|
We should not be celebrating those who build wealth
|
|
By Mike Cuenca | June 17, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:25
"For the love of money is the root of all evil" I Timothy 6:10
I don't understand how people can believe that the wealthy should be
allowed to continue to hoard even more than they already have—way more
than they need for their health and survival—and that they should be
able to accumulate these resources while others all over the world die
and suffer because of a simple lack of food, water, housing, and health
care. How can that be considered moral? How can it be seen as
legitimate?
I fear that most people who make that argument
and/or defend the hoarding of life-sustaining resources in the face of
worldwide starvation, suffering, and sickness, don't really understand
what they're arguing for and against.
Consider the reality of
what we call "money." Money is simply a symbolic replacement for
actual, tangible, consumable or durable resources in which we place
value. We substitute an official piece of paper or metal for what that
paper or metal represents. For example, an ear of corn has value of it
own—as a foodstuff. But in this modern world we don't do business with
ears of corn, we do business with a symbol that can be substituted for
that ear of corn—money and all the variations of money: currency,
stocks and bonds, precious minerals, etc.—which can then redeemed for
that ear of corn or other resources.
Money, then, is the
recognized and accepted "replacement" or "substitute" for all the
valuable resources of the Earth: all food, clothing, and housing; all
gold, silver and other minerals; all oil; all water; everything on
Earth worth something to someone.
Here on Earth, those
resources are finite. There is a limited supply of food, water, or
plywood. There is a limited supply of acres of arable land. There is a
limited supply of the hours of time available from farmers, doctors,
nurses, teachers, and soldiers. Money represents the ability to access
and/or obtain those resources. Consequently, when individuals hoard
money, they're truly hoarding resources that could be used to sustain
life and/or maintain a quality of life. When individuals like Bill
Gates, Warren Buffett, Oprah Winfrey, the Bush and Saud families, and
the descendants of Sam Walton hoard millions and billions of dollars
worth of resources, they're preventing many others from accessing those
resources. In a very real sense, they're starving millions of other
people by gathering up and keeping as much of the world's valuable
resources as they can. They're keeping adequate health care from
millions of the Earth's children. They're keeping education,
opportunity, and peace of mind from millions of humans.
Another hurtful belief is that wealth is accumulated solely through
"hard work." That's completely fallacious. There are only 8,760 hours
in a year and only 2,080 work hours in a normal 40-hour per week work
year. That means that even the hardest, longest working human—even if
they could work 24 hours per day—could only work 4.2 times harder than
those who work a "normal" work load. It follows then, that if hard work
was the exclusive factor in accumulating wealth, there should be a gap
of only 4.2 percent between the earnings of the richest and poorest
workers of the world.
And that belief also insults and
degrades every hard working human on Earth who isn't wealthy. Do those
who spout this nonsense really believe that those poor, working humans
who are slaving away in garment factories, or diamond mines, or
brothels, or aircraft factories, or classrooms, are not really working
as hard as they can? That's rubbish.
Does anyone really
believe that the several millions dollars Bill Gates' money earned for
him in interest—just in the last few hours—is solely the result of his
hard work? He didn't lift a finger to earn that interest. His
accumulated money "worked" for him.
The reality is that
wealth is accumulated through profit. Profit is obtained by buying
something and then selling it for more than was paid. Profit from
buying, selling, and lending money is the basis of capitalism.
If you put money in the bank, that bank will use your money to make a
profit. They'll take your money and the money of other people and
they'll lend or "rent" it to other people for a profit. They'll charge
those people a certain amount of money and they'll give you a portion
of that charge (interest). The same is true of less "pure" capitalist
ventures. If you start a business and you earn more than the costs of
doing that business, you earn a profit. Or if you "invest" your money
in a business through partnership or through the stock market, you may
earn a profit from that investment.
Wealth, then, is
accumulated by those who have the most money to "rent" or "invest".
Conversely, those who need all of their income to meet their basic
survival needs have no hope of obtaining any wealth—no matter how hard
they work.
And what of the motivation for accumulating all
this wealth? Who truly needs $100 billion in the bank? Who truly needs
$1 million in the bank? Those who believe they do have that need would
likely argue that they're acting to protect the economic security of
their families and descendants. But that rationalization ignores the
many wealthy people who have no families or descendants—and it ignores
the many millions of people right now who are dying of starvation and
thirst and exposure. That rationalization would disappear if every
human could be sure that their basic survival needs would be met,
regardless of their family's accumulated wealth. If we first meet the
needs of all humans, before allowing people to accumulate wealth beyond
those needs, we'd have a much saner and peaceful planet. And the truth
is: most people who accumulate this kind of wealth are simply being
greedy.
Don't get me wrong; I'm not arguing we shouldn't have
capitalism. I'm not arguing we shouldn't have free enterprise. I am
arguing that those who practice capitalism should feel responsible—or
at least be held responsible—for the necessary support of the societies
that make their accumulation of wealth possible in the first place.
We shouldn't be elevating these greedy robber barons to heroic stature.
We should be escorting them to a 12-step program for those who have no
conscience. The sooner we label the unrestricted, unbridled,
irresponsible accumulation of wealth what it really is—immoral—the
sooner we can begin to heal our Earth and care for its needy.
|
|
|
|
