Rhetoric counts.

I guess if you can advance an idea that sounds really good, people will keep buying it, even after it is proven wrong. To me, that seems to be the case with communism. Karl Marx suggested a world where everyone produced and everyone equally shared, so there was no more poverty... everyone lived in comfort and security.


That idea has been tested over and over and has always failed. In those few places where it persists, Cuba and North Korea, for example, poverty is the worst in the world. Never mind the corrupt leaders that always emerge, communism as an economic system just won't work. Not with humans, anyway. Inevitably the lazy say, "Why work? I'll still get my share." While the true workers say "Why work? No matter how hard I try, others refuse to work and my share is always diminished." Then the system collapses - unless, of course, those corrupt leaders build an Army to force people to keep grinding away in poverty. (Ala Kim Jung il and Fidel Castro)


On the other hand, capitalism and the free market have succeeded everywhere they are allowed to flourish. Compare the two Koreas. Take a look at tiny Japan. The system is very simple. Work hard, be thrifty and you can improve your own life. Be lazy and wasteful, and your life will not improve.


Yet, many people persist in promoting the Marx "feel good" idea while rejecting the proven success of capitalism.


Following the recent protests against the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh, Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity interviewed a couple of the protesters. Both bright young, well educated women. One asked "Why would anyone need to earn more than 500 thousand dollars a year?" Hannity didn't really know how to answer them, so I will. It doesn't matter if a person needs to earn that much money. The need is on the part of the employer. Obviously the person getting the big pay has a skill, a talent, a certain knowledge that the employer needs badly enough to pay.


And what about the athletes, the actors and musical performers who are paid millions. Do they need that kind of income? Irrelevant. The need is on the part of millions of adoring fans who happily shell out the bucks to see them perform.


Does Bill Gates need to be the richest man in the world? Hardly likely. But he developed a company which produced products needed by millions of people around the world who bought the products.


Has there been fraud in the capitalist/free market system? Yes, but most often in those organizations where the government is involved. Names like Fannie Mae and Franklin Raines come to mind.


In the above mentioned interview, one of the interviewees said her father worked his fingers to the bone and never made more than $10,000 a year. I wanted to ask, "Did he have a color TV and other luxuries of the day?" In other words, did he just consume everything he earned? Did he take advantage of the opportunity to advance a new idea or develop a new skill that could enhance his income potential? My father never made as much as $10,000 a year, but he raised five children through the depression and we never missed a meal, because he managed his earnings carefully, eschewed all luxuries, and used the money instead to develop other ways to better support his family.


But.... hard work and sacrifice don't sound very appealing, so few promote that!

Maybe we need to find a way to describe those virtues that will make the lazy as well as the highly educated say, "Hey, that sounds great!"