Economics: the Rich and the Poor
In socialistic/communistic government systems, the idea of having people with "above average means" is seen as a bad thing. To an extent, we see this even in our free enterprise system of economics - those who have more are expected to be taxed more and give more to those who don't have it. Now, before I go further, I will admit that wealth is a gift from God and is to be used to benefit the poor, especially fellow believers. However, what this post deals with is the wealthy in the economic system.
For a growing economy, there must be a wealthy class, more so now than ever before. Only the wealthy have extra capital to speculate on new ideas; only the wealthy have the huge sums of money to finance the large purchases necessary to start a company (land, buildings, machines, etc.). Now, with stocks and bonds, many people can pool their resources to accomplish the same thing, but one wealthy entrepreneur can make decisions and get the ball rolling (so to speak) much faster than a group of people, especially if that group differs on the manner in which to accomplish the goal. Historically, it has been the wealthy who have pulled the poorer classes out of the muck of poverty by taking risks and producing jobs. Without the resources of the wealthy, the poor are not given the chance to better their condition. To divide up all wealth is to divy up all the cake batter before the cake is even baked. Only by leaving a large sum of the batter in the bowl can everyone have a piece of the cake. In the same way, leaving the money in the hands of the few in the end will provide the benefits to all. This, however, relies on the wise actions of those with the wealth. Wealth that is wasted is a benefit to none. Like all power and authority, wealth is a gift to be used for the greatest benefit possible. A part of that benefit is speculation and investment in new inventions, markets, and industries - all of which benefit the society as a whole. And the benefit of the free enterprise system is that the roles of wealthy and poor are not permant but are fluid. Through saving and wise decisions, the poor can become wealthy; conversely, through foolishness and waste, the wealthy may quickly find themselves as poor.
For a growing economy, there must be a wealthy class, more so now than ever before. Only the wealthy have extra capital to speculate on new ideas; only the wealthy have the huge sums of money to finance the large purchases necessary to start a company (land, buildings, machines, etc.). Now, with stocks and bonds, many people can pool their resources to accomplish the same thing, but one wealthy entrepreneur can make decisions and get the ball rolling (so to speak) much faster than a group of people, especially if that group differs on the manner in which to accomplish the goal. Historically, it has been the wealthy who have pulled the poorer classes out of the muck of poverty by taking risks and producing jobs. Without the resources of the wealthy, the poor are not given the chance to better their condition. To divide up all wealth is to divy up all the cake batter before the cake is even baked. Only by leaving a large sum of the batter in the bowl can everyone have a piece of the cake. In the same way, leaving the money in the hands of the few in the end will provide the benefits to all. This, however, relies on the wise actions of those with the wealth. Wealth that is wasted is a benefit to none. Like all power and authority, wealth is a gift to be used for the greatest benefit possible. A part of that benefit is speculation and investment in new inventions, markets, and industries - all of which benefit the society as a whole. And the benefit of the free enterprise system is that the roles of wealthy and poor are not permant but are fluid. Through saving and wise decisions, the poor can become wealthy; conversely, through foolishness and waste, the wealthy may quickly find themselves as poor.
posted by Monk at 8:26 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home