Reading about a list of the top 22 voices in music I came across Celine Dion. One of the first passages reads:

Dion became a young star in francophone Canada after her manager and current husband, René Angélil, mortgaged his home to finance her first record.

I thought about this gentleman who took a phenomenal risk putting up his house to finance, a then unknown, Celine Dion. This turned out to be a smart decision. Some would argue that since he is not the talent, he is undeserving of his riches, and therefore the state is justified in redistributing those riches to someone it deems more worthy. Why is having the acumen to see talent, and the ability to nurture it until it can sustain itself consider less worthy of wealth than the actual talent itself?

The investor or producer provide the infrastructure necessary to make the talent generate wealth. This is the same thing as the shop owner or principal investigator whose development of a method and acquisition of the tools enables journeyman access to the resources needed for them to produce their monumental work. It most certainly is the case that the corporation that owns the manufacturing plant multiplies the value of a worker’s labor. Yet, we find whole groups of people eager to take away the resources of the producers, investors, principal investigators and factory owners all because of the foolish perception that these people contribute very little creating wealth and yet reap so much of what is created. To do so is to eliminate the incentive to develop the infrastructure needed to produce all these great things.

Those to stupid to see the importance of the role of the producer should refrain from using the state to tell rich producers how create more wealth.

This entry was posted on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 2:28 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.