What Obama meant when he said “share the wealth”
28 October 2008
by
lolife
Filed under
Politics
We can look at this in terms of moral ideals or we can look at it in greedy terms of pure capitalism and either way we come to the same answer: we all do better when we all do better. Financially, it’s just obvious: you get a better standard of living and a bigger GDP if you have a population that is not in poverty. You also avoid the other costly issues related to poverty, such as crime, high drop-out rates, etc. John Nash proved mathematically, in a sense, using game theory, that individuals do better when they take into account the best interest of those around them. Literally, we all do better when we all do better.
I’m a capitalist. I’m not suggesting we tax at 50% or create a welfare society. Neither is Obama. The biggest untapped potential in our economy is realized when people transition from low-income to middle-income or from middle-income to high-income. When we move the whole bell curve, the whole bell curve moves! Amazing! So you rich folks get richer, too, when poor people get richer.
Morally, it’s always funny to me how, as individuals, we are offended if people call us selfish or greedy. Those are not qualities we want in the people around us, either. Almost all of us are gracious, giving and caring people. Yet somehow the Right can spit out “share the wealth” as if it was the most vile concept to ever cross their lips. How dare he suggest that we should be gracious, giving and caring people! Why, that’s un-American! Right Michele?
WRONG. It is possible to be a capitalist and a small-d democrat and still rise up to our shared responsibility to make possible a decent standard of living for our citizens. Those of us who do find ourselves making more than we need should feel lucky and grateful and willing to help others achieve it.
QED