Free Markets and Lucky Assholes Go Hand in Hand, and They’re Giving You the Finger

by Mupetblast on August 24, 2011

in Economics

The fabled Tortoise and Hare is a quaint if not archaic pair. This long played out anthropomorphic duo was often invoked to teach youngsters the virtues of slow, steady and humble productivity in the taunting face of a cocksure narcissist. The Tortoise, lacking the foolhardy (and womanizing) talent of the Hare, ultimately wins the day with his bourgeois habits of restraint and patience.

Too bad that little parable has shit all to do with success in the rat – er, rabbit – race of life.

Ok, not completely. Avoiding the temptations of junkie-hood, not suffering from severe mental illness, not screwing with the lid off (if your “partner” is a Maury Povich type), and keeping a job while living within your means is a fairly reliable way of avoiding poverty. But the idea that with enough elbow grease, thrift, talent, and an optimistic disposition you too can find yourself rubbing that aforementioned grease with the best of them is so just so much bright-eyed American nonsense. The evidence is mounting that the rich are lucky, selfish, reckless bastards with no trace of compassion.

Relatively speaking, of course.

Advertisement

Virginia Postrel, expositor and proud defender of capitalism’s hard-on for “irrational exuberance,” breaks it down like this:

Entrepreneurship is not…a rational risk calculation. It is, as critics of capitalism sometimes charge, a bit like gambling. The few big winners are usually people who shouldn’t have bet their time, money, and ideas. They overestimated their chances of striking it rich. But they beat the odds — to everyone’s benefit.

Yep, they got lucky (and given their newfound wealth, likely in more ways than one). Who says black kids shouldn’t dream of becoming the next Kanye West or Dennis Rodman? (Ok, perhaps Rodman is a piss poor example.) Hey, if only a trifling pittance of these kids succeed, we all benefit. You don’t see white and Asian kids being told their wet dreams of starting the next Groupon or eBay is just so much faith based magic, so why shoot down the pie in the sky cravings of the midnight basketball crowd? What kind of heartless jerk would do such a thing?

A rich one, it would seem.

Even libertarians will confess to something like an X factor in favor of greediness for the successful in our ranks. The mental image of the suave, power suit wearing American Psycho guy may be off the mark, but that drive to possess is very much on target.

The rich are assholes too. Compared to their down in the dump counterparts, they show less empathy and compassion. They’re so caught up in their hands-free cell phone conversations they fail to notice the destitute pauper inches away, stitching his pants back together with a second hand sewing kit rescued from a trash bin. In the rain.

Even more perverse, we may even like it this way. A bunch of eggheads running an experiment on leadership found that people chose leaders not for their smarts and resourcefulness, but for their ability to marshal the inner asshole that pretends to, in the words of working class slob Larry the Cable Guy, “Git R Done.”

One can take mental refuge in the likelihood that the rich, at the very least, have good taste, neglecting to make the abysmal Atlas Shrugged movie their mascot via bribes to professional taste makers, and more or less consigning it to an Orwellian memory hole.

So, does all of this mean that the Progressives’ progressively annoying calls for taxing the rich and moving power away from them and to the state have merit? As one catchy aphorism (and website) would have it: Hell to the Nah. First, there just aren’t enough rich folks to put a plug in the butt of the big assed US deficit. Sure, you could confiscate at rates of 90%, but at that level even critics of the tax policy favored by Ferris Bueller’s droll teacher would have to concede its predictive power. Second, and in the opinion of this low-ranking college graduate, more importantly, the domain over which the rich preside is plain easier to escape from. Their private fiefdoms don’t have the power to compel patronage – i.e. buying their shit – in the way governments do. And that, as even a dullard can tell you, can have a sobering effect on giving people what they, you know, actually want. When I shop at Wal-Mart, hypothetically speaking of course, it’s only me doing the shopping. When a majority of my compatriots “shop” at USA Inc., everyone else is forced to as well.

The money bag (and maybe even colostomy bag) sporting elder statesmen at Wal-Mart allow for benign neglect in a way governments don’t. Now of course if they had their druthers, I’d eek out an existence a la The Truman Show in the confines of their megastores. I’d eat from one of those built-in McDonalds every day, and my reading material would be restricted to Sarah Palin’s Going Rogue, Chelsea Handler’s My Horizontal Life (a revealing title, come to think of it), or any of the other brain teasers you’ll find in the bargain bin. Alas, that’s not the case. Government, in contrast, recalls the title of Jean Paul Sartre’s No Exit.

The rich want to screw me, but fortunately my relationship with them involves a chastity belt that can only be unlocked with the swipe of my Visa card.

Mupetblast blogs at Entitled to an Opinion.

{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }

1 Kaz August 24, 2011 at 1:07 pm

Yep..

