Some Labour MP wrote an article in the paper about the wonders of free-market economics. She was waxing lyrical about how "the operation of markets is a peaceful way of facilitating revolution whereby outsiders are allowed in, vested interests are challenged and the old is replaced by the new."
Yes! All is tickety-boo when market forces are in control.
"Globalisation is not a threat, but an opportunity, and we should embrace it and see liberal markets as the most effective instrument for generating prosperity."
Yes! All those nasty aristocrats will lose their privileges, their stately homes etc. Instead we'll see a veritable thunderstorm of trickle-down wealth; meritocracy will prevail. Hurrah! Then the privileged will be those who have earned it. But 'earning it' requires a bit more than mere hard graft. You need money to begin with, to get the virtuous circle turning. Money 'lends itself' to the creation of wealth - but what happens if you are penniless to begin with? You've got a problem.
Not really. You see, now it appears as if the successful in a meritocracy have earned their success, rather than simply been born with it. Yet one question remains: what makes 'earned' success more legitimate than inherited wealth (or stolen wealth, for that matter). What kind of wacky protestant work ethic are we tangled up with here? Answers on a postcard, please.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment