Imagine a factory that's dumping large amounts of arsenic into the public drinking water supply -- a factory that can't operate without doing so. Imagine also that studies show small amounts of arsenic are safe, but large amounts in drinking water can cause serious negative health effects.
Seeing these studies, someone comes along and proposes a regulation that limits the amount of arsenic this factory is allowed to dump into the public water supply, to keep it within safe levels.
A critic then comes along and says: "The amount of arsenic in the water is not the root problem -- the root problem is that arsenic makes people sick. We should focus on helping people not get sick when exposed to arsenic! That way, we wouldn't have to hurt this job-creating factory."
This feels like what PG is arguing for here. In an ideal world, where governmental systems were purely representative and incorruptible, and where markets were efficient and impossible to manipulate, sure, focusing on huge economic inequality wouldn't make sense. But we don't live in this world, just like we don't live in a world where we can easily make people immune to large amounts of arsenic.
This analogy doesn't work for me. You are equating different amounts of wealth (generally considered a good thing at any level) with different amounts of poison.
You also repeat a concern made by many critics of Graham's essay, the connection between wealth and the ability to influence public policy, access to politicians and so on. Positing that the wealth is the source of the problem and suggesting the limiting the wealth would limit the influence also doesn't hold together for me.
I'll repeat I comment I made a few weeks ago:
There is another way to look at this problem though by asking why there is so much money being directed towards elections and politicians? One cause is the increased size and scope of government. When the role of government expands into more aspects of our lives via various taxes, regulations, subsidies, penalties, and so on it creates an incentive to influence the creation of those taxes, regulations, subsidies, and penalties.
A smaller role for government, in particular a reduction in policies that try to pick winners and losers explicitly (e.g. taxes or fees that favor particular companies or industries), could reduce the incentive to influence the creation of "targeted" legislation.
Oh wow, I'm sorry I missed your comment because for the last few days I've been wondering why no one was asking that.
Why on earth is no one pointing out that the excessive influence of the rich on politics is a problem that has to do with institutions being corruptible, and not with money?
Don't want rich people to influence politicians? Don't give so much power to politicians in the first place.
I think he is arguing almost exactly the opposite.
Poverty, poor education, etc are the underlying problem - the arsenic - and income inequality is one of the symptoms - like hair loss from chronic arsenic poisoning. Attacking income inequality directly would be like forcing haircuts on people to make wigs for people with arsenic poisoning. Not only does it not solve the problem - it helps a bit - but it actually harms innocent bystanders.
People like quick, simple solutions. It's a lot easier to raise taxes on billionaires than break the cycle of poverty or fix public schools.
Comments
Imagine a factory that's dumping large amounts of arsenic into the public drinking water supply -- a factory that can't operate without doing so. Imagine also that studies show small amounts of arsenic are safe, but large amounts in drinking water can cause serious negative health effects.
Seeing these studies, someone comes along and proposes a regulation that limits the amount of arsenic this factory is allowed to dump into the public water supply, to keep it within safe levels.
A critic then comes along and says: "The amount of arsenic in the water is not the root problem -- the root problem is that arsenic makes people sick. We should focus on helping people not get sick when exposed to arsenic! That way, we wouldn't have to hurt this job-creating factory."
This feels like what PG is arguing for here. In an ideal world, where governmental systems were purely representative and incorruptible, and where markets were efficient and impossible to manipulate, sure, focusing on huge economic inequality wouldn't make sense. But we don't live in this world, just like we don't live in a world where we can easily make people immune to large amounts of arsenic.
This analogy doesn't work for me. You are equating different amounts of wealth (generally considered a good thing at any level) with different amounts of poison.
You also repeat a concern made by many critics of Graham's essay, the connection between wealth and the ability to influence public policy, access to politicians and so on. Positing that the wealth is the source of the problem and suggesting the limiting the wealth would limit the influence also doesn't hold together for me.
I'll repeat I comment I made a few weeks ago:
Oh wow, I'm sorry I missed your comment because for the last few days I've been wondering why no one was asking that.
Why on earth is no one pointing out that the excessive influence of the rich on politics is a problem that has to do with institutions being corruptible, and not with money?
Don't want rich people to influence politicians? Don't give so much power to politicians in the first place.
I think he is arguing almost exactly the opposite.
Poverty, poor education, etc are the underlying problem - the arsenic - and income inequality is one of the symptoms - like hair loss from chronic arsenic poisoning. Attacking income inequality directly would be like forcing haircuts on people to make wigs for people with arsenic poisoning. Not only does it not solve the problem - it helps a bit - but it actually harms innocent bystanders.
People like quick, simple solutions. It's a lot easier to raise taxes on billionaires than break the cycle of poverty or fix public schools.