Taking risk should have potential for reward

I read an article in a liberal publication the other day. Although I lean to the right, I try to listen to arguments left of the middle. That is only fair.

In this particular article, the author bemoaned the fact that his poor brother-in-law was being victimized by his rich neighbor. The brother-in-law didn’t go to college and had few marketable skills, so he had spent much of his life dependent on public assistance and can barely afford gas for his old Chevy.

When he found work, it was usually part time, minimum wage and not nearly enough to keep the author’s sister in the manner in which the author would have liked. The neighbor, on the other hand, had a college degree, owned a successful business and owned his and hers BMWs.

The author was aghast that both his poor brother-in-law and rich neighbor paid taxes at the same rate. The liberal author feels that the government should force the rich guy to support those less fortunate and make a bigger contribution to society. I think his argument is upside down.

I won’t condemn the poor guy for being where he is. I don’t know how he got there, but I do contend that successful entrepreneurs and investors make huge contributions to the general welfare.

I also have neighbors at opposite financial poles. My left-side neighbor has been on welfare since they moved into the neighborhood. They receive mortgage assistance, food stamps and Medicaid among their entitlements. As far as I can tell, their financial contribution to society is negative. They consume rather than contribute.

My right-side neighbor, on the other hand, went to college where he earned his BS and MBA. He worked 15 years for a major company while paying off his student loans. Then he started his own business.

During the first five years, he operated on the cusp of bankruptcy. He took a second mortgage on his home, borrowed from his parents and lived off his wife’s income until the business began paying for itself. He risked losing everything. His company now provides jobs for 30 families, and he is able to keep a reasonable part of the profits. Why should this American success story be penalized for his contribution to the national well being?

Investors also contribute to the greater good. There are lots of smart people with great ideas but no money. My right-side neighbor was fortunate in that he was able to borrow enough to keep his company going.

Many, however, must seek additional funds. Henry Ford’s vision was too big for be supported by private loans. Ford was a student of management and dreamed of automobiles built by workers with assigned repetitive, specialized tasks. He sold his concept to investors who made his vision a reality. The result, of course, was the assembly line. Those investors risked losing their motney.

Part of my retirement is in Ford Motor Company. If Ford does well, I make a profit. If they fail, I lose part of my retirement income. Should I, and the several million others who invest in American industry, be penalized for our contribution to the greater good? We take the risk of losing our money; my left-side neighbor does not.

The liberal author should adjust his thinking. Without investors and successful entrepreneurs, his poor brother-in-law would have nothing at all. Jobs are created by people willing to take risks.

Without investors to fund ideas, there would be no American industry and no jobs. Risk takers should be applauded and allowed to profit from their success.

Frank Watson is a retired Air Force Colonel and long-time resident of Eastern Washington. He has been a free-lance columnist for over 19 years.