The New Republic

We are forever arguing about the gap between the rich and the poor. Some say it reflects the natural organic unfolding of relationships that revolve around those who work hard and long to make their mark and those who don't. In other words, if you are poor it's your own damn fault.

Others insist that, on the contrary, the playing field is brutally rigged right from the start. In other words, it's one thing to insist that everyone starts out basically with the same opportunites in America; that the offspring of Todd and Sarah Palin or Barack and Michelle Obama have no more necessary advantages in pursuing the American Dream than the kids that live in The Wire, a couple of blocks from the White House; and it's another thing altogether to actually believe it.

It will never be resolved of course because no one really wants to resolve it on the side of the tracks where the grass is greener. And on the other side the grass is busted glