Simply Blogical

Stephen Mack, Blogger and Professor at the University of Southern California, made a post on his blog about how monetary equality is key to the success of a nation. He states “It is economic inequality, not overall wealth or cultural differences, that fosters societal breakdown, they argue, by boosting insecurity and anxiety, which leads to divisive prejudice between the classes, rampant consumerism, and all manner of mental and physical suffering. Though Sweden and Japan have low levels of economic inequality for different reasons - the former redistributes wealth, while in the latter case, the playing field is more level from the start, with a smaller range of incomes - both have relatively low crime rates and happier, healthier citizens.” I personally disagree with this statement, and will explain why from a few different points.

Firstly, Professor Mack, let’s imagine an example of this system of equality which you commend. You distribute an average grade to everyone in your class regardless each individual’s personal success. The points of all students are distributed evenly regardless of their individual scores. For example, those students who had earned an A, must now distribute their points to those with B’s, C’s, D’s, and F’s, and the B students must distribute their points to the C, D, and F students, and so on, until all students have an equal grade (lets say a C). Now, what would the incentive be for a student to try to get an A if he or she is going to end up with the same grade as everyone else anyways? But it doesn’t end here. Now over time, the amount of students who achieve the higher grades will be vastly diminished, and more people’s grades are going to be lower, therefore the average will move downwards, from a C to a D and so on. This type of grading system inevitably dooms this class to failure… it is also a microcosmical replica of the concept of socialism.

Being “productive” in an economy holds an equivalent meaning as “benefitting others”: providing something that others demand. When individuals are not rewarded for being productive, the incentive to be productive reduces, and therefore the amount that people benefit others sharply decreases. If humans were enslaved by a socialist system from the beginning of human existence, we would most likely still be living like cavemen –surely without technology like electricity, automobiles and penicillin. Socialism rewards individuals for being lazy and unproductive (which is destructive to a nation) rather than being productive hard workers who benefit others and make the nation and world a better place. Societal breakdown does not stem from economic freedom (which Mack calls “economic inequality”), but rather economic equality.

“But that is too extreme! Socialistic systems must be made in moderation!”

Ok, now imagine instead of all C-grades, there will be a distribution of B’s, C’s, and D’s. Once again, as process repeats, the grades are going to drop and the overall average will continue to decrease. The only difference of between suppressed socialistic system and a complete socialistic system is that the former prolongs the process of failure.

Next, the passage also implies that Mack judges the “success” of a social system based on “low crime rates and happier, healthier citizens”. While I agree that these characteristics are beneficial to a social system, they are not the primary factor of judging its success. Firstly, “low crime rates” do not mean that a nation is successful. A country like North Korea with extremely harsh punishments faces very low crime rates.

Next, judging success based on how happy citizens are cannot be measured unless measured by the majority or a specific party, which is consistent with utilitarianism and democracy. As I have touched upon before, just because something would make the majority happier does not mean that it is right. If the majority would be happier with slaves, and therefore slavery was permitted, does this mean that the nation is successful?

Lastly, judging success based off of the rate of healthy citizens does not have to do with the success of the social system. If a nation were to ban all fast foods, trans fats, smoking, etc, and impose harsh punishments upon violation, the health of the majority would increase. Additionally, the possibility for increased health for people across the world comes from the technology and medicine created from capitalistic economies because of its freedom to allow individuals to be freely (or somewhat freely) rewarded for their productivity.

Overall success of a nation stems from its protection of the ability for all individuals to be naturally rewarded by the free market and to have control over their rewards. This actually brings about increased safety, better medicine, and would increase the overall quality of life for everyone. Sadly, our current socio-economic state isn’t run this way, although it is evident that the similarities cause much of the success of America.