Apparently liberals believe that having rich people in society is bad, Rich people should have their wealth confiscated and given to less productive people in society. Peter Foster has a good piece that these theories are good for no one including the poor.
Liberals promote primitive, economically challenged assumptions for political ends
‘Why don’t Americans pay more attention to growing income disparity?” asked Timothy Noah in a piece in last Wednesday’s Post. Terence Corcoran established Thursday that Mr. Noah’s claim of “growing disparity” is essentially a crock, but that claim invites more probing questions: Why are modern liberals obsessed with income inequality (to the point of cooking the books), and why do they claim that it is unequivocally “bad” and almost invariably getting “worse?”
Inequality of income and wealth is inevitable under a system of relatively free enterprise because people have different talents, ambitions and drives. Given capital accumulation, mass production and extensive markets, it is possible for individuals to become fabulously wealthy on the basis of ideas alone. Thus it was with Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Henry Ford. Thus it is with Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the likes of Canada’s Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis. Such individuals create jobs, wealth and tax revenue. Their wealth is not earned “at the expense” of anybody else, except unsuccessful competitors. And yet the inevitable “inequality” created by these men, and other talented and entrepreneurial individuals, is constantly bemoaned as a moral blight and a potential danger. Inequality is confuted with inequity.