Don’t trust Robinhood.

February 23, 2009 – 5:55 pm

For many, income is viewed merely as reward, rather than as a mirror of value created.

They see Madoff as the rule, instead of the exception that he is.

They see opulence in Gates and Buffet, instead of history’s most generous men.

They see the economic pie as static, not growing. They are focused purely on how the pie is sliced, rather than on how to expand it.

Because of their own timidity or incompetence, they see upward mobility as a myth.

They see self-interest as greed. They view innovation, invention, business leaders and entrepreneurs cynically.

Do not trust these people.

Their hearts ache for power that they cannot earn. They use the ballot box as the means to their end.

At the heart of every argument they make lies the core principle that you should never forget:

FORCE is the only method that can achieve their ideals. Only through the FORCE of government can productive men be compelled to give their money to the lazy. Only through the FORCE of government can the responsible man be compelled to pay the mortgage of his irresponsible neighbor.

Charity is noble. It is efficient. It is voluntary.

Socialism in all of its concealed variations is cowardly. It is inefficient and involuntary. It is the FORCEFUL removal of assets from one person in order to give a portion of those assets to another, while losing a considerable amount along the way via red-tape, earmarking and corruption.

And at the heart of this use of FORCE always lies the desires and dreams of a very few men, who charge themselves with the task of deciding the winners and losers.

The result is always an “equal” misery of the masses, an elite ruling class, a culture of dependence and a system where political connections are more meaningful than brilliant ideas, determination and hard work.

Let’s be careful here that we don’t throw away our future liberty in order to avoid present pain. It’s not the American way. In fact, it’s the exact opposite.

I have a lot to lose, but I don’t care what the economy does next week or next year. Let the trash burn. Let’s take the long view for once this century.

If my kids grow up in a world of liberty without individual limits, I’ll die a happy man.

  • Fueled By Randomness
    One will usually discover that behind the Robin Hood image hides just a plain hood.
    -George Irbe
  • Tom
    Where does that world exist? I'd like to know. Iceland?
  • llboyd
    +1 sir. couldn't agree more. -- fairtax.org will take us straight to that world
  • Who's John Galt?
  • Nice post, Andy.......but I just don't think it's a reflective argument of what the poorer classes feel with respect to those with money in this CURRENT meltdown. I think we're seeing a rebalancing of what we really value in our society, not what we resent. And it's not black and white.

    I think more specifically, we're having a conversation about how the classes value two things with respect to wealth:

    a) how a person got it, and
    b) what they choose to do with it

    To the first point, the story of Conrad Hilton is one that's told in boardrooms. The story of Paris Hilton is told in locker rooms. The story of an entrepreneur who works hard, seizes an opportunity and sees their exit is NOT scoffed at, nor will it ever be…..but the story of the options trader who got wealthy betting on that entrepreneur is what we’re having a conversation about IMHO. (NOTE: not comparing a derivatives trader with someone born on third base who thought they hit a triple – just illustrating that it’s harder to understand the role of the options trader on the whole, and we always fear or resent what we don't understand.)

    To the second point, I don’t think you're seeing a societal rejection of wealth at all – I think you’re seeing a societal rejection of "fuck you" wealth, or arrogant opulence. Trust me, it doesn’t go unnoticed when Gates or Buffet fund a company or fund a hospital – but it also doesn’t go unnoticed when a Wall St. trader buys his 5th Hummer. Add to that the fact that we're being told that the Wall St. Hummer driver is not only melting our ice caps, but that he's melting my 401k (or RRSP), then yeah – there’s a bit of resentment there, sorry. But I think it's wrong to assume that resentment is spread across the wealthy entrepreneurial class - it's just against the wealthy "hoard my money and screw you over in the process."

    Sure there are some who just want to “eat the rich” – but I think we’re moving away from that. We’re just having a worldwide conversation about what it means to be rich, and whether or not the “Spiderman Doctrine” should be applied to the investor class:

    “Does great power mean great responsibility?"

    In other words, are we going to respect the presence of wealth or the intelligent application of it?
  • That's fine. The attitude of society is something that CAN effect behavior in a positive way.

    What I'm talking about is federal government POLICY...and how uncomfortable I am with the concept of Pelosi, Dodd or Bush determining who deserves their money, and how it should be distributed.

    What we are seeing now is the blatent onslought of socialism....and I intend to fight it.

    It's not class warfare. It's quite clear to anyone paying attention that there is no greater creator of wealth and mobility than capitalism (for ALL "classes").

    "Freezing" things where they are now and reslicing the pie might be popular, but it is destructive.

    So while I may agree with you regarding the offensive nature of some with great wealth, I will stand firm that it is not my government's role to take their money and give it to "voting blocks".
  • Amen to that....

    But still, I don't see anything wrong with rebalancing rules to better align with what we want to achieve as a society, and incenting the entrepreneurial and investor classes to get moving in that direction. That is gov'ts role. The debate is whether that's reslicing or realigning ourselves to what we should value going forward.

    I am in favor of any solution that clearly distinguishes the wealthy from the hoarders of wealth, and that dangles carrots to the former. Don't think we have that currently.
  • It's a "government's role" to tell it's citizens what they should be doing with their dough?

    I guess I missed the amendment in the Constitution where we all became subjects again.
  • Nope - but I do think it's govt's role to realign incentives for investors to put money to work on projects that are more in line with where we need to be. That's all I was saying.
  • Again, we'd be in total disagreement on that one as well. Have you taken note of the people who work for the freaking gummint these days? I wouldn't want them to realign my garbage canisters after the sanitation engineers had dropped them back at my curb.
  • I guess....although my guess is that it is very difficult to find many wealthy people that aren't invested in either the endevours of others or their own gov't via bonds.

    Hoarding is a very tough thing to do, lest ye enjoy inflationary papercuts to your power!
  • Yeah, wrong way to explain that.....you're right....

    Wonder where the lines could be drawn there, if not at an income level (ie: you make over 250k / year) and more at a "what you do with that income" that could be aligned to support our goals as a society?

    Trying to pay you a clumsy complement here, because you and the StockTwitters aren't just traders - many of you are angel investors, entrepreneurs yourselves, etc - and that I think should be rewarded and cultivated more....
  • Lines should be drawn by individuals. Charity should be celebrated.

    I've never met "just a trader"
  • Nice commentary. Not so "concealed variations" these days, I fear.
  • If we heed this same warning in formulating our foreign policy, I have no objections.

    With respect to spending, why don't we set the budget in percentage (of tax receipt) terms and then let the economy dictate what we can afford to spend. This would also put the debate back on priorities (as it should be) and nothing should be excluded from the mix (i.e. "war time spending" etc). Debt service would obviously come off the top and perhaps some % for paying down the dept (i.e. target 10 year payoff).
  • Because that would be a recipe for waste in fat times and dimunition in hard ones. Why not actually make tax eaters JUSTIFY their expenditures every year? Reward successful programs, but pare redundant ones? I know, I'm just dreaming.
  • The ideals of life and liberty stands for the right to live my life as I choose, with my greatest good being myself and those I care about, not a world where I have to always give up what I have earned for others simply because they make the claim that they deserve what is mine. A world of equality created through force, where every man must contribute to the "greater good" at the expense of his own without choice is the worst kind of slavery imaginable.
  • Malcolm Lloyd
    The problem is that neither pure libertarianism, capitalistic idealism or socialism survive outside the vacuum of the debater's mind. A world where everyone pulls his own weight and no one is forced to redistribute their wealth to another is a laudable goal. In that world, there would be no need for socialism because every man would do what was necessary to support himself and those who depend on him However, this is not that world and the strategy that we use as a government has to reflect both realism and idealism.

    I don't think it's fair that a man who makes $250k/yr will pay ~$100k/yr in taxes when a man who makes $10k/yr receives a refund on taxes he didn't even pay. However, I also think that the man who makes more can afford it more than the person who makes $10k/yr if we asked of him the same contribution percentage wise. The unfortunate result is that the person in the higher income bracket seems to get penalized rather than rewarded for doing more for society. That is what we need to change.

    However taking that into account society is doomed to failure if as members, we don't do what's necessary to support it. That includes supporting those who are derelict in their responsibilities to the rest of us, as painful and as unpleasant as it may be.

    We need less force in government and more lubrication, but we also need more compassion and less cynicism in our citizenry.
  • I agree with almost all of this. I would argue that it is much more natural to feel compassion and act charitably towards one when you don't feel you are already FORCED to do so (which creates cynicism and resentment)
  • Not to mention apathy. If one gives up one's responsibility to community because one feels one has "given at the office" via the W-2, then we are on the path to disintentegrated (in all meanings of that word) communities.

    I have this argument with liberal friends all the time, and I ask those who "don't mind" paying taxes how much they've given to charity that year? Out of sight, out of mind.
  • Malcolm Lloyd
    Very well written sir. I disagree with some parts, agree with others but regardless I think that it's very eloquently and passionately expressed. Bravo.
  • Dolf
    That is extrememly well put....I have not seen it laid out so elegantly and concisely before. Excellent post !
blog comments powered by Disqus
Andy Swan is proudly powered by WordPress. Designed by Bob