The problem with redistributing wealth once the rat race has been won

There's nothing worse than operating your brain with a faulty metaphor. Ideas are like computer software, a slight oversight in the logic of the programme will consistently produce sometimes dramatic oversights. At core I had the idea of wealth "redistribution" in my mind for quite some time. However on closer consideration the word is deeply misleading, it seems to imply that there was some point in the past where wealth was evenly distributed and that we can somehow reach it again by revising who currently has what in terms of money.

When was this eden? This point in the past when everyone had an equal share of "wealth"? There isn't one.

So, once it's "redistributed", presumably by force, is there a point at which we can stop this process? Should we allow wealth to freely circulate at any point or constantly allow someone to decide who should have what? If not do we act all surprised when the economy freezes?

Furthermore the idea that "the rat race has been won" is deeply misleading. The world's economy is not fixed like ice but fluid like water. Our nation is rich at the moment but the rat race is not over. Times change, nations rise and fall.

The question is, should we have a system which is geared toward wealth "redistribution"? Or should we not? Or is there a compromise between the two? I suspect the answer lies in the latter but believe anyone's attempt will be given clarity if this faulty metaphor is dismissed.

NM

Comments

Popular Posts