Producer-Consumer Ratio

I wonder what these Occupy Wall Street protestors, who call for the looting of banks which store their neighbors’ life savings, and abolishment of the capitalist wealth producing industry which provides them with employment and all the goodies they lustfully enjoy, have done to help create any of the wealth they now demand “redistribution” of? It seems they are always first in line to demand their “fair share” of the cream off the top but want nothing to do with milking the cow or cleaning the barn.

They constantly demean the “rich” (who seem to be everyone but them) who they insist are the cause of the world’s poverty and misery. If possessing wealth is evil, then the unearned wealth they demand to be given will taint them also with the same evil they are now disparaging in others. If wealth, earned or unearned, is evil, then perhaps we should get rid of labor unions, which seek higher wages (more wealth) for their members which propels them down the road to becoming “rich”, to them, the ultimate evil. It appears that their real mantra is only “someone else” being rich is evil. Wealth, in any form, does not just drop out of the sky, nor is delivered by Santa Claus. It comes into existence only through someone’s’ effort and industry. The only motive for anyone to exert effort is to gain an advantage for himself. That “motive” is commonly called “greed”, not necessarily a bad thing. Just like any force can be destructive, if properly controlled and managed, it can be beneficial. The contained and calculated explosions in the cylinders of our automobile engine propel the car and provide us transportation.

---

What these people seem to have overlooked or refuse to acknowledge, is that for someone who receives something he has not earned, FIRST, someone else, somewhere, has earned something he has not received. That is called stealing, and calling it “redistribution of wealth” doesn’t make it any less so. It is morally and legally wrong. The only way “redistribution of wealth” can be lawfully implemented is to first abolish property rights, the first order of Marxist business. Who among us would be willingly go to work tomorrow if our paycheck was to be given to someone else who would stay home, smoke pot, drink beer, and watch football on TV and then complain about being underprivileged? Someone who is willing to work 16 hours a day is entitled to twice as much as someone who only works 8 hours a day. Destroy the “greed” motive and production of the consumer commodity is reduced proportionately. We all work at our places of employment only for the paycheck we expect to receive on payday. That is “greed” by definition. For these reasons, a socialist society cannot produce, its inherent quality being that it consumes more than it produces. Left to its own devices, it cannot even feed its own people. Where pure socialism has been established, famines were the unfortunate inevitable consequence, and a return to a limited form of capitalism was necessary to prevent a starving peasant revolt. Even Karl Marx admitted that capitalism was necessary in the first instance to create the instruments of production that socialism was later to steal. On the other hand, capitalism’s inherent quality is that it produces more than it consumes, an outlet must then be found to dispose of the “surplus”. Socialism was invented by these capitalists to purge themselves of this surplus once the market had been saturated and “no one wants one” anymore. Having invested countless millions in their industry, they don’t want it to collapse for want of an inadequate market demand. With half the world in a perpetual state of want, they are assured of a permanent sales market. Accordingly, socialism cannot exist without subsidies from capitalism, a symbiotic relationship exists where they mutually benefit. Thomas Sowell explains this beautifully in his book “Marxism”, a scholarly work which all should read. Wealth lawfully acquired (earned) is not inherently evil, it is “The Pursuit of Happiness” that defines our culture. It is only illegitimate wealth which has been swindled (redistributed) from others, its rightful lawful owners, that is evil. We all aspire to greater affluence through our own lawful industry. That is the American dream. It has been said one gets what he pays for. A doctor invests much time and money in becoming a doctor. Should I need complicated brain surgery to save my life, I would not try to get a “bargain” deal by finding a discount brain surgeon passed out in the alley behind the local liquor store. I would want the richest, most expensive brain surgeon money can buy to do the operation. Let’s examine this economic scenario as an auto mechanic would diagnose a mechanical malfunction in an automobile. “Rich” people got rich because they are smarter than the rest of us. Poor people are poor because they are not as smart as the rich people, though they would all like to be. The “rich” people are producers. The poor people (not being smart enough to invent) are consumers. The rich producers got their money by selling their products to the poor consumers who could not provide these products for themselves. Buying these products made available by the “rich” producer to the poor consumer, made the lives of those poor much easier and abundant. I don’t know how to make steel out of iron ore; design and manufacture the components that make up my automobile; or my TV set; so that they work properly or fix them if they don’t. If I could, where would I drive my automobile unless I also built a road for it to travel on. How long would it take me to do all of this? All I have to do now, because of the evil “rich” people who made these things available to me, is write a check and sign on the dotted line and Presto, I am in business. When there are more producers in a society than consumers, a surplus is soon created. Surpluses always drive retail prices down (a benefit to the poor consumer), as, when no one wants one anymore, buyer incentives (discounts or “sales”) must be offered to induce buyers to purchase things they do not really need but will want as a luxury. Deductive reasoning suggests that more producers in relation to consumers eradicates poverty by providing employment and consumer products at lower retail prices. When there are more consumers than producers, a shortage is generated. Shortages always drive prices up. When the supply cannot satisfy the demand, those wanting the product are willing to pay more for its purchase. This makes it more difficult for the poorest consumers to afford the basic essential commodities they need. Surpluses force the greedy capitalist producers to back bite each other in an effort to seize a larger share of the market. The resultant lower prices benefit the poor consumer. The reverse is also true. It must be concluded that the best way to eradicate poverty in a given society is to ship in as many greedy rich producers as possible to saturate the market and generate a surplus. These protestors are doing it backwards.