One thing I find amazing is the natural predisposition we all have for redistribution of wealth. Everyone of us! Economics happens within a social dynamic.
That is, if we don’t have it, we believe we are entitled to get some stuff from someone who has lots of stuff. “Hey rich guy, you can afford it, so pay up.” That’s why margins are higher for products sold to the rich – why not? They can afford it.
“Sure I took some of her chocolate, she had so much” is the childhood version of the instinct we all have. “She should share.” That is the basis for socialism, sharing for the common good.
At the same time, we adamantly insist in the open that our society should be merit based with rewards for those who work harder and are smarter. Everyone is equal! But they are not.
People who are perceived to be rich – we are okay if they are charged more; and people who are poor charged less. We have all seen it and probably all have done it. Why? A natural predisposition to socialism, to sharing the wealth – as long as it isn’t yours.
Economists will say that any good or service has a fair price no matter who is buying it. But they are wrong. Whoever buys it is actually a factor contributing the price.
If people think you have more than them, they are happy to help reapportion some of your stuff to themselves. This is the basis of socialist thinking. Tax the rich heavily, but not the poor.
Most law suits operate this way: “Follow the money” and sue the deepest pockets. This is why most lawsuits are about redistribution of wealth and not retribution. It is also why those with the deepest pockets are those best prepared to be sued and sometimes take the defense strategy of out-lawyering their poorer competitor. Often this is by lawyering up and waiting for the poor complainant to give up and go away or accepting a lesser payoff.
If you are richer than me, I expect you to pay the bar bill or for dinner. We are rebalancing the playing field.
The prayer of the person suing is to find the bank or insurance company behind the poor schmo whose sidewalk they slipped on. Or sue McDonald’s for the coffee you spilled on yourself. Why? Those institutions have a lot of money and some lawyer will surely take the suit on based on the “if come” or on contingency.
I have had clients who paid a settlement just to “get out of the movie” because the settlement was less than the costs of the endless lawyers.
A favourite passage of mine comes from Kurt Vonnegut (“God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater”). It reinforces this from the lawyer’s viewpoint:
“In every big transaction, there is a magic moment during which a man has surrendered a treasure, and during which the man who is due to receive it has not yet done so. An alert lawyer will make that moment his own, possessing the treasure for a magic microsecond, taking a little of it, passing it on. If the man who is to receive the treasure is unused to wealth, has an inferiority complex and shapeless feelings of guilt, as most people do, the lawyer can often take as much as half the bundle, and still receive the recipient’s blubbering thanks.”
So, is redistribution of wealth just an anti-capitalism sign of socialism? Or in the words of Monty Python, “What’s ten quid to the Midland Bank.” Think of tipping – a creeping request for greater redistribution by the lower economic group. It was a US phenomenon to enhance service that has been spreading by industry, even when there is virtually no service provided.
I once explained politics simply to my small son when he asked what was the difference between the left and the right. I told him the philosophy of the left was “You have a lot, you should share it.” While the right felt “screw you, get your own!” while the centralist position is “now guys, sharing some can make us all happy.” It was a bit simplistic, but accurate.
We are constantly confounded by the Jeff Bezos, Elon Musks and so on in the world and insisting that they pay more in taxes. We forget that they can afford to dance around the tax codes to pay less because using lawyers and accounting experts is proportionately inexpensive for them. Think of the professional fees as protection money.
It seems not to be just a political idea. It seems to be hardwired into our psyche. Even arch conservative capitalists will take the position that someone should be sued just because they have lots of money.
And what could be more socialist than a failing President offering voters $5000 for their votes. Get money for doing nothing. That’s more socialist than any so called socialist country.
It is just redistribution of wealth. Everyone is a Marxist!
If you liked this, read more at Calexis.com