Often when discussions around how the economy should change are touted around one of the defenses for pandering to those with wealth in society is about how much wealth they generate and how this is better for all of us. There are also concerns around a brain drain where those who “make money” will go to other countries and do so. What always struck me about capitalism is that it’s like moss in that it’ll grow anywhere where it isn’t exposed to light. I always wonder if a society with less money, but less inequality, may be better off than one with lots of both. I also thought that if you brain drained away those brains that have little/no moral compass, or concern for other people’s welfare, like moss, a new piece would grow back to fill the gap. The new version may also have evolved to fit the new conditions in a way that suits its environment (and everyone else) better. So in the same way that capitalism will appropriate all things that oppose it (Che Guevera t-shirts are the best example of this I can think of) it will also try to thrive in difficult circumstances, maybe not as well as in great circumstances, but do we really want capitalism to go to the extremes it can do? We’ve already given the banks a £500 billion bursary for their enthusiastic study of how far capitalism can go. To this end this video made me revisit all these thoughts and seems like a great explanation of how considering alternatives to the economic modelling of free marketeers (which the by the way never has nor can ever possibly exist) and trying them may involve perceived pain, but in the long term may not be as bad an option as the status quo:
So next time the wealth/inequality generators suggest if we change the rules of the game they are going to take their ball and go home (to a new home abroad) maybe we should buy them a ticket, though not on a plane. or a train but a bus (and maybe make sure it’s a mega bus) or even get a volunteer to take them in their car.