An observation by Bertrand de Jouvenel on begrudging others’ riches.
The question he takes up is this: Why are the great incomes of movie stars and singers not routinely attacked while the great incomes of CEOs and entrepreneurs are?
“The film star or the crooner is not grudged the income that is grudged to the oil magnate, because the people appreciate the entertainer’s accomplishment and not the entrepreneur’s, and because the former’s personality is liked and the latter’s is not. They feel that consumption of the entertainer’s income is itself an entertainment, while the capitalist’s is not, and somehow think that what the entertainer enjoys is deliberately given by them while the capitalist’s income is somehow filched from them.”*
So we have four factors: appreciation of accomplishment, personality, mode of consumption, and mode of acquisition.
(a) Appreciation: The average person appreciates more easily what the entertainer does, while it’s harder to understand and so appreciate what capitalists do. (Or is Jouvenel’s point that entertainers’ products are fun to consume while capitalists’ products are thought to be mundane?)
(b) Personality: Entertainers have more likable personalities than entrepreneurs. (Hmmmm … )
(c) Mode of consumption: Is Jouvenel’s point that many entertainers lead more public lives and so their consumption is public, while in contrast capitalists’ consumption tends to be private? I.e., with most entertainers we get additional vicarious consumption that we don’t get with most capitalists?
(d) How the income is acquired: The average person knows he voluntarily paid the entertainer but suspects that his transaction with the capitalist is partially or entirely zero sum.
Envy is not a factor in Jouvenel’s list. Should it be? Nor is the historical general evaluative dichotomy of arts/entertainment/play/fun and work/business/serious/no fun. Are those factors?
* p. 79 of The Ethics of Redistribution.
Related: George Orwell on understanding socialism, in the Philosophers, Explained series.
Interesting thoughts to ponder. Regarding your last questions, I think envy certainly could be a factor, but Jouvenel’s exclusion may be explained by point (a). Namely, if the average person truly has no idea what it takes to be a highly successful capitalist, perhaps there is less to be envious of? It’s almost like magic to them. Though I can see this going either way.
The fun/no fun dichotomy perhaps informs all of his points, not as a primary cause but as a contributing factor. I’m not sure if it would require specific mention.
Now to the main points.
(a) I think your first analysis is right, and that the parenthetical is less so. While the latter is likely true of the average person, I don’t think it was Jouvenel’s point.
(b) I looked up when he wrote the book, and in 1952 it was, as far as I know, a less gossipy, less scandal-hungry society than it is now. Also, entertainers, especially in Hollywood, were carefully packaged wholesome products marketed to be appealing and likable, with a press and paparazzi, more willing to overlook the real transgressions and scandals. Does this mean that people today are more likely to be skeptical of entertainers and either begrudge CEO pay less, or entertainer pay more? I don’t know.
(c) Your reading of his point fits mine exactly. I take it that he is saying that seeing the Rat Pack live it up in stylish excess, or Grace Kelly marrying into royalty is an enjoyable form of entertainment itself, while watching a CEO in a private jet is just one more example of the nasty businessman living it up off the backs of the oppressed.
(d) Exactly.
Now that I have reread this a few times, I’m thinking that envy should have played a larger role in his analysis. But I think the most fundamental of his points is the last one. The prominent schools of thought and the culture at large vilifies the rewards of capitalism as unjust spoils of exploitation. If people accept that unquestioningly, then the subconscious reaction to displays of capitalist wealth is a sense of injustice. It’s pretty easy to see that if you and a few million of your countrymen bought the latest album from Lady Gaga, she’s going to be rolling in dough. No advanced knowledge or abstract thought is required to grasp that.
But to understand how the managing director of a successful hedge fund is actually a prime mover of wealth creation in a free market economy, and that his work is immeasurably more important and thus worthy of great reward… well, the culture and the schools make it unlikely for people to grasp that.
I also see a “luck” factor, a perception that the entertainer worked hard for his big break, but that the capitalist just got lucky– whereas luck probably was actually a bigger component of the entertainer’s success.
Fascinating dichotomy.