Rich but not Rich

I have always been perplexed about how wealthy Democrats can be so condescending toward wealthy Republicans for having money.

It finally occurred to me what the deal is with being rich in America in the context of Left vs. Right. It is actually a very simple thing to figure out, but honestly I have never (to my knowledge) read this anywhere.

So here is The-Asterisk truthism:

Liberal rich is different from Conservative rich because most liberal wealth has been accumulated through voluntary transfer of money from some entity to the Liberal. Now, I am not counting inherited wealth, which could swing both ways on the ideological spectrum, but wealth that has been given to, not taken by, the Liberal. Let me explain.

I have always been puzzled why so many actors, athletes, creative types, artists, musicians, etc. seem to swing liberal, even if they have accumulated massive amounts of wealth (Dave Matthews???, Barbra Streisand???, Michael Moore???) and even if they do not feel compelled to give it all away.

It occurs to me that these people see their money as having been willingly forfeited in exchange for something that the Liberal is giving them. It is usually an intangible (music, movie, graphic design, service, sporting display) that is by no means a necessity of life. If a Conservative sells something (food, gasoline, metal, electricity, computer, clothing) then the product can be construed as a necessity and as such, the argument can be made that the necessity should be sold at or near cost with no real profit to be made.

Conversely, if someone chooses to pay $120 for Section A tickets to see Dave Matthews in concert, then it is that individual's free choice to part with his money to see Dave part with his talent (which is, by the way, a renewable resource.) No guilt on the part of Dave.

However, if a manufacturer or creator of a hard good, such as a loaf of bread, sells that product at a price that allows the seller to make a significant profit, then he can be accused of gouging innocent consumers who MUST have his product in order to survive. Survive is a funny word and now cell phones, computers, Nike shoes, etc. fit into that category, but you get the drift.

Notice how a liberal can be the designer of a product and deserved of a huge sum of money for the service, but the manufacturer or seller of the product should be limited in his profit.

This is a subtle, but important point in the moral relativism that it takes to be a guilt-free liberal.

Lastly, this is how a Bill Clinton or Barack Obama or Joe Biden can accumulate large amounts of wealth, while not producing anything tangible. You don't have to buy Bill, Barack or Joe's book. It is your own free will, and therefore, no guilt in you paying what you pay. Check out Apple Computer. Although their iPod is a superior product in design and function and they are not too proud to charge twice what equivalent (but less capable) products sell for, I would bet that the production costs for the iPod are similar in cost to rival products. It is your choice to buy an Apple product, therefore you approve of having to pay more.

But gasoline??? No choice. Milk, corn, lawn mowers, houses, carpet, DVD players, phones, 42" plasma screens? Same thing. They are tangible commodities, devoid of real creative design, therefore limited in profit-ability by the seller.

Think about it.

What do you think?


Popular posts from this blog

How To Change a Commercial Door Lock in 9 Easy Steps

Replacing the headlamp in your 2009 Toyota Highlander Hybrid

Small Town America - Dying A Second Time