首页
外语
计算机
考研
公务员
职业资格
财经
工程
司法
医学
专升本
自考
实用职业技能
登录
外语
When people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it best tend to be far better than everyone else. There’s a
When people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it best tend to be far better than everyone else. There’s a
admin
2010-02-26
27
问题
When people care enough about something to do it well, those who do it best tend to be far better than everyone else. There’s a huge gap between Leonardo and second-rate contemporaries. A top-ranked professional chess player could play ten thousand games against an ordinary club player without losing once.
Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very specialized skill. But for some reason we treat this skill differently. No one complains when a few people surpass all the rest at playing chess or writing novels, but when a few people make more money than the rest, we get editorials saying this is wrong. Why? The pattern of variation seems no different than for any other skill. What causes people to react so strongly when the skill is making money?
I think there arc three reasons we treat making money as different: the misleading model of wealth we learn as children; the disreputable way in which, till recently, most fortunes were accumulated; and the worry that great variations in income are somehow bad for society. As far as I can tell, the first is mistaken, the second outdated, and the third empirically false. Could it be that, in a modem democracy, variation in income is actually a sign of health?
When I was five I thought electricity was created by electric sockets. I didn’t realize there were power plants out there generating it. Likewise, it doesn’t occur to most kids that wealth is something that has to be generated. It seems to be something that flows from parents.
Because of the circumstances in which they encounter it, children tend to misunderstand wealth. They confuse it with money. They think that there is a fixed amount of it. And they think of it as something that’s distributed by authorities (and so should be distributed equally), rather than something that has to be created (and might be created unequally). In fact, wealth is not money. Money is just a convenient way of trading one form of wealth for another. Wealth is the underlying stuff--the goods and services we buy. When you travel to a rich or poor country, you don’t have to look at people’ s bank accounts to tell which kind you’re in. You can see wealth-- in buildings and streets, in the clothes and the health of the people.
Where does wealth come from? People make it. This was easier to grasp when most people lived on farms, and made many of the things they wanted with their own hands. Then you could see in the house, the herds, and the granary the wealth that each family created. It was obvious then too that the wealth of the world was not a fixed quantity that had to be shared out, like slices of a pie. If you wanted more wealth, you could make it.
This is just as true today, though few of us create wealth directly for ourselves. Mostly we create wealth for other people in exchange for money, which we then trade for the forms of wealth we want. Because kids are unable to create wealth, whatever they have has to be given to them. And when wealth is something you’re given, then of course it seems that it should be distributed equally. As in most families it is. The kids see to that. "Unfair," they cry, when one sibling (兄弟姐妹) gets more than another.
In the real world, you can’t keep living off your parents. If you want something, you either have to make it, or do something of equivalent value for someone else, in order to get them to give you enough money to buy it. In the real world, wealth is (except for a few specialists like thieves and speculators) something you have to create, not something that’s distributed by Daddy. And since the ability and desire to create it vary from person to person, it’s not made equally.
You get paid by doing or making something people want, and those who make more money are often simply better at doing what people want. Top actors make a lot more money than B-list actors. The B-list actors might be almost as charismatic, but when people go to the theater and look at the list of movies playing, they want that extra oomph(吸引力)he big stars have.
Doing what people want is not the only way to get money, of course. You could also rob banks, or solicit bribes, or establish a monopoly. Such tricks account for some variation in wealth, and indeed for some of the biggest individual fortunes, but they are not the root cause of variation in income. The root cause of variation in income is the same as the root cause of variation in every other human skill.
The second reason we tend to fend great disparities of wealth alarming is that for most of human history the usual way to accumulate a fortune was to steal it: in pastoral societies by cattle raiding; in agricultural societies by appropriating others’ estates in times of war, and taxing them in times of peace. In conflicts, those on the winning side would receive the estates confiscated from the losers. In more organized societies, the ruler and his officials used taxation instead of confiscation. But here too we see the same principle: the way to get rich was not to create wealth, but to serve a ruler powerful enough to appropriate it.
But it was not till the Industrial Revolution that wealth creation definitively replaced corruption as the best way to get rich. In England, at least, corruption only became unfashionable when there started to be other faster ways to get rich.
Thirdly, one often hears a policy criticized on the grounds that it would increase the income gap between rich and poor. As if it were an axiom (公理) that tiffs would be bad. It might be true that increased variation in income would be bad, but I don’t see how we can say it’s axiomatic.
Indeed, it may even be false, in industrial democracies. In a society of serfs (农奴) and warlords, certainly, variation in income is a sign of an underlying problem. But serfdom is not the only cause of variation in income. A 747 pilot doesn’t make 40 times as much as a checkout clerk because he is a warlord. His skills are simply much more valuable.
I’d like to propose an alternative idea: that in a modem society, increasing variation in income is a sign of health. Technology seems to increase the variation in productivity at faster than linear rates. If we don’t see corresponding variation in income, there are three possible explanations: (a) that technical innovation has stopped, (b) that the people who would create the most wealth oxen’t doing it, or (c) that they aren’t getting paid for it.
If you suppress variations in income, whether by stealing private fortunes, as feudal rulers used to do, or by taxing them away, as some modern governments have done, the result always seems to be the same. Society as a whole ends up poorer.
If I had a choice of living in a society where I was materially much better off than I am now, but was among the poorest, or in one where I was the richest, but much worse off than I am now, I’d take the first option. If had children, it would arguably be immoral not to. It’s absolute poverty you want to avoid, not relative poverty. If, as the evidence so far implies, you have to have one or the other in your society, take relative poverty.
You need rich people in your society not so much because in spending their money or they create jobs, but because of what they have to do to get rich. I’m not talking about the trickle-down effect here. I’m not saying that if you let Henry Ford get rich, he’ 11 hire you as a waiter at his next party. I’m saying that he’ll make you a tractor to replace your horse.
Like chess or painting or writing novels, making money is a very specialized skill but is now treated not equally as playing chess or painting or writing novels.
选项
A、Y
B、N
C、NG
答案
A
解析
本题根据文章第二段而设,“Like chess on painting or writing novels,making money is a very specialized skill.”第一句即点明了赚钱与下棋绘画以及创作小说一样都是特殊技能,后面紧接着就是转折,说明了人们并不能像对待下棋绘画和创造小说一样看待赚钱这一特殊技能。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/uUsMFFFM
0
大学英语六级
相关试题推荐
A、Heshouldoftenwarmhiskneesupbyusinghotwaterpads.B、Heshouldwarmhimselfupbysittingbythestove.C、Heshoulddr
A、TheyshouldbestrictwiththeirchildrenB、TheyshouldnotsetlimitsfortheirchildrenC、Theyshouldgivemorepowertothe
A、Johnwasdisappointedathismathscore.B、Johndidbetterthanhethoughthewasableto.C、Johndidn’tpass,althoughhehad
A、Theenrolmentform.B、Thehandbook.C、AustraliaanditsPeople.D、Thedescriptionofthecourses.BWhatcanhelpthemanwith
The"News"inEducationEducationchangeswithtime.Becauseofthesechanges,thefaceofeducationandaccesstoeducation
A、Keepinghertopicfocusedandsupportingheropinionswithfacts.B、Readingextensivelyandcollectingasmuchreferenceaspo
A、HemustchangetheflightatJacksonville.B、HehastochangetheflightatAlbany.C、Hewillflyfortwohours.D、Hewillfly
Theauthorclaimsthatlyingisaseriousviceandshouldbe______.Whatistheinevitableresultofanindividual’seffortsin
A、Avoidthedifficultpartinthejob.B、Askthecompanyforhelp.C、Learnhardbyworkingextrahours.D、Findamoreexperience
Whatistime?Isitathingtobesavedorspentorwasted,likemoney?Orisitsomethingwehavenocontrolover,likethewea
随机试题
下列著作中,提出“国虽大,好战必亡;天下虽安,忘战必危”的观点的是()
A.秋水仙碱B.丙磺舒C.苯溴马隆D.以上都是E.以上都不是使用细胞毒的抗肿瘤药、放射治疗患者及2岁以下儿童禁用()。
由于旧城区的优越区位,这些开发项目用地建成后出售或出租的价格水平较高,其结果不包括()。
某设备原始价值为74000元,预计残值为10000元,每年设备的运行费用增加2000元,用低劣化数值法计算的设备经济寿命为()年。
己公司是一家上市公司,该公司2014年年末资产总计为10000万元,其中负债合计为2000万元。该公司适用的所得税税率为25%。相关资料如下:资料一:预计已公司净利润持续增长,股利也随之相应增长。相关资料如表1所示。资料二:己公司
设立分社的旅行社应该对分社实行统一的()制度规范。
《全国教育人才发展中长期规划(2010—2020年)》提出,城镇中小学教师在评聘高级职务(职称)时,原则上要有两年以上在农村学校或薄弱学校任教经历。()
在Pthread线程包中,线程操作pthread_yield表示的是()。
在考生文件夹下打开文档WORD.docx,按照要求完成下列操作并以该文件名(WORD.docx)保存文档。【文档开始】银行危机的三道防线一般而言,防范银行危机主要有三道防线:第一道防线:预防性监管——防患于未然。俗话说,“防火重于救灾”,银行危机
Normallyastudentmustattendacertainnumberofcoursesinordertograduate,andeachcoursewhichheattendsandgiveshim
最新回复
(
0
)