also have an advantage if you blinded everyone else in the world. But it doesn't make you better in any way. Wong believes he has a right, as a part of "society", to judge you for how you choose to spend your money. He believes you answer to him when you spend. And if he disagrees with your choice, he will call you names and advocate that The State steal more of your money to give to him. Because, if you don't spend your money the way he wants you to, then you are acting like a supervillain who lives on an island by himself. Pitiful creature, Mr. Wong is. Grasping at those straws that make him feel justified in advocating theft.
#2- Next Wong goes off on the "rich person's" claim that "You Shouldn't Be Punishing the Very People Who Make This Country Work!" He doesn't understand how value is created. He believes that the labor of poor people is why the factory is profitable. He forgets that the poor people had to have the factory provided by someone in order to use their labor to create the profit. Will those poor people band together to build the factory? They could... but will they? It sure doesn't happen very often. You need someone with the money to help you make your products and money. Perhaps Wong believes this is the place of The State. Perhaps he is wrong again. It's funny how much this contradicts his whole "no man is an island" thesis that he uses elsewhere. The poor could just get along fine if only those pesky rich people didn't have any "extra" money to spend on infrastructure along with the caviar. Please! The rich already "pitch in" in more ways, and to a greater degree, than Mr. Wong can wrap his mind around. He isn't asking them to "get something down from a very tall shelf because nobody else can ... reach it", he is ordering them to get it down because he is too lazy to bring over the step ladder. Anyone would balk when you order them to do your job for you while you point a gun at their head.
#1- Finally, he pushes his collectivist view that everyone is just as parasitical as he is, and that claiming that you should stop asking for handouts is just mean. Or delusional. I don't care if someone asks for handouts. What I hate is when they demand you hand over your property at the point of a gun. It doesn't matter to me if they are using their own gun and putting their own life in peril, or using the State's gun and stealing through democracy. You have no right to any other person's property. Go ahead: ask for handouts. Just don't think you are entitled to them. And don't expect people not to look at you as a whiny, selfish, lazy parasite.
A funny footnote. In the column Wong says "all civilization and morality rests on the fact that we have to answer to each other - the only reason I haven't murdered a dozen people in traffic is because society will bring consequences if I do." That's the classic collectivist's admission. It crops up in almost every conversation with a statist if they talk long enough. And, remember that these are the very people who seek political office and bureaucratic jobs. They simply redirect their murderous tendencies into jobs where they can cause pain to others without being punished for it. And I'm supposed to "honor" their choice? I don't think so. I don't murder people because it is wrong to attack the innocent, not because I fear the consequences. It's really not a hard decision to make. Am I that much better than the Wongs of the world?
.
good one on a pet peeve favorite sunject of mine.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed the "I don't kill people only because society...whatever....stops me" bit before as well. I've always considered that a natural result of industrialized collectivism where everyone not only has to, but SHOULD, work for everyone else. Since that is not how this society operates, people who aren't working 100% for the common good are viewed as parasites. In other words, it's not wrong to attack them because they AREN'T innocent.
ReplyDeleteIt is exactly the reasoning Hitler and Stalin used. It is also the same reasoning used by our wonderful Republicans when they accuse half the population of being "takers" because they do not pay income tax(never mind they pay a myriad of other taxes). It grossly overstates reality to build a false moral barometer.
It's a twisted ideology that has racked up multiple millions of bodies over the last hundred years or so.
How're ya feeling, by the way?
Excellent rebuttal to the whole collectivist argument, Kent. Especially liked the "zero-sum" remark. This is said far too infrequently.
ReplyDeleteI'm doing better, Mike. Feeling the best I have in a long time.
ReplyDeleteThat is a great reply to Wong [though I haven't bothered reading whatever he wrote]. I'm an atheist, but I am not blind to the verities of religions. When hordes of people for thousands of years have considered virtues as a way of life, one needs to be cautious about ignoring them.
ReplyDeleteOne of the seven cardinal sins is envy.
The reason it is a sin is not so much that it harms the person envied [though it all too often does because it leads to attacks] but that it harms the person suffering the envy.
As a child I experienced envy, but my family, being poor, [though not in poverty in my generation], taught me to live by my own value and values. It was interesting and extremely helpful to acquire that individual self-determination trait.
But one thing I learned alongside that is that the powerful and wealthy can be a nasty lot. They become seduced into the might makes right syndrome and start throwing their weight around.
After decades of learning, working, scrimping and saving, and investing, I now fit the definition of rich [as viewed by the bottom decile of NZers].
A very helpful thing for people to learn is that envy is a cardinal sin. A self-destructive deviation from virtue. A distraction from their own creation of value to offer in exchange to other people.
They should not be put off their virtue by experiencing the haughty arrogance of the rich like Helen Clark who boss them around in wanton lust for power over people. Helen Clark expresses the worst of wealth - acquired by theft, supporting arrogant dominance.
Strangely, people think she's virtuous but are envious and contemptuous of people who get there under their own steam then spend their money on personal enjoyment of luxuries. Most wealthy people though, are so habituated to creating much more value than they spend on themselves, that they can't change to become prolific personal spenders. They carry on into their dotage leaving large estates which are then dissipated by their dissolute inheritors and wanton wives.
I hate when people attack rich people. I agree with you, as long as people legally obtain their money it's none of anyone's business. Some people just want money and don't understand you have to work for it. It's almost like there is a neo-bolshevik revolution of lazy people in America these days.
ReplyDeleteYes, there does seem to be "a neo-bolshevik revolution of lazy people in America". And worldwide, judging by what's going on in Greece and elsewhere. Interesting times are a-comin'. Be ready.
ReplyDeleteThank you Kent. I'm the facebook friend, and your rebuttal was spot on. I tried going over to Cracked to leave a comment or two (as HeartOfDarkness), but there's such a high density of collectivist rhetoric I felt like I was in a bad dream running slowly through molasses. They've really drunk the kool-aid, and we're living in a global Jonestown.
ReplyDeleteJim- You're welcome. I also considered leaving a link to this blog entry at the article, but I didn't feel like registering to do so.
ReplyDelete