Why are we writing this article? Certainly not because we can offer a better economic theory. Rather, we believe it is timely to be reminded of this debate and to reconsider or recalibrate our beliefs and policies for the benefit of our people and nation. Too often, we become dogmatic. Like it or not, prevalent, or popular, beliefs and thoughts do constantly evolve, as they have historically. Our reasons are, first, in view of how technology and artificial intelligence (AI) will affect labour, productivity, wages and profits. Second, as we have previously written, we believe we are now seeing a new pendulum swing to the right; for lower taxes, deregulation, free market, anti-immigration, deglobalisation and less progressive inclusion. A small nation within a connected world does not have the option to impose its own policies — not without severe economic consequences to its currency, inflation and investments and resulting in capital flight, loss of jobs and talents — unless its people are prepared to live like the North Koreans. And last, we think we can add a new and better dimension to the debate, one that is not commonly articulated. More on this at the end of the article.
This question and other similar ones, such as innovation versus inequality, meritocracy versus redistribution, individual freedom versus state intervention, economic prosperity and inequality, and fairness and incentives, have been debated for centuries. In fact, more than 2,000 years ago, Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC) was reported to have said, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.”
We would argue it is the central premise of philosophy, politics and economics. It affects the livelihoods of everyone now and into the future, it defines our beliefs, history, values and culture. Huge volumes of books and literature have been written, by some of the best and brightest. Governments all over the world have risen and fallen on this very question. Here are a few contrasting quotes by some of the greatest minds to provide the context, such as Friedrich Hayek’s “... a claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers”; Milton Friedman’s “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both”; and the opposite view, by John Maynard Keynes, “Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of all.”
