Redstate

Posted at 2:38pm on Dec. 23, 2007 In Which We Are Reminded That Prosperity Is Not A Zero Sum Game

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

Today's New York Times comes out with an examination of the views of Mitt Romney and John Edwards on the issue of wealth. Romney is the candidate with the biggest personal fortune and Edwards is probably only rivaled by Hillary Clinton, whose husband went on a speechmaking-for-pay spree after he left the Presidency. There views on wealth are telling and in one case--Edwards's--entirely strange:

"Some people come from nothing to being wildly successful and their response is, `I did this on my own,'" Mr. Edwards said in an interview. "I came to a different conclusion. I believe that I did work hard, and I think people should work hard, but I think my country was there for me every step of the way."

Today, he added, "the problem is all the economic growth is going to a very small group of people."

Mr. Romney, by contrast, talks about the ways that his experiences at Bain showed him how innovative and productive the American economy can be and, particularly, how free markets can make life better for everyone.

"There is a model of thought among the Democrats -- that the amount of money, the amount of wealth in a nation, is a fixed amount," he said in an interview. "And that if Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are making a lot of money, that just means somebody else is not able to make as much. That happens to be entirely false."

Readers, of course, won't be surprised to find out that I agree with Romney's views on wealth from a general philosophical standpoint. But even if we take the lives of both Edwards and Romney as case studies on the issue, we should find in favor of Romney's views on the issue of wealth acquisition.

Read on . . .

Posted in Economy | John Edwards | Mitt Romney | Wealth Distribution — Comments (7)/ Email this page » / Read More »