Not what I said.
I was simply acknowledging a fact about human nature -- people tend to resent perceived inequality, and the perception is strengthened when those "above" defend their position in terms that make them sound greedy. Whether it's right or wrong to resent the inequality is somewhat beside the point: the feeling is there anyway.
Communists and leftists understand this feeling, and are very, very good at exploiting it.
Conversely, if the wealthy folks pay more than is strictly necessary, wealth is inevitably spread more widely, and they end up diffusing the resentment -- socialism loses traction as a result. Moreover, I think this probably also ends up increasing productivity and creativity, so that everybody ends up with more wealth.
I'm not "socialistic." On the other hand, I also think that we do have moral obligations to help those who aren't as well off as we are; and I think this ends up being congruent with long-term self interest -- which is about what you'd expect from a morally correct stance.
At the same time, I think those below have a moral obligation to work for their own improvement -- they should appreciate what help they get, but should not expect it as a right.
IMO, is the existence of envy, or the use of it by politicians, even remotely a justification for the elimination of the free market or for forced equality, if that's where you are heading.
I agree with you -- I think there's a lot of empirical evidence to back you up on this.
On a more esoteric level, I think we're seeing a dynamic in the US economy that could lead to some interesting, if unpredictable results along the lines described by this article.
"Outsourcing" is popular because, in manufacturing especially, Americans cost too much to employ. American workers want to maintain or increase their current compensation -- sometimes even to the ruination of their employers. American corporations want to decrease their overhead and increase their bottom line, so they get rid of their American workers. This is beginning to happen even in traditionally white-collar sorts of things, such as engineering and design.
My sense is that this is an unstable situation -- one way or another, American workers are going to end up making a lot less than they currently do; and American corporations are going to end up having a much smaller domestic market than they've come to expect, because their former employees can no longer buy as much.
The question is how this will be dealt with when (if) it occurs.
I truly wasn't sure where you were headed, thanks for the explanation.
I now find that our differences are far fewer.
As a free marketer and a believer in individual freedom, I hardly think that prices of goods and services should be set individually according to predetermined asset levels. Instead, prices ought to be determined by what people are willing to pay. That's nearly unavoidable in any case.
I do agree that those of wealth have some *moral* obligation to help in some way those who are in need. Even though, IMO, the actual wealth that they've created is more (generally) helpful to the needy than their charity is. But the obligation should not be a legal one in a free country, charity should be at the discretion of the giver rather than the receiver...or the state.
As for outsourcing and free trade, I am philosophically a free trader, but do have mixed feelings and concerns, especially where national security comes in. Besides which, how can there be free trade if only one side is doing it?
And yet there are numerous examples of workers willingly foregoing wage increases and even accepting wage cuts when their employer is in trouble. Its when the sacrifices are one sided that resentment grows.
Usually instincts have a proper role and cannot be eradicated without causing much greater damage.