Those who talk glibly about redistribution often act as if people are
just inert objects that can be placed here and there, like pieces on a
chess board, to carry out some grand design. But if human beings have
their own responses to government policies, then we cannot blithely
assume that government policies will have the effect intended.
If confiscatory policies can produce counterproductive
repercussions in a dictatorship, they are even harder to carry out in a
democracy. A dictatorship can suddenly swoop down and grab whatever it
wants. But a democracy must first have public discussions and debates.
Those who are targeted for confiscation can see the handwriting on the
wall, and act accordingly.
Among the most valuable assets in any nation are the knowledge,
skills and productive experience that economists call "human capital."
When successful people with much human capital leave the country, either
voluntarily or because of hostile governments or hostile mobs whipped
up by demagogues exploiting envy, lasting damage can be done to the
economy they leave behind.
Fidel Castro's confiscatory policies
drove successful Cubans to flee to Florida, often leaving much of their
physical wealth behind. But poverty-stricken refugees rose to prosperity
again in Florida, while the wealth they left behind in Cuba did not
prevent the people there from being poverty stricken under Castro. The
lasting wealth the refugees took with them was their human capital.
We
have all heard the old saying that giving a man a fish feeds him only
for a day, while teaching him to fish feeds him for a lifetime.
Redistributionists give him a fish and leave him dependent on the
government for more fish in the future.
Yet, to many people who cannot be bothered to stop and think, redistribution sounds good.
Article by Thomas Sowell in here.
No comments:
Post a Comment