One is that they help advance the supply of material goods because they are the early consumers of expensive products that will later come down in price. Without them as purchasers, these products wouldn't exist.
In other words,
"A large part of the expenditure of the rich, though not intended for that end, thus serves to defray the cost of the experimentation with the new things that, as a result, can later be made available to the poor." (pp.43-44)
"If today in the United States or western Europe the relatively poor can have a car or a refrigerator, an airplane trip or a radio, at the cost of a reasonable part of their income, this was made possible because in the past others with larger incomes were able to spend on what was then a luxury." (p.44)
This practically begs for a retort and John Kenneth Galbraith provides a nice one:
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.
Hayek is aware that this argument may appear "as a piece of far-fetched and cynical apologetics" (p. 45) but he still thinks it is correct. There is some truth to Hayek's claim, such as the progress made in HDTVs, which were once VERY expensive, but I don't think it's enough to justify the extravagances of many of the rich because many products, such as Rolls-Royce cars, NEVER come down in price. The whole point is that only a few can afford them.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment