Arguing for the redistribution of wealth is resurfacing in political discourse. Social justice advocates assert that redistribution is necessary to correct inequalities. But, contrary to the musings of socialists, the free market is the most liberating tool to empower the downtrodden.

Markets are often shunned by elites and big businesses, since creating a free market entails the removal of traditional privileges. Anyone who is really interested in protecting the poor ought to support free markets. Poorer people stand to gain the most from wealth-generating activities because they are from a lower base.

It is widely known that the extent of value creation in a society is directly correlated with the living standards of the poor. Therefore, creating an environment that is conducive to income-generating ventures will only redound to the benefit of vulnerable citizens.

Though structural problems persist, the crux of the matter is that for a long time the Jamaican State facilitated a climate that was extremely inhospitable to innovation and business formation. Prior to the economic reform programme openness to trade was viewed with suspicion. Today, both political parties recognise that small countries like Jamaica must embrace globalisation.

To some critics, income inequality is a scourge on the country’s reputation. Yet such concerns are misguided. Despite the rantings, income inequality is not a problem to be solved. Even in spite of high levels of inequality, Jamaica’s poverty rate went down, not up, this pattern is evident in many other countries.

Income inequality is only objectionable when due to corruption and rent-seeking activities, but market-inducing inequality is justified. On the other hand, the rich are getting richer and the poor are also gaining in affluence, according to the World Bank.

Wealth is commensurate with value creation, so logically an inverse relationship between the fortunes of the rich and the poor indicates that the prosperity of the affluent stems from corrupt activities that are often aided by the force of the State. Social justice must be measured by the absolute status of the poor, not their position relative to the rich. There is no injustice if the salary of a highly competent CEO is 100 times larger than the lowest paid worker when this employee can afford to pay his bills, educate his children, and take vacations.

Proposals to solve income inequality in the form of taxation or expropriation will reduce the welfare of the poor by making it prohibitive for innovators to produce. Prioritising income inequality is an asinine strategy because many variables influencing inequality are outside the scope of the Government.

For instance, tall men usually earn more than short men, attractive people are more adequately compensated than their unattractive peers, and beautiful people are unlikely to be successful when applying for low-paying jobs. These findings are well documented in social psychology.

For too long, sensible Jamaicans have allowed the nonsensical views of pseudo-intellectuals to go unchallenged. Change, however, is on the horizon since, in the form of Dr Nigel Clarke, Jamaica has a leader who understands that true social justice is not the equalisation of incomes, but rather an expansion of opportunities to liberate Jamaicans from the shackles of mendicancy and pork barrel politics. His recent budget presentation clearly charts a progressive future for Jamaicans. With the support of the Inter-American Development Bank and the private sector, high growth businesses will be the beneficiary of technical training and financing. This project is called the Sidecar Fund. The success of this programme could result in the establishment of a litany of superstar firms. As economic history tells us, dynamic firms often create immense savings and value for society. Further, the achievements of prospective superstar firms are buttressed by a growing interest in the stock market. Listing more dynamic firms can only make average Jamaicans richer. Conversely, the tax agenda of Clarke is consistent with maximising human flourishing. Both the general consumption tax (GCT) and asset tax will be reduced. Opponents critique this policy on the premise that the Government may lose revenue, but this is unfortunate. Clarke intends to create an inclusive environment that enables the welfare of ordinary Jamaicans. He says: “All the money that the Government has comes from the people of Jamaica, and they know how best to spend their money. After governments over the past 20 years have raised over $185 billion of taxes from the Jamaican people we see giving back taxes in the way that we’ve done as a moral imperative.”

The State is naturally extractive, but oppressive regimes do not create mass-based flourishing. Therefore, smart administrations prioritise maximizing welfare over revenue-generation. Market participants take greater risks when they are not being raided by extractive states, so the Government automatically generates more in taxes. Unlike his critics, Dr Nigel Clarke is an advocate of true social justice.

lo_matthews@yahoo.com