

Mind the Gap (2004) - 3pt14159
http://paulgraham.com/gap.html

======
summerdown2
I'm not sure I buy this argument.

First, while people may be increasingly equal in material goods I think a fair
argument could be made that they are increasingly unequal in political rights.
The Koch brothers have much more political power than the average American,for
example, and most of that is down to money equalling speech.

Second, there's the question of whether skill is actually rewarded perfectly,
or whether there are social factors at work, making someone's race and class
an arbitrary handicap.

Third, it's entirely possible that people contribute far more than those at
the top think. Sure, you might not swap your superstar basketball player for a
guy off the street, but how far would you get without a good team doctor, or
accountant, or the police officer who stopped them being mugged, or the
midwife who kept them alive in childbirth? I think the argument for only some
people being 'wealth creators' ignores the fact we all rely on other people
most of the time.

Fourth, there seems to be a large excluded middle. For example, the argument
that:

> If you suppress variations in income, whether by stealing private fortunes,
> as feudal rulers used to do, or by taxing them away, as some modern
> governments have done, the result always seems to be the same. Society as a
> whole ends up poorer.

... suggests a choice between two extremes.

What's wrong with a system which allows some variation but also keeps it from
getting extreme?

~~~
AndrewDucker
Absolutely. You need to reward people for contributing, and you need to avoid
handing masses amounts of power over society to a tiny part of it.

------
pinbender
The fundamental statement of this article is wrong. General use of the term
"wealthy" in our society includes investment bankers. By the definition in
this article, they should only be considered "rich", because they increase the
amount of money they have, but other people provide the wealth.

The definition therefore doesn't match common vernacular, leading to a number
of incorrect conclusions. This is merely a game of alternate vocabulary, not
analysis of reality.

