Misconceptions Addressed: The Need for the Rich

Or: Atlas Needs Us, We Don't Need Him

I got into a lengthy discussion with my grandmother, yesterday, that was set off by a set of side-by-side columns in the Washington Post. The column I had commented on was one that speaks against taxing the rich based on fairness. The conversation that ensued -which was initially about an analogy used by the columnist that I thought was intellectually dishonest- elevated to being one about entrepreneurship.

I've addressed before, and I eventually managed to make clear to her, that the American Meritocracy is a myth because, despite the few rags-to-riches stories that are over-emphasized to appear typical, the odds against a person of little privilege "pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps" are phenomenal.

What the discussion came down to was that, according to her, the rich are overpaid for many things, but they are still necessary as our society's source of management and innovation. If they weren't there to take the risks and start the businesses, where would the innovation come from?

I managed to make my point clear enough, but I had one of those, "Goddamn it, that's what I should have said!" moments later on in the evening.

What I should have said was "Creators gonna create, Mimi."

That's the real gist of it. Production of commodities is driven by demand. Demand comes from need, and need existed long before -and will continue to exist long after- capitalist middle-men. We planted and harvested corn because we were hungry, we built houses because we needed shelter, we invented games because we were bored. Need drives innovation and need drives production, not a dollar bill on a fishing pole. If we need it, we will create it somehow; and if Jonas Salk (inventor of the Polio vaccine) had "gone Galt," someone else would have done what he neglected to do.

Just like haters gonna hate and masturbators gonna masturbate, so are creators gonna create and innovators gonna innovate. You don't become a doctor or teacher for the paycheck, you do it because you have a desire to heal and teach. Salk didn't invent invent the Polio vaccine because he got paid, he invented it because there was a need for it and he had the desire to fill that need. This, of course, isn't to say that these innovators and inventors shouldn't be reimbursed for their contributions to the public, only that their motivations are not, and should not be, simply to exploit society's needs for a profit.

In industry, innovation would be better to come from the engineers and workers motivated by efficiency and practicality, rather than coming from executives and marketers motivated by profit alone. How many revolutionary innovations do you think have been ignored because they did not promise a hefty return on someone's investment? How many more do you think have been outright sabotaged, despite how they might have helped mankind, because they threatened to hurt profits? The incredibly slow progress of the search for alternative energy is a perfect example. Because oil is more profitable right now than alternative energy, and because alternative energy is a threat to oil profits, the free market suffocates efforts to advance it.

Again, I'm not proposing that everyone just do everything they do for free (although I'm not saying that wouldn't be great, either). I'm saying that, when we need something, we are going to find a way to get it with or without those who would exploit that need for profit.

Of course, this is all ignoring the fact that very few of the super rich in this world actually are the innovators and creators that bring our civilization progress and prosperity; quite the contrary. The conservatives and Ayn Rands of the world would surely like us to believe this, but it is simply not true. The majority of our super rich are those born into relative privilege (most of whom were born into exorbitant privilege), and either utilized that privilege to jump into management positions, or used their unearned wealth and property to invest in the creators and innovators who have no other way of doing what they do best.

Misconceptions addressed: The Self Made Man and Meritocracy

The reactionary misinformation that perpetuates false consciousness.

There’s a famous quote, the author of which is disputed, that goes “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires,” and I’ve found this to be very true. There are legions of people who will defend to their deaths the rights of the rich, even when they are at odds with their own economic interests. This is because they have been taught to believe from childhood that American capitalism is a meritocracy, and thus believe that:

a. All who are rich got that way through hard work and ingenuity.
b. They, too, can become rich through their own hard work and ingenuity.

I, personally, find this sentiment insulting, as should anyone with a poor/working class background who has seen first hand the most hard working people in the world living in shacks and driving 30 year old vehicles.
The meritocracy myth is taught to us directly, and through the peripheral route. Example: Thomas Edison, a man born with one or more learning disabilities who goes on to invent the lightbulb; he teaches us that, even if we face crippling obstacles, as long as we just happen to be inventors with a great deal of luck in patenting and marketing our inventions, any of us can be an American success story.

Of course, as I said, the American meritocracy is obvious bull pie. In fact, it is something that has lately come under a great deal of scrutiny. Even a professional who makes a living coaching Executives and othe business leaders says, ”I have been struck by how many people blindly follow the images portrayed by the media that try to convince the masses that “you too” can be the next athletic, singing, acting or business star regardless of your background, when the odds are astronomical that it will happen.”

This idea is simply not a reality. Those who defend it have only anecdotal accounts and examples; the millions of examples that contradict them are conveniently ignored.