Oi-friggin'-vey.

In the Dec 1 Spec, there was a column by Gwyn Morgan.

I responded to it there, but because we live in the Twitter age of brevity, I really only addressed one aspect of the gentleman's article. 

"There is an adage that goes: “If you’re young and you’re not a socialist, you have no heart. If you’re older and you’re still a socialist, you have no brains.” So there’s some reason to hope that some of those young, ideologically misguided protesters may grow up to become productive, contributing members of society. There might even be a young Steve Jobs carrying one of those placards."

What a fabulous testimony to how clued-out someone can be. Never mind being egregiously dismissive and mired in arrogance. 

I've Googled Mr. Morgan, and it's clear that he's been a mover-and-a-shaker with a social conscience...which just makes this column seem even more hilarious...and saddening. But to paraphrase, there's some reason to hope that this older, ideological captain-of-industry may evolve into a far more insightful and empathetic citizen. 

Now, I'd intended to post a more thorough response here, but today's Spec brings a letter by Geoff Ondercin-Bourne that says so much, so well. Here it is in its entirety: 

Occupy criticism is full of ‘whoppers’

Re: In Canada, Occupied is unjustified; ‘Redistribution’ rhetoric ignores horrific historical realities (Opinion, Dec. 1)

The “whoppers” in Gwyn Morgan’s column would make Burger King blush. For example, contrary to his assertion that “no bank bailouts were needed,” we know the Canadian government set up a $75-billion bailout program for Canada’s banks to ensure their “stability” during the economic meltdown.

Morgan takes an unsuccessful stab at economic theory when he refers to “classic Marxist redistribution rhetoric.” In fact, Marx didn’t base his criticism of capitalism on redistribution but on production and the relationship between capital and labour. Equally unconvincing is his characterization of “communist” political regimes as concrete examples of Marxist theory, which Marx would reject. As an analogy, some pretty “un-Christian” acts are committed under the guise of Christianity.

I will give Morgan his point that some people respond to incentives; however, that general concept is not limited to free enterprise. Consequently, his illustration based on the experiment with economic students is nothing more than a straw man, which does nothing to support his main argument, such as it is.

Finally, he takes unions to task for their criticism of the “free enterprise system that pays their members’ wages.” In fact, without unions, the wages paid by employers in both the public and private sector would be much lower. It is labour’s ongoing struggle against that system which has garnered workers the wages they enjoy today, whether they are unionized or not.

Geoff Ondercin-Bourne