« On Smuggling and Law | Main | The Coming Recession?» Don Boudreaux
May 04, 2008
Fair Advice
Don Boudreaux
I've never been invited to deliver a commencement address. And I probably should never be so invited, for I already know the title I would choose: "Don't Change the World." I would explain that it's okay -- indeed, admirable -- to change the world marginally, incrementally, by engaging in voluntary actions. But all the "change the world" talk that high-school and college graduates get presumes that change, any change, is desirable -- as if the world is such a decrepit place that nothing about is worth preserving (except, of course, "the environment"). And all this "change the world" talk also tends to presume that doing things politically is the best way to effect worthwhile change. (Update: Reader Bob Ewing kindly suggests that I add a link to this article of mine that develops this point further.)
Anyway, I digress..... for the reason I post today is to recommend that you read P.J. O'Rourke's commencement-address-like ruminations. (HT to Tom Hazlett) Here's one of my favorite passages:
Life sends the message, "I'd better not be poor. I'd better get rich. I'd better make more money than other people." Meanwhile, politics sends us the message, "Some people make more money than others. Some are rich while others are poor. We'd better close that 'income disparity gap.' It's not fair!"
Well, I am here to advocate for unfairness. I've got a 10-year-old at home. She's always saying, "That's not fair." When she says this, I say, "Honey, you're cute. That's not fair. Your family is pretty well off. That's not fair. You were born in America. That's not fair. Darling, you had better pray to God that things don't start getting fair for you." What we need is more income, even if it means a bigger income disparity gap.
Posted by Don Boudreaux in The Economy | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e55224df7c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fair Advice:
Comments
Great observation and story
Posted by: bee | May 4, 2008 8:37:10 PM
I agree with you that the idea of "changing the world" is rather naive. I do however, draw a distinction between feel-good socialist tree-huggers and those who actually improve the world around them by solving problems.
The world is very much better for innovators like Dr. Thomas Chau who is developing a prosthetic hand or Dr. Norman Borlaug who has worked tirelessly on disease resistant crops and feeding the world's population. Grace a dieu, we are living in a world that has polio vacinations, ipods, PET scans, and all kinds of other amazing inventions that materially improve the quality of our lives.
There is far more to life than just money. Money is nice but it is not the entire sum of who we are and what we do any more than a set of financial statements tell you about the nature of a business. It not only fails to quantify what we have to offer but fails to account for the thousands of volunteers who seek to improve their communities through their work.
As usual, P.J. has a sharp, acrid comment which is amusing but highly superficial. Very much enjoyed his book on the Wealth of Nations however, he gets bored with the subject and his attempts to say anything to get a laugh seem to get increasingly contrived. The last third of the book is not worth reading. He has a good brain but unfortunately, we don't really see its true potential.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 4, 2008 11:44:48 PM
Ironically, my kid gets that contradictory message all the time from his school:
"It's not fair that you're all so privileged. You should work for a fairer world."
Posted by: M. Hodak | May 5, 2008 1:44:13 AM
Just a little rumination of my own, but i love the rich tasty irony of knowing that that particular group of humans who embrace evolution and the natural selection it depended(s) upon (strong and superior being selected unfairly by mother nature), are the very humans that cry the loudest that life is unfair and we must correct mother nature's mistake.
Posted by: vidyohs | May 5, 2008 6:18:13 AM
Okay, which one of us is going to send this spammer a "Dear John" letter?
Posted by: LowcountryJoe | May 5, 2008 7:32:57 AM
Some says:
GM closed the plant that I was working at it is not fair.
If you cannot get another job at close to the wage that you were making, evidently you been make more than market wages at GM that was not fair. They moved the factory to China as poor as people in China are it was un-fair that they did not move the factory earlier.
Posted by: Floccina | May 5, 2008 9:14:59 AM
Cassandra,
The trouble with people who want to "change the world" is that generally they don't do it by way of solving a problem in order to make a giant pile of cash. They generally do it at gun point, which is the reason for the article's second bit of advice "don't be an idealist." Humanity is much better served by someone solving a problem on their own than by that person going to government to get a law, in nearly all cases.
Posted by: Hammer | May 5, 2008 10:37:29 AM
Cassandra: "Money ... not only fails to quantify what we have to offer but fails to account for the thousands of volunteers who seek to improve their communities through their work."
Different people have different needs, of course. Some trade their services for money. Some trade their services for emotional satisfaction and fame and the expectation of love or self-esteem. But all those who provide their services have one thing in common: they engage in free trade. Free trade is what has provided everyone in this world a better life. For almost all of this, money facilitates such free trade.
Posted by: John Dewey | May 5, 2008 10:41:47 AM
People who want "fairness" cannot explain, in objective terms, what this is. This is because it doesn't sound good to say "I want to be in control of the product of other people's productive work."
Posted by: piperTom | May 5, 2008 11:36:18 AM
You have never been asked to deliver a commencement address because your asking price is too high for the product you plan on delivering.
Posted by: mpkomara | May 5, 2008 1:30:39 PM
There is far more to life than just money.
Obviously. Money is just a MEASURE. If we were free and justice the norm, then money would be an accurate measure of our contribution.
Unfortunately, the dollar has become a free floating reference which makes accurate measurement of our product more difficult.
What is a dollar worth?
It's worth a dollar.
Posted by: Sam Grove | May 5, 2008 2:22:46 PM
". . . that particular group of humans who embrace evolution and the natural selection it depended(s) upon (strong and superior being selected unfairly by mother nature), are the very humans thatwho cry the loudest that life is unfair and we must correct mother nature's mistake." - (who else?)
Are you so sure that believers of evolution in nature automatically correlates with disbelief in evolution of the business world? But still how is this necessarily a contradiction? If you feel something is natural yet wrong then is it terrible to want to try and change it?
But then how could Creationists believe in free markets then? Free markets cull the bad businesses and reward the good. Not to mention as times change it requires businesses to change, those which don't adapt will get culled. Hence the free markets changes and grows more complex just as biological evolution allows complex species to emerge from simple organisms.
Posted by: Gil | May 6, 2008 2:18:46 AM
Gilduck,
I repeat.
"Your problem with coherently expressing thoughts is, I suppose, that you have no coherent thoughts to express. At least that is my experience with you."
Posted by: vidyohs | May 1, 2008 6:58:01 AM
Posted by: vidyohs | May 6, 2008 8:54:57 AM
I'll take two then vidyohsgoose and try to see if I can type in codgerese.
you made a strange correlation:
"believers in biological evolution = don't like economic evolution."
or "people + evolution = people + socialism"
I tried to make two points:
1. Does belief in evolution really always coincide with belief in non-Libertarianism? Somehow I'm sure there are plenty of biological and economic Darwinists. Or I doubt all Creationists are Libertarians.
2. The economic is Darwinist by nature and economic complexity arises not from a singular economic god but small evolutionary successes and failures (Libertarians love quoting the Calculation Problem as disproof of Socialism). Therefore why would anyone who could see the unplanned complexity of the marketplace believe that the complexity of life could emanate from a biological central planner?
Posted by: Gil | May 6, 2008 11:07:47 AM
That would be one speech worth missing. Invoking Harrison Bergeron looks good, but I see it as mark of shame. I just see someone who wants to justify rough transitions when smoother ones do the job.
Re:Floccina
If you cannot get another job at close to the wage that you were making, evidently you been make more than market wages at GM that was not fair. They moved the factory to China as poor as people in China are it was un-fair that they did not move the factory earlier.
Force is force even if you hide it behind a "market". We are not beholden to those people. Nor should our government assist them in any way. That includes any assistance to companies to allow jobs to exit the US.
Posted by: sethstorm | May 6, 2008 11:42:33 AM
(to clarify, we are not beholden to the interests of China)
Posted by: sethstorm | May 6, 2008 11:48:00 AM
Hammer,
I agree with you that problem solving (both Chau and Borlaug would appear to be the quintiscential problem solvers) usually works better than the top down legislative approach although government does have an important role in maintaining rule of law, establishing property rights, managing the currency, defence etc. Governments are extremely poor at innovation and business, and often regulations and taxes can be distortionary.
John Dewey,
"Free trade is what has provided everyone in this world a better life. For almost all of this, money facilitates such free trade."
Could not agree more. Having read some of P.J. O'Rourke's books, I have grown a little tired of his "aren't I clever and oh-so original" sarcasm.
While at first a free marketer or business person who is used to being vilified as an enemy of the people can find P.J. O'Rourke amusing, the humor tends to lack:
1. sound, well reasoned argument supported by data that an audience might consider
2. respect for others who do not share the same worldview as Mr. O'Rourke. My observation is that people generally do not respond well to put downs and insults.
Milton Friedman was a far more eloquent and engaging interlocutor.
There is no one "right" way of viewing anything particularly where one is discussing the myriad of ways that people choose to orient their lives and careers. Money is definitely an important, legitimate incentive but not the only incentive.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 6, 2008 12:46:27 PM
Being a High School graduate, and currently working on my degree in college, I really understand the distinction of "the ideals and great possibilities" we had upon High School graduation and the now, "where am I going to end up and make a decent living for myself and my family?"
I agree with you that the I idea of great world change we had is purely a farce. Once we grow up, and mature a bit, we then come the the realization that, on our own the world at large is vastly unchangeable. All the issues we face are so complexed.
I have friends out working with under privileged youth in third world countries, which is great, but they have decided to leave America all together, just to "avoid" the issues they'd have to deal with otherwise.
The world is unfair. But it all depends on your moral viewpoint.
Posted by: tgbeus | May 6, 2008 6:02:18 PM
Life remains better than the alternative.
While our world is dauntingly complex, it also offers limitless possibilities and opportunities. We are living at one of the most exciting times in history.
Live long and prosper.
Posted by: Cassandra | May 6, 2008 10:51:22 PM
What a coinkidink Cassandra! When a couple of articles by P.J. O'Rourke appeared in Reader's Digest (such as "Beware the Professional Worriers") they were clever and funny and gave the impression that he was a reasonable guy who supports minimal government, more free markets and greater individual responsibility. Yet finding his full articles on the Web he's apparently a full-on anarcho-Libertarian whose articles forever bashing Democracy via an analogy of large-scale unilateral elections by everyone on every matter is neither particular insightful nor funny.
Posted by: Gil | May 7, 2008 1:42:10 AM
I completely agree with this post. The problem with this issue is that, with the exception of politicians, the majority of people calling for the close in the disparity gap are those who are making less money. If you feel as though you are capable of handling a job higher up in your respective company then what is stopping you? If it is your lack of academics then you can take out a student loan (which would cover your entire tuition at a community college) and get a degree. There is little complexity in that situation. However this is not the solution that many of the people want to hear. They want more money or for others to earn less money because otherwise it "doesn't seem fair." When in reality this gap helps our economy. People who grow up with little or no money and have to make a name for themselves have the drive to work hard to make that extra dollar.
Posted by: Brian Forbes | May 8, 2008 2:47:52 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
