Have you ever heard this saying? It is usually uttered with some sort of disdain, often mumbled under one’s breath. I would have to agree with the saying itself, the rich often do get richer, but is this a bad thing? Is this a manly thing? My answer to these questions would be a resounding “no!” for the first question and a resounding, “Yes!” for the second.
Contemporary socialistic thinking would have us believe that anyone who earns wealth has done so illegitimately and off the backs of the “poor” or the “working man”. Those who have inherited wealth are detested for being “born into it”. As with the vast majority of socialist arguments, they are emotion based, not rational. These arguments focus on inflaming people’s jealousy for those who have more than them. With the backing of the media, the “1%” are portrayed as the root cause of many of our problems. They show a battle between “Main Street” and “Wall Street”. Many people buy into this battle, yet almost none of them have even a basic idea of economics or how the stock market actually works. Public school teachers do an excellent job of reinforcing this propaganda at the expense of such silly things as “reading, writing and arithmetic”.
There are several reasons why the rich getting richer is not a bad thing and why it is actually a manly thing.
First, men are constantly growing, moving forward. There is a saying that, “if you are not growing then you are dying.”. This is true in money, relationships, sports and so on. A world class athlete doesn’t remain a world class athlete for long without constant training. Men build empires, that is what we do. It doesn’t matter how big or how small your empire is, we just keep building. It is good for men and for society. Women will always choose the empire builder over the potatoe chip eating Xbox player. If you are the latter, change it.
Secondly, men build empires not just for themselves, but for their posterity. Family comes first, blood is thicker than water. As men we must take care of our families first, then our extended families and closest friends. Charity does start at home. As with a hereditary aristocracy, rich men teach their sons how to succeed. They teach their sons how to invest, how to buy assets, how to run businesses. When their sons grow up, they seem to make money effortlessly because they were taught to be industrious and how to make money. Someone who inherits his family’s money and does nothing with it is not the same as he who inherits and multiplies.
Thirdly, rich people give. Yes, rich people are by and large generous. High society frowns on those who do not donate money, time or knowledge to charitable causes. Rich people tithe to their church. Rich people who own companies employ people. In a feudalistic society the landed gentry take care of those under them, they are morally and legally responsible for those living on their land. Through the stock market and venture capital they invest in up and coming businesses. The socialists hate this because they want sole control. Read about Russian in the 2 or 3 decades before the revolution. Those government officials who went out of their way to improve conditions for factory workers and peasants usually wound up dead at the hands of the communists. There can be no competition in a socialist world.
I believe that there is more to this issue as well. The wealthy must have a moral code to abide by. This code came in the form of the aristocracy. There are social norms to be observed, there is a legal and moral obligation to take care of those who work their land. There is an extremely close tie to the church. There is an obligation to protect those who are in your charge. There is an obligation to promote and sponsor art and music. What we have lost in a revolutionary and corporate society is the idea that the gentry must answer to God Himself for their actions, its not all about the money.
God Save the King!