If there is a “loadsamoney” culture, it is a culture that seems to be far more prevalent within Anglo-Saxon societies (maybe the French influence prevents this view from applying in Canada).The problem with this table is that those countries with the “fairer” income distributions are also those with the poorer economic performance over the past 10 years, at least in terms of growth and productivity. Japan has the most equitable income distribution yet has been a truly awful economy. Of course, one could reasonably argue that Japan’s problems – as with those in Germany and other countries – may have nothing whatsoever to do with income distribution. Instead, their difficulties may stem from overly bureaucratic states, overly regulated industries, excessive protection of worker rights, inappropriate levels of taxation etc, etc.

Yet many of these constraints are there precisely to protect the incomes of those who might be considered to be the more vulnerable in society.Ultimately, enterprise economies are driven by profits, which determine the allocation of resources. Not all profits are a good thing: a company that has established a monopoly in its industry may benefit its shareholders but is unlikely to help customers or suppliers (although Microsoft would probably dispute this). Generally, though, those industries where profits are abnormally high should attract new entrants while those with abnormally low profits should be shrinking. The expectation – perhaps ultimately false – that new technologies would lead to huge profits paved the way for the massive investment in IT and other related areas over the past few years.The problem, however, is that profits are indifferent to winners and losers. An economy which encourages the free movement of capital and labour may lead to a superior overall allocation of resources but not much can be said about the distribution of the spoils. High profits will offer unusually high rewards and encourage risk-taking. Low profits – or, perhaps, losses – will lead to company closures and redundancies.

These events are an inevitable consequence of a capitalist system.The US gets round some of these problems by ensuring a relatively high degree of labour mobility across the nation. As a result, a large chunk of economic adjustment cost is placed on workers, who are forced to search for jobs up and down the country, uprooting their families in the process. In the UK and across Europe more generally, there has been less social acceptance of this approach and therefore a stronger incentive for governments to interfere with the operation of the “enterprise economy” This makes “fairness” and “enterprise” strange bedfellows. Fairness comes in when the costs of enterprise are deemed to be unacceptably high.A truly enterprise-driven economy is one in which property rights are defended, where the market dominates and where people are free to buy and sell in any legal fashion. Monopolies, whether in the public or private sector, are an anathema to the free functioning of the market. The profit motive is vital because it ensures that resources are used in the most efficient manner. On the limited occasions when the market is unable to provide a solution – when, for example, there are social costs and benefits that cannot be appropriately priced – there may be a case for state intervention.

Otherwise, the market knows best.As long as transactions are engaged in voluntarily, why should the state or anyone else get involved? We may be unhappy about the randomness of the outcome. Yet stepping in to prevent an “unfair” distribution may then interfere with the smooth operation of the enterprise economy Gordon Brown wants to be both Robert Nozick and John Rawls. Combining an agenda for enterprise with an agenda for fairness is all very well, but these are hollow words unless the trade-offs between these two, potentially conflicting, goals are spelt out clearly.Stephen King is managing director of economics at HSBC.. Somerset Maugham’s play The Letter is due a revival. This tale of a tempestuous affair, full of suspicion and jealousy, culminating in a poisonous epistle, well describes last week’s events.