Thursday, October 18, 2012

My letter to the NY Times re: The Fallacy that Income Inequality is Harmful

Re: Income Inequality May Take Toll on Growth

Dear Sirs:
The fallacy that equality of incomes and wealth are just and beneficial goals of society to be advanced by "an aggressive series of changes to tax and spending programs" cannot be supported by empirical research or deductive logic. In his magnum opus Human Action Ludwig von Mises explained that the "inequality of individuals with regard to wealth and income is an essential feature of the market economy." (page 285 of the Scholars' Edition) Furthermore he stated that "Its elimination would entirely destroy the market economy." (page 836) In a society without government enforced privileges each man produces according to his own abilities for the benefit of his fellow man. The only way to create a society of equal outcomes would be to hobble the natural abilities of the more able, because it is impossible to transfer those innate abilities to others. Of course, this would result in a less productive society in which even those at the lowest income tier would be worse off.


  1. The central issue with that stance is that it assumes a circle in economics and that just isn't either true or valid.
    The economic model we use is one of colonial transfer. Your basic Roman Empire, your a tad more complicated crusade economy where supply lines stretch from Northern Scotland to the Kingdom of Jerusalem and all point between. Or the transfers down the Atlantic coast into Asturias the support the reconquest of Spain.

    If as in the northern state's of the US the economy spun within itself it will work as has been stated above. But even there, this no longer happens. Ergo the result will over time be a reduction of economic population since investment cash vanishes out the top of the system to elsewhere.

  2. I continue to be chagrined by many Austrian Economist talking about general economic subjects and failing to comment on the Marxist in the White House.

    There seem to be two possible reasons for those who claim to believe in free markets not to be involved in the current American election.

    First, they really are not believers in free market economics, merely mouthing words.

    Or, second, they are political cowards.

    This is in stark contrast to Frederick Hayek to took on the socialist.

    Oh, you say Obama is not a Marxist rather just a Progressive.

    The REAL Obama....
    Barack Obama spoke at a Democratic Socialists of America organized forum at the University of Chicago in early 1996.

    Here is an internet comment:

    Where are the Austrian Economist who really understand what Hayek wrote? And with the courage to explain Hayek's writings to the general public?

    Ed K