The corollary of this is the idea of “increasing immiseration”. As capitalist concentration continues apace there emerges a growing “industrial reserve army” of unemployed labourers and dispossessed capitalists who drive wage rates down to a subsistence level. Readers with some knowledge of the history of economic thought will recognise that we are now dealing with the long-discredited iron law of wages. At least the wage fund contained a grain of truth. The iron law of wages is a Malthusian fallacy. (Incidentally, Marx hated Malthus).

Yet the Society of St Vincent de Paul is actually basing its so-called economic analysis on this garbage. If Marx were right the nineteenth century would have confirmed his theory. So let’s take a look.

Increasing immiseration would have lowered population growth and increased the infant mortality rate. Statistics clearly show the opposite. In 1750 London about 70 percent of children died before their fifth birthday. By 1830 this awful figure had dropped to less than 30 percent. Between 1750 and 1801 the population of England and Wales increased from 6 million to 9 million, reaching 16 million by 1831. This increase in population was only made possible by the Industrial Revolution.

Moreover the nineteenth century experienced an unprecedented rise in living standards. This was a period in which real wages quadrupled, even though the workforce grew by 400 per cent, and the output of consumer goods expanded by 1600 per cent. (It’s my belief that these statistics underestimate the increase in living standards).

However nineteenth century conditions compare with today’s, they became an incredible improvement on anything that had previously preceded them. For the first time in history production was for the masses and not the elites.

When it comes to the Industrial Revolution the “optimists” got it right while the E. P. Thompsons and the Stalinist Hobsbawms got it wrong.

Regardless of what Marxist cultists at the Society of St Vincent de Paul would have people believe, the facts are that factory conditions and wages at the end of the nineteenth century were far superior to any working conditions that the masses had ever endured previously. This was not brought about by unions, bureaucrats, politicians or socialist planners but by free markets.

The Society asks: “Why do governments and some people seem to accept that, in order to work harder, the rich need more money, while the poor need more penalties?” What a silly self-serving question. The only governments I know of that thought the poor needed punishing were Marxist.

It’s about time someone reminded these self-righteous drips that it was Lenin and not a capitalist who instructed that one out of ten of those found guilty of idling were to be immediately shot. And it was Lenin who ordered a Soviet to “...instantly introduce mass terror, shoot and transport hundreds of prostitutes...” And let us not forget that Lenin was a fanatical Marxist.

The study states: “There is no scintilla of evidence whatsoever in Australia to show that the wealthy are becoming less wealthy, or that the tax system is reducing either their income or their assets”. This is a statement of pure envy behind which lies the socialist assumption that the rich acquired wealth through exploiting the poor. Unfortunately the author was too gutless to clearly state his ‘reasoning’.

What he does instead is tell us that “inequality of income is only one tentacle of an octopus” that “throttles intergenerational equality”. This would be hilarious stuff if it were not for the fact that many journalists and so-called academics take it seriously.

In a free market incomes are generally earned. Furthermore, wealth can only be acquired through voluntary exchange. (Moreover, why are conspiracy nuts obsessed with octopuses? Whenever I come across a conspiracy site it invariably has tentacles all over the place).

What makes this stuff so bad is that it flies in the face of historical fact. Why do they think so many rich people fund lefty organisations? Could it be they don’t like the idea of competition? These twits at the Society do not realise that the super rich have rarely been friends of the market — and that goes for most businessmen.

However, the irony here is that their obsession with inequality was not shared by Marx who said that “it was in general incorrect to make a fuss about so-called ‘distribution’ and put the principle stress on it”. Not only do they fail to get their history and economics right, they cannot even get their Marx right.

Seeing as this outfit thinks the “distribution” of income is immoral, perhaps they would care to tell us:

(1) What is unjust about the present pattern of earnings and wealth? (2) What is a just ‘distribution’ of incomes? (3) By what manner of reasoning did they reach their conclusions? I have never been given an answer to any of these questions and I don’t expect one now.

As the Society of St Vincent de Paul is a Catholic organisation I think it fitting to introduce some traditional Catholic thought on the subject of incomes and the just wage. The Jesuit Luis de Molina (1535-1600) argued that wages should not be based on any concept of the labourer’s needs. He explained that unless

the agreed-upon wage violates the limits of the infimum [variation in the market rate] just price [the market price] and for that reason is clearly unjust we must not consider this wage as unjust . . . For this reason the servant cannot demand something more . . . . the owner [employer] is only obliged to pay him the just wage for his services . . . not what is sufficient for his sustenance and much less for the maintenance of his children and family.

Molina’s economic analysis and opinions were in accord with those of his fellow scholastics. For instance, Domingo de Soto (1495-1560) had also emphasised the voluntary aspect of labour contracts, categorically stating that “if they freely accepted this salary for their job, it must be just”.

The Spanish Scholastics were anti-socialists who defended private property, market processes and who opposed heavy taxation, burdensome regulations and central planning. They were also brilliant economists, something that will never be said of those shining intellects at the Society of St Vincent de Paul.

Although I have dealt in a general way with the Society’s ‘study’ Peter Saunders of the Centre for Independent Studies demolished its factoids in Muddy Waters: Why Vinnies are Wrong on Inequality. Unfortunately he muddied his own case with the statement: “This is a staggering vindication of the ‘trickle-down’ theory of growth that the Vinnies dismiss as a ‘glossy dream’”.

There is no such thing as ‘trickle-down’ economics. This gives the impression that the poor benefit from the abundant tables of the rich. The poor benefit from increased capital accumulation. It is this process that raises real incomes for everyone, not breadcrumbs from the tables of those who are getting richer. The rich only benefit the poor to the extent that they invest in the country’s capital structure.

Although it takes more than 1,500 words to deal effectively with the rubbish the Society of St Vincent de Paul is churning out, I should like to finish with the observation that the rich are also at the mercy of the market.