Production, Wealth, Politicians and Greed

HOME page> NEW STUFF page>
WRITING CONTENT page> GUEST ARTISTS page>

Production, Wealth, Politicians and Greed
Mick Stratton
mstratton@hlkn.tamu.edu

Isn't it interesting that those who accuse others of being greedy invariably want something they did not produce?

Before discussing how greed and politicians relates to production and money it might be worthwhile to discuss how money came about and how it relates to production.

More than likely people were trading with each other before they learned the concept of division of labor. As far as that goes, trade was probably one of the causes of division of labor. Imagine that you and I and all of those with us could hunt, gather food, and make tools. I can make tools better than you but you can hunt better than me. Eventually we will probably come to an understanding that you hunt and I make tools. I will give you some of my tools for some of your meat. In our small society more and more people start to specialize in something. Some make clothes, others jewelry and several of us start to specialize in specific types of tools. One person is best at making knives another at spears and spear points and even another at carving wooden bowls. So we start dividing our labor.

As individuals learned to specialize so did groups so trading between groups of people began to happen. Probably pretty early on the traders noticed an inconvenience. Let's say I was a bowl maker and I wanted some meat but the hunter didn't need a bowl; however he needed a knife but the knife maker didn't need meat, but he did need a bowl. We could make a trade but we would all have to get together.

This inconvenience was more than likely the cause of the concept to have a common medium of exchange. Instead of trading for goods, people would exchange (trade) their produce for a commodity that was agreed on by all to have a certain value. What did they pick and why did they pick it to be a medium of exchange?

What was decided upon varied from place to place and I really don't know exactly why something was decided upon to be the medium of exchange in any particular place. However, in the western world, at some point in time the medium of exchange became silver and gold.

Once a medium of exchange was developed it became pretty easy for people to measure who was wealthier than whom by the amount of money (medium of exchange) that he had. Could someone become wealthier than another in an honest, moral way? Of course the answer is yes, but how and why? There are several reasons.

One reason is that some are more skilled in production than others. Let us say it takes me one hour to make a very nice bowl but it takes you two hours to make one of the same size and quality. All of the bowls are in high demand. (We can sell as many as we can make.) If we put in the same amount of time and energy in making bowls, I will be making twice as many as you every day and therefore will be receiving twice as much money per day and become twice as wealthy.

Another reason is the quality of the product. You and I both make knives but yours are made better than mine because you are more skilled in your craft. People will pay you more for your knife because, to them, it has more value.

Also there is the demand for the product. I make bowls and you make arrowheads. Everybody has all the bowls and arrowheads they need. However bowls rarely need to be replaced but arrowheads need to be replaced often; so virtually every day people are coming to you for arrowheads, but only need bowls from me once every several months. You become wealthier because of the demand.

Let us assume that you and I both make knives and they are of the same quality and the demand is such that every knife we make is immediately sold. I make them twice as fast as you but I only want to work four hours a day. You on the other hand work twelve hours a day. You will be wealthier than me.

Another scenario is we are equally skilled and work the same hours a day but you charge thirty percent more than me. Since all of our knives sell, you will end up being wealthier. People would rather buy my knives, but once they are sold, yours are the only ones left.

Someone might say that is not “nice” of you. That may be right but you are still honest because you tell everyone up front that that is what you are doing. However, it is up to the others to make up their minds to purchase it or not.

People who are highly skilled tend be paid more than those who have minimal skills because there are less of the skilled. Therefore those with high skills become wealthier assuming that which they are skilled at is in high demand.

When a wealthy person has more than he needs, or even wants, he often volunteers to help others by giving them money or other commodities of value. He may do this because he cares about others, or so he will be liked. Regardless, most would say he is a generous man, not a greedy one.

Interesting… So how does wealth relate to greed? Well first let's define greed.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines greed as “a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed”

My definition on the other hand is “the desire to have that which you did not earn in an honest and moral way.” By honest I mean you followed the rules (laws) and you did not amend the rules (laws) in such a way that the rule applied differently to you than to others. If you did not follow the rules, or if you amended them in such a way as to give you an advantage, that would be dishonest.

The reason I define greed differently for the sake of this discussion is that “is needed” is really not definable. Also by the dictionary's definition, anyone who wants a better life is greedy. If you want a bigger house, better car, tastier food (none of which is needed) you are greedy.

So I like my definition better which I will restate as “a desire to have that which one did not earn in a legal and moral manner.”

Because we are greedy by nature we tend to desire things that someone else has and we cannot afford to buy or cannot create. This greed can cause various reactions of which the worst is to steal what is wanted.

Stealing is the taking of property from someone who does not wish to give it to you. It really doesn't matter how you do it, the principle is the same. It is not yours, he does not want to give it to you but you take it anyway. That is stealing.

So if you sneak into a house and take someone's property when he is not there, you have stolen his property. If you threaten to do him harm with a weapon and force him to give you his property you have robbed him which is stealing with threat of force.

If ten people decide they want some of my sheep and threaten me with force if I do not give the sheep to them, I am sure you would consider that stealing. What if they voted on whether they should take my sheep or not? Is that any different?

Most of you will agree with this so let's make it where we can have some controversy. Instead of sheep I have ten times the money than nine other people in the vicinity. The nine declare themselves a tribe and tell me I can be part of the tribe or not, but if I don't they will take all my money and make me leave. I have nowhere to go and cannot live without my money so I become part of the tribe.

The group of nine then vote that anyone who has ten times the money of the average has to give up twenty percent of his money to be split evenly among everyone else. Now is that not stealing from me if I do not want to give of my money?

I say yes, you may say no, but if you do say no, ask yourself why? For instance, if the majority can take my property, can they not also make me work for them for free? (Actually they just did) You are a very talented musical artist and have become wealthy through your ability. The majority want you to sing periodically for free. They vote that every month you have to give a free concert somewhere.

Is not forcing you to give of your time the same as giving of your wealth? Remember, I said taking your property by threat of force is no different than stealing. If you say they can take a certain amount of your money through majority rule, why should not they be able to take a certain amount of your time and effort? After all, that is what you used to accrue your wealth. Where am I wrong here?

Many celebrities and politicians would accuse you of being greedy if you want to keep your money or your time. By my definition the greedy ones are those who demand from you that which you do not want to give and they did not earn.

When those with less, through mob rule or government, take from those with more through the threat of force, they are the greedy ones. The politicians who want power and recognition by forcing the wealthy to give of their wealth to others are the ones who are most greedy, for they produced nothing and gained power by forcing another to do that which he did not want to do!

In the chapter named “The Land of Corb Lupia” I have the people who live in Corb Lupia (Corb Lupians) as being humans and therefore the same as humans on Earth except for one minor genetic trait. They do not want that which they did not produce or trade for in an honest manner. It is my belief that we of the planet Earth have a genetic predisposition to be greedy. You may have noticed that several of my “Thoughts” deal with greed. The people of Corb Lupia do not have that predisposition which allows for them to live without government.

Understanding my definition of greed allows you to understand my argument as to why I changed the Corb Lupian genetic tendencies. It is greed, by my definition, which allows me to argue that the larger and more powerful a government is, the less freedom you will have.

Why is that? Because in a greedy world people tend to be more interested in what they want than in principles. Notice I said what they want and not what they need. The easiest way to take from one group of people to give to another is by force, and the bigger the government, the more force can be used.

The excuse that has been used throughout history is that government needs to take care of the poor and that justifies the taking from the wealthy. But who is poor, what is poor and how poor are the poor in a particular country? In fact, the poor in the United States are the richest poor people in the world, so how poor are they?

Some interesting statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau on the poor in the United States:

In 2013 14.5 percent of all Americans and 19.9% of all children under eighteen were considered poor.

The Nielsen Rating organization said in 2011 that 96.7 percent of households have TVs.

In 2010 the obesity rate for the poor was 145% higher than the wealthy which is contrary to the poor in other countries.

The following all come from the same source.
Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual (not poor) living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe.
Nearly 75% of the poor households own a car.

This is not to say that there are not some poor in this country who are, in fact, under nourished and living in horrible conditions, but it is also true that the majority of the poor in this country are as well, or better off, than many average people in other countries.

Politicians and advocates for the poor are constantly talking about the monetary gap between the poor and the rich. But why should this matter if the poor are not in need? If wealth is acquired by playing by the rules on an equal playing field, then why should it matter how wealthy certain individuals are? What can be said about a person who wants to take from someone who has a lot and distribute it to those who have less when those with less do not “need” it and did not earn it? I would suggest this person wants to do this for the purpose of gaining in political power and is in fact the one who truly is greedy.

Interestingly, many of those who accuse the rich of being greedy are rich themselves. It is really ironic and funny, in a sad way, when we see multi-millionaire movie stars and entertainers talking about how greedy the 1% are, yet these same people are in that group and, percentage wise, often give less of their own wealth to charity than the ones they criticize.

As a group, politicians are the greediest people in this country and here is why. As stated previously, greed is wanting something you did not produce or earn honestly. In this country everyone is supposed to be considered equal under the law, but that is, in fact, a fallacy when the laws themselves specifically treat one group differently than another. In many cases the politicians have exempted themselves from laws everyone else needs to follow.

The average politician wants as much power as he can get. I suggest he doesn't earn this honestly because he corrupts the poor and causes strife amongst the citizenry. How does he do this?

First he tells the poor that they have a right to things they did not produce or earn based on the fact that they desire and/or “need” more. The poor in this country, who as you have seen are really not so poor, believe the politician because, as with most of us, they are also greedy.

Second, he then says those who have a lot, don't “need” it and they are the greedy ones for wanting to keep what they earned but do not need. This causes strife between the two groups and does no one any good except the politician because, in the end, he has gained more power.

The next time a politician says he will give you something for nothing, remember he is lying. That something was paid for by someone who well may have been forced to give it up so you could have more of what you did not earn or need.
enough