The author should try his hand at farming and then he might temper his ideas.

David

Am I missing something here? this seems like a frenzied assault on a straw man. Who says that excellence shouldn't be rewarded, that effort and skill don't pay off, or that talent should be evenly distributed? Some examples of what he's actually talking about might help.

The phrase "level playing field" is nowadays most often heard in the context of international trade and protectionism, and usually negatively (protectionists bleat "there is no 'level playing field'").

The term is used mainly in reference to international affairs particularly as Rhian states free trade.

The level playing field analogy is relevant when one considers the ideology of free trade is rarely borne out by anti-competition behaviours such as subsidies, tax differences, differing regulatory frameworks around industrial relations, OH&S etc, labelling discrepancies, tilted trade agreements, dumping...the list goes on.

In which context are you basing the over-used terminolgy? I can't think of another context where this phrase is over-used?

Although I agree with many of the points made in this article, there are things in life that are or should be level by nature.

We as a species not withstanding genetics, disease, poverty, injustice or other misadventures, live for approximately the same time. I believe there is a case to level this playing field and reduce disease, poverty, injustice and the other misadventures that shorten life.

When a large company, a bank, Alan Bond or the small individual goes broke we all pay for it. We pay through an increase in tax that pays for the justice and regulatory authorities. Creditors that have lost money are forced to increase there prices to cover their losses. There are many avenues, but in the end the majority pay wether we like it or not. It could be argued this is a levelling mechanism. It is more often the case, the individuals that caused the issue walk away with pockets full of money. Many of the bankers that caused the GFC would be case and point.

I suggest the question is less about “level” and more about “balance and degree”.

As a species we need to insure (not ensure) that we all have basic access the food, shelter, health education and justice. This should be achieved where possible through meaningful productive work that doesn’t stifle innovation.

I believe that in addition to the minimum wage there should be a maximum wage. This should be linked to Production.

I believe without production money has no value! Money is a standardized promissory note that can be traded for stuff or services. If the lawyer, advertiser, banker and the salesperson were the only individuals on the planet and they invented a system of promissory notes so they could use them to purchase each other services, it would not work because they produce nothing. Their services can only be ancillary to production. Too many non productive parasites being rewarded with a disproportionate amount of our productive wealth!

We need an undulating playing field where the valleys aren’t to deep or the peeks too high!