The first words of wisdom – which I clearly recall – that my father imparted to me as a youngster were these: “There are three sides to every story – your side, my side and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each differently.”

This assessment is attributed to American film producer Robert Evans, best known for Rosemary’s Baby, The Godfather and Chinatown. My father reminded me that nothing in life is ever quite black or white, but rather grey. This might explain why I became an economist, for economists do not do black or white; they are the masters of grey – shades of grey, that is. Just in case you want to go there, economists do not restrict themselves to a number of shades; this can easily exceed 50.

The similarity in these pieces of wisdom is that both consist of three entities. This is called the Rule of Three, a principle that suggests that things that come in threes are funnier, more satisfying or more effective than other numbers of things. As a consequence, this form of text is highly likely to be remembered and passed on, the reason being that having three entities combines brevity and rhythm with having the smallest amount of information to create a pattern. In other words, it is simple, catchy and memorable, making the person conveying the ‘wisdom’ appear knowledgeable.

Can you think of any threes? There are many, but the more prominent are ‘Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness’, the rights outlined in the US Declaration of Independence; ‘Stop, Look and Listen’, a public road safety slogan; and ‘Short, Sharp, Shocked’, the nickname of the electric chair.

What about stories? There are, of course, the Three Little Pigs, the Three Bears, the Three Billy Goats Gruff, and the Three Musketeers. In Latin, there is a phrase for threes – omne trium perfectum – which translates as everything that comes in threes is perfect, or every set of three is complete.

Only a few days ago, the Davis Tax Committee issued a call for written submissions, by May 31, on possible wealth taxes for South Africa. Unsurprisingly, it makes reference to the desirability and feasibility of three possible forms of wealth tax: a land tax, a national tax on the value of property (over and above municipal rates) and an annual wealth tax.

The intention of a wealth tax is, evidently, to address the chasm between the haves and the have-nots. I contend that there is a third category, the wants. Yes, the wants, not the needs.

If you were exposed to Economics 110, you would no doubt have been taught that in economics there are needs and wants. A need is defined as a good or a service that is required; it is essential for survival. It could be the need for food, clothing, shelter or healthcare. On the contrary, wants are goods or services that are not necessary but for which there is a desire.

In South Africa today, there are, in fact, three categories in society: the haves, the have-nots and the wants. You might well have a different view on the criteria of categorisation for the haves, and of the have-nots, as well as on what constitutes being wealthy.

Personally, I consider ‘want’ as more of a personal desire, while the haves and the have-nots are categorisations indicating material possession, or the lack thereof, being cognisant of the fact that ‘greed’ is considered an excessive desire. While it is all well for persons to strive to better their own circumstances, it should not be at the expense of others, through depriving them by gaining preference and favours, simply because of association rather than contribution. My fear is the visible rise in South Africa of personal wants, rather than us being attentive to and addressing the collective needs of the many.

It will be telling how the matter of land reform in South Africa will be dealt with. There are many who, seemingly, want land, but do they really need land? That is, of course, the real question, since being afforded land will not bridge the chasm between the haves and the have-nots. It is the same as taking from the haves and giving to the have-nots. You merely nationalise poverty.

Studying Economics?
While on the topic of three – ever heard of the ‘dark triad’ of personality or personality traits? Although independent, these traits are closely related, as they are all said to have a somewhat malevolent connotation. If you have not, the three traits are machiavellianism (a manipulative attitude), narcissism (excessive self-love) and psychopathy (lack of empathy). There is an interactive version of the ‘dark triad’ measure (test), called the Short Dark Triad, developed in 2011 by Delroy Paulhus and Daniel Jones.

The reason for telling you this is that, as I was finalising this column, I came across research conducted by Aarhus University, in Denmark, in which the researchers applied the Short Dark Triad test to establish whether personality traits can affect the type of subjects students had chosen to study.

The research concluded that psychopaths are more likely to study for degrees in business and economics. (This already explains a lot!) According to the research, roughly one-fifth of top corporate professionals have “extremely high” levels of psychopathic traits – about the same rate as seen among prisoners. You might recall that the cult film American Psycho’s protagonist was a murderous investment banker. Psychopaths display different traits, depending on their disorder.

Common signs to look out for include superficial charm, a grandiose notion of self-worth, the need for stimulation and impulsiveness, pathological lying, the ability to manipulate others and a lack of remorse and empathy. But, despite the popular association, not all psychopaths become killers. The research claims that, although people usually find psychopaths intriguing, they cannot put their finger on the reason why.