Here have a look at this video here, bankrupt California somehow finds the funds to kick people off their homes for living in the desert; people who cost the state NOTHING.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw3RiMdS7sE&feature=feedu

2 NickyG August 24, 2011 at 1:25 pm

What is the point to this article?

3 Mupetblast August 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

NickyG,

To say rich people suck, but at least being able to choose among them is better than being stuck with either nice OR wicked politicians. Essentially.

4 V10 August 24, 2011 at 8:49 pm

Their private fiefdoms don’t have the power to compel patronage

Think the quote you’re looking for is:

“The power which a multiple millionaire, who may be my neighbor and perhaps my employer has over me is far less than that which the smallest functionary who wields the coercive power of the state, and on whose discretion it depends whether and how I am allowed to live or to work.” — F. A. Hayek

5 Adam_Smith August 25, 2011 at 4:01 am

All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind

It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion

Both from The Wealth of Nations

6 Laguna Beach Fogey August 25, 2011 at 9:02 am

“is”?!

Many of the rich I know are successful entrepreneurs in bio-tech and finance who spent years in relative ‘poverty’, eschewing bling and whores, driving old cars and wearing t-shirts and denim.

7 painlord2k August 25, 2011 at 12:15 pm

The only fair tax is a flat tax. You can add a fixed detraction to the taxes paid to avoid to tax poor, marginally productive people.

8 sth_txs August 25, 2011 at 9:04 pm

So, does all of this mean that the Progressives’ progressively annoying calls for taxing the rich and moving power away from them and to the state have merit?

Most ‘progressives’ in Congress are some the wealthiest sacks of crap that ever lived! And I don’t see many progressives writing gift checks to the federal government or other government entities. The stingiest people by far are liberals and progressives. Yet these morons like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, etc are voted into office. However, I’m not saying the other side of the isle is a prize either.

9 Soon to be rich guy August 29, 2011 at 6:01 am

Took me 23 months to raise finance for my business. I moved back in with parents, had no social life, suffered from depression, had no income while I lived off savings. I was overweight and stressed. I was selling furniture I had in storage some months and I was 32 years old. I gave up everything for nothing but the possibility of landing the money I needed. I hustled and busted my ass off and it would have been so much easier just to pack it and go back to a 120k a year job which I gave up.

How many of you would give up your social life, cushy job with established career path, suck up your pride and live with parents in your 30′s and see your health suffer for two fucking years with no certainty that there would be just reward at the end?

Hardly any, which is the reason why I am lucky and you are not.

I may not retire wealthy, I may lose it all, but chances are Ill be that guy you resent so much, who still pays your fucking salary at the end of the month

10 Procopius August 29, 2011 at 8:48 am

“…there just aren’t enough rich folks to put a plug in the butt of the big assed US deficit.” Well, I don’t know about that, but that’s not what progressives are calling for anyway. What most of them want is a return to Clinton-level taxes, at least on the top 2% who make over $250,000 a year. That alone would close most of the deficit (which really needs to be much larger, not smaller). My own preference is to return to Eisenhower-level taxes on EVERYONE! It’s perfectly obvious that when people have to pay high taxes they work harder to keep their income up there. If you look at GDP growth and tax rates, the country has been growing best when the top tax rate WAS 91%. And people don’t pay that much on all their income either, its a marginal tax, you pay 18% on the first however much, then 22% on the next however much, etc., so the effective rate overall is about 45% on people making over $1,000,000. You used to hear people saying they didn’t want a raise because it would put them in a higher tax bracket. Nobody really turned down a raise in those days except the kind of people who are in the Tea Party now, because only the part that was above the cut-off point was taxed at the higher rate and even semi-literate immigrant laborers understood that. And strangely enough, this idea of paying more taxes is really only unpopular with the guys who wouldn’t notice the difference anyway. Do you think Bill Gates really CARES that he’s paying 15% of his income in income taxes? When what’s left over is billions every year? It’s just that, as you say, the really rich are really big assholes too.

11 painlord2k August 29, 2011 at 4:50 pm

The higher bracket, confiscating the wealth produced (not owned) by the most productive individuals demotivate them from risking.
Why I must risk 1 billion of my own money if 90% of the income produced is confiscated by the government?
Say I see a chance to invest in a new manufacturing in the US, but it need 1 billion of investment. It will net me 100 M every year after 5 year of building a factory, hiring people and so on. So I will break even after 15 years. After this it will print money for me. Now, with a 90% bracket, this will net me 10 million every year after the first 5. I will break even after 105 years.
What is my motivation for doing an investment that allow me, if all go right, to break even after 105 years?

I would move money to some other place, or build some other place (Hello Elon Musk), and invest there.

Leave a Comment

{ 2 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: