i'm just going to gloss over the chinese new year and just say that my dad and i (he actually doesn't much) gambled and earned quite a bit over the weekend period.
i was actually thinking about this in the shower (which is a really nice place overall to think about things). I think writing this in the form of a story would help most people better understand what i'm trying to say. i actually have heard of this story before when someone told me when i was a kid. For some reason the 2 guys in the story are always set in historical China, maybe because i was told in that language.
anyway, the story goes that there were these 2 childhood friends. one came from a poorer family while the other came from a more well-to-do family. Despite their differences, they grew up pretty close and remained good friends as they reached adulthood.
Now, as young adults, they try to figure out how to earn money to support their individual families, as all young adults must do. So the poor guy comes up with a great idea for a business and discusses it with his friend. His friend thinks this is a great idea and proposes that they start up this business together as partners. The poor guy is ecstatic about it but tells his friend, "I would not be able to pay for the starting capital as my parents have ailing health and I need the money to support them." The rich guy says "hey, it's no problem" and they agree to pit their money together to start the business, with him contributing 70% and the poor guy giving 30%.
So they start working on their business. They work equally hard each and every day, putting their sweat and tears and heart and soul and countless sleepless nights to ensure that it succeeds. Alas, it does, and one year later they make a profit.
At this point, they need to decide how much profit to take as their salary. Now the poor guy is humble and comes from a poor background. He knows that he shouldn't take so much because he only put in 30% of the capital at the start and so tells his friend that he should only and rightfully take only 30% of the profit.
At this point, think about whether or not you agree with the poor guy before you read on.
The rich guy says to him, "Nonsense, you need the money more than I do to help you family, you can take my share. It is only fair." and decides to give him 70% instead even though they both did the same amount of work.
I can't really remember how this story ends, but my main point is about fairness and equality in some sense. I am going to use them interchangeably unless someone can explain to me the difference.
How do we put our idea of equality and apply it in the real world when both sides seem fair and unfair at the same time. Is it possible to distribute wealth fairly and equally when it is actually possible to do so in both ways and not come across as morally stepping over the line and being greedy.
We take the poor guy's viewpoint for example. He knows that when you put in a smaller share of capital, regardless of effort or ability or willingness, you will come away with smaller profits. That's how the world is run, on the fact that you get to take ownership of your own wealth and possessions and if you put in little, you come out with little. Makes sense. Fair and square. Even coming from the poor's perspective
On the other hand, see the world from the rich guy's perspective, he knows that his friend needs the money more than him and decides to part with it because it would help the poor guy more than himself. In a sense, running it on a needs-based philosophy, that the ones who needs it most should get the help they need, whether or not because it would do more good then. That would also be fair from the perspective of the world, if in this case the world only consisted of the 2 guys and their families. Granted the rich may not think so because you're taking their money, supposedly their rightful hard-earned money.
So which is fairer, if you were not the individual, but from the bigger picture.
I actually thought some semblance of this question when my father was complaining about the government. Mostly the only things he talks about when it comes to politics are how they are taking his money to give to someone else. I mean he's not wrong, it is his money. And that's how the economy is run, by self-centered people working towards their self-centered goals. Apparently, if A levels Economics has taught me anything.
I like to think about it from the government's perspective because i like thinking about taking money away from unhappy people. Actually, no. I like to think about how people make certain decisions and then how they justify (or rationalize, if you prefer) them afterwards.
So the government and taxes are the issue at hand. Assuming the government is actually doing what it's supposed to do, which is the betterment of the lives of its' people. It can be presumed that it is better to raise the welfare of everyone, as opposed to helping the rich and marginalizing the poor. So here comes taxes to save the day in financial redistribution. But how much can you really take away from people and STILL come across as being Fair and Equal. Also, this is assuming that the government doesn't make any money, which is impossible.
When you think about both models of wealth distribution, both seem fair and equal, from a higher perspective, especially so when it's not your money.
But then again, you could go, they should just split 50-50. But that's communist and not good at all and all communists are evil. I actually do have a reason that is wouldn't work and that's people would not be motivated to work hard if they not what they have would still be the same as everyone else.
And now you say, AHA, so can be said about needs-based model. What is different about that is that granted people have less incentive to work, every dollar has a greater value on the community because it is helping the poor people which in turn would raise the bottom limit and society, all the more raising the OVERALL welfare of the community. Thus, incentive, from a slightly higher "plane of thought".
At this point, I become ashamed of myself because we are no longer talking about fairness and equality but just simply which way is better in terms of welfare or growth or other economic jargon. When people think about fairness, it is generally closer to a debate of basic human or civil rights as opposed to economic welfare or other buzzwords like that. In a sense, it feels like the government or all governments are reaching out towards a practical approach, as opposed to ideological. which is great and all, until you realize that this argument can be set forth against many things. Granted, they won't say extreme things, but it takes time.
I think fairness should be redefined. It should no longer be confined to equal treatment per se. But more of a both parties can walk away happy, as opposed to compromise. On second thought, that idea sucked.
