Yaron Brook, President and CEO Ayn Rand Institute, was the Libertarian Home Benevolent Laissez-Faire conference keynote speaker. He is a passionate and most engaging speaker. It was a delight to listen to him.
His main thrust was we should not care about income (I think that also means wealth) inequality.
I well remember Margaret Thatcher trying (badly) to explain it at Prime Minister’s Questions some 26 years ago. She was using her hands and fingers to display higher income and wealth for all, even if some were gaining more than others. The Socialists would rather much less for those at the top, so the bottom would get more. Of course the reality is (look at any Socialist state anywhere, anytime eg Venezuela, N Korea, Soviet Union, China, France, UK, USA etc) and what you get is a few at the very top getting richer and richer, and a falling middle class and an impoverishing poor.
And Mr Brook is absolutely correct. In a free market the rich may (and do) get richer but so does everyone else… if they take advantage of the opportunities of free markets. Those who sit watching Jeremy Kyle will get what they get ie not a lot.
The question from the floor (well, me) arose: But we don’t have free markets!? And the response was the top 400 are enormously rich because, like Buffett, Gates and Walton, they are / were geniuses and hugely successful entrepreneurs and they made wealth because they provided something that everyone else wanted or successfully won due to the inefficiencies of the financial system etc.
Well, fine I said. But – in UK terms – the next 900, of the top 1000, are there because of cronyism i.e. banking (and hedge funds) and property.
To which Mr Brook responded with the hedge funds and markets inefficiencies view. They don’t I tried to tell everyone. Largely, they simply go with the flow and lever up. Without cronyism – bailing out banks, QE, ZIRP, Help To Buy etc etc they wouldn’t be able to do that.
Astoundingly, as I recall it, he said or suggested there is no cronyism. I see on Twitter he denies that. The recording will confirm or correct me.
Eventually, he relented and acceded that perhaps 20-30% of folk make money from cronyism.
Now, it is not the point what the percentage is. (It’s much higher in my view in the short term.) But it took a concerted effort on my part to get him to say even THAT. Why does it take a concerted effort from a Libertarian, who is one of the strongest proponents of free markets in the UK, to get the President and CEO of the Ayn Rand Institute to publicly accept there is any cronyism? I can’t fathom it. I would love to hear his logic.
I tell you, in debate with the likes of Galloway, Mr Brook’s argument would be demolished by such a series of mis-statements and the issues he puts forward would be lost to the audience.
Free marketers have it hard enough without such an eminent individual – on our side – potentially making it harder by swatting away obvious realities.
This piece is meant to be constructive. Some or many will see it differently. As Mr Brook might say “That’s your prerogative” and I would 100% agree to that!
Jonathan Davis is a Chartered Financial Planner, an economist and a wealth manager. He is also the presenter of The Booms and Busts Show on talk2meradio.com Download the free app.
The show is about markets, free markets, capitalism and libertarianism – not necessarily in that order. Live Mondays 2-3pm and 24/7 on the podcast.
LATER: the video, already which post-dated the words, has been amended to include the full back-and forth with Jonathan and Yaron.
Libertarian Home 
The thing is that the left hate people whose wealth comes from making things as much as they do people whose wealth comes from financial cronyism.
They hate the “Koch Brothers” (whose wealth comes from mining and manufacturing) as much (indeed more) than they hate people such as George Soros whose money comes from financial manipulation – which is often involved with cronyism.
LikeLike
Paul — Yes, they (most of the Left anyway) certainly seem to suffer from Covetousness, on behalf of others if not of themselves (in this way they judge themselves to be Pure of Heart, I suppose); but I can’t help thinking they hate the Kochs first and foremost because the Kochs simply refuse to get with the Program. The Kochs are enemies (somewhat, anyway) of their philosophy and their agenda, and are among the few with hefty resources who’ve been unafraid to support strongly their own ideas and agendas, which are antithetical.
So, they’re Enemies in the battle for men’s minds (and for donations), and for the whole Leftist system of organizations supporting their philosophy and agendas.
And the Kochs have enough money and guts to constitute a serious adversary, or at least to provide a badly-needed stalking horse and scapegoat for the Left. So the Left have to make them out to be Evil in intent and in methods.
I do note that I saw a piece somewhere lately saying that Charles Koch has decided to detach himself somewhat from the Libertarian Cause as such, and concentrate more on business matters. For what it’s worth.
As for their support of cronies: I suppose that makes sense. The cronies are willing to Play the Game, shower them with $/£/€, etc., and support the Side. This last by lecturing and debating on the individual’s particular issues, and also by constant plugs for lefty Causes, organizations and even persons.
LikeLike