Occupied with the ignorance of ‘inequality’ |
Featured Commentary

Occupied with the ignorance of ‘inequality’

“I think the disruption added to the excitement of the evening,” said a fellow attendee at the Milton Friedman Prize for Advancing Liberty award dinner as we were leaving the International Ballroom at the Washington Hilton.

He was talking about an unscripted Occupy outbreak when a protester burst into the ballroom, yelling and waving two large placards above his head and charging the stage during the presentation of the 2012 Friedman prize to Mao Yushi, an 83-year-old economist and engineer. He’s one of the pioneers of a movement in China committed to individual freedom, government reform and the transition from a centrally planned and politicized economy to a market economy.

The Friedman award, which includes a $250,000 cash prize, is presented by the Cato Institute every other year to an individual who has made “a significant contribution to advancing human freedom.”

In 2007, China Newsweek named Mao and Tsinghua University’s Qin Hui as the most influential intellectuals of the decade. In 2011, Mao’s article chronicling the human costs of brutal communist policies in China from 1949 to 1976, “Returning Mao Zedong to Human Form,” led to calls for his prosecution and execution for treason.

In any case, it was hard to immediately know what the protester’s yelling was all about at the dinner. Markets work better than communism. Even in China, that’s increasingly obvious.

Additionally, a swanky black-tie event in D.C. hardly seemed to be the best place to convince anyone that freedom is a scary thing — scarier than totalitarian rule and poverty-inducing collectivism.

Plus it was hard to get the message because the protester was yelling in Chinese and the placards were written in Chinese.

Like any good activist, the protester has a blog, proudly displaying his latest disruption, along with photos of the posters and his dash to the stage.

When we got back to Pittsburgh, I took my computer to lunch at my favorite Chinese restaurant and asked for a translation from one of the employees.

“He is saying Mao Yushi is a traitor to his country, that this person Mao Yushi is a betrayer of the Chinese government,” she explained, reading the blog. “He wanted to ‘disturb’ the award.”

She translated the first poster: “It says, ‘Mao, Puppy of USA 1 percent.’ He is saying that Americans are the owner and Mao Yushi is the dog.”

The message on the second poster was similar, again echoing the rich-versus-poor stance of the Occupy movement — the 99 percent versus the 1 percent: “Mao serves American rich people — 99 percent not slave.”

I asked the woman doing the translating what she thought about the children and grandchildren of communist China’s revolutionary leaders now becoming superwealthy, some by way of entrepreneurship and free-market ventures, and others by way of insider trading on a massive scale and crony capitalism.

“Equality does not work,” she replied. “It never works, not anywhere. There is always inequality, in every city, even in small villages. That is the unchanging nature of things. People with money have dominion, the say-so. It is no different in China. It cannot be equal.”

As Milton Friedman said to Phil Donahue during a TV interview in 1979: “You think China doesn’t run on greed?”

Ralph R. Reiland is an associate professor of economics at Robert Morris University and a local restaurateur. His email: [email protected] .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.