Manchester United and the unfair society

John Magnier and JP McManus made a capital gain of €100m from their recent sale of their shares in Manchester United. In return for this spectacular enrichment they contributed nothing, nothing at all to the club. Their initial investment merely bought out previous shareholders. Their money did not go into the club kitty, they brought no expertise to the club, they brought nothing to the board of the club. This massive enrichment came about solely from speculation in the shares of the corporation.

In their other spheres of operation John Magnier and JP McManus have contributed a lot and JP McManus, in particular, has been expansively generous to various worthy causes, including the Limerick hurling team! But in relation to Manchester United they contributed nothing, except perhaps instability, for it was their block shareholding that became the wedge whereby Malcolm Glazer, the American entrepreneur, was enabled to grab control of the club with which he had no previous association.

The enrichment and the subsequent takeover are manifestations of the nature of the economic system that is now regarded as sacrosanct. The argument goes that such "anomalies" (even where they are perceived as such) are the necessary concomitant of a market system that otherwise is dynamic, expansionary and enriching for everyone, well almost everyone.

But if we were to devise a political system from scratch, appreciating that all wealth comes from social co-operation, would we come up with such an arrangement? That is if we devised a system without regard to our own self interests (say, we were ignorant of, for instance, whether we had "market skills", whether we were intelligent, whether we were male or female, young or old, born into wealth or poverty), is it likely we would agree on a system that results in such anomalies and such massive inequalities as this market system does? Is it likely we would risk coming out the wrong side of this system because, for instance, we came from poverty, we did not have "market skills" or whatever?

We might well agree on some inequalities on the grounds that a purely egalitarian system would have no economic dynamism, but wouldn't we curtail the scale of such inequalities? If we foresaw that mega fortunes could be made from pure speculation – and we might be talked into agreeing that scope for such speculation was a necessary feature of a dynamic arrangement – wouldn't we ensure that the excess profits of this speculation were recouped to the common purse?

Equally, if we foresaw that fortunes could be made from the exploitation in a market system of social needs, such as health care or legal representation or housing, would we not want to curtail that system for the sake of equity and fairness? Wouldn't we be anxious about any massive inequalities in wealth and income, not just because of concern that vast comparative wealth necessarily brings it very considerable comparative poverty, but because of the spill-over inequalities? Inequalities in wealth and income bring necessarily, under our present system, inequalities in health, in education, in welfare generally, in housing and inequality in influence and political power.

The point here is there is nothing sacrosanct about the present system or there should be nothing sacrosanct. This is not something we would sign up to if we were starting again from scratch. And it is useful, occasionally, to think through what it is we would agree to were we starting from scratch without regard to our own individual or group self-interest.

What is disappointing is that no political party here is offering a challenge to the present system. Yes, unease is expressed about the level of inequality and the scale of poverty but nothing systematic proposed to replace a structure that is systemically unfair. Vast fortunes will continue to be made by a few and vast inequalities will continue to mark our society.

VINCENT BROWNE