Ninety Nine Percent Off

So glad we almost made it
So sad they had to fade it
Everybody wants to rule the world
--Tears for Fears

In the scrabble of extant protest rhetoric, the words 'ninety nine percent' are increasingly observed. Ninety nine percent is a metaphor that reflects the great majority. This majority is portrayed as increasingly impoverished. The ninety nine percent are the protagonists.

The antagonists are the remaining one percent, the 'rich.' The one percent are the villians because they have gotten rich at the expense of the other 99%, so the story goes.

Things have gotten so bad that the ninety nine percenters are not going to take it anymore. Instead, they are hitting the streets in protest. They are demanding, well, what they are demand is not precisely clear. But it is easy to infer that the ninety nine percent would like some of the one percent's property, and that they are amenable to the use of force (a.k.a. government) is a means for obtaining that wealth.

This story line is not a new one, of course, as it is straight out of Marx and Engels.

But let's set aside the absurdity of the story for a moment. Data estimate that the top 1% of US wage earners hold 35% of the wealth. The 'other ninety 'percent' therefore hold 65%--the majority of the wealth.

The ninety nine percenters would naturally like to improve their standard of living. They have two basic options. They can produce among themselves and voluntarily engage in trade with each others or even with the one percent. Or they can recruit a subgroup to act as their agents to forcibly take some of the one percent's wealth.

From a moral standpoint, the proper choice is obvious.

But let us set aside the question of morality, and consider the question from an solely from economic standpoint: Which choice produces a more desirable economic outcome (e.g., reduction of conditions of scarcity) over time?

Once again, the answer is obvious.