Figuratively speaking

Standing around the proverbial water cooler in the office, we turned to the obvious topic of how I would win the Nobel Peace prize if I were in control of the world.

Well, of course, I would! How hard can it be to sort out the problems of the world then sit down to a nice steak dinner and enjoy the fruits of my labours?

The only problem is that I stumbled at the first hurdle. When one of my colleagues mentioned that I should probably spread the wealth equally amongst all, my first instinct was to say yes but seconds later I realised that that was no good since after all my hard work setting the world to rights, it would only be fair that I was a little wealthier than everyone else. It’s just good manners really, a sort of thank you from the world for all my hard work.

But really, putting the flippancy aside, and getting serious for a few minutes, as idealistic as it sounds, eliminating economic inequality in the world is completely unrealistic. There’s the simplistic view that if everyone earned the same there would be no poverty or no ridiculous excess either but that would last exactly three seconds before the balance would be upset again and the rich and poor divide would widen once more.

You can give four people a BD10 note each and four very different things will happen. The first person will put the money in his pocket and just leave it there, preferring to save his money, comfortable in the knowledge that it’s always there. Person number two will go out and spend it without thinking on things he neither needs or really wants and before you know it he’ll have his hand out asking for more money. Number three will try to make more money out of it but for some reason or other will fail and end up with nothing in his pocket. Then you’ll have person number four who will take the money, invest it and turn it into a very comfortable profit.

The point is that because people are so different in themselves it would be impossible, and in some ways unfair, if everyone was forced to live on the same amount of money.

If person number four has worked hard for his money while person number two has just thrown his away why should number four have to pay the price?

Simple so far, but this is where it gets a little bit more complicated because it’s all well and good for person number four to keep getting richer but with that wealth comes the responsibility to teach the likes of number three a better way to deal with his money so that he too can make a profit instead of a loss. Then you have to take into consideration that in a civilised society, we can’t let the likes of number two starve to death, no matter how little he deserves the help.

As for number one, well he’s quite happy to just keep his money in his pocket and sit comfortably but then what happens if he gets ill or the roof of his house is blown off in a tornado? There goes his comfortable little nest egg and he now finds himself in the same position as number three who tried but failed to turn a profit.

And it gets a whole lot more complicated than that too but since that’s about as in-depth as my little brain can handle, let me leave you with this one last thought.

Spreading the wealth equally amongst everyone seems like a great idea on the surface but for it to work the world would have to be populated with people who never think or act independently. There would have to be no variables, no illnesses, no good or bad luck, no one person that stands out from another.

In essence we would have to lose our independence and would in effect become little more than robots. Is that a price any of us are prepared to pay for idealism? 

I don’t have the blessing of being a number four but for my money I’d rather be working day to day to pay the bills and know there’s a possibility of better things to come than to know that this is all there is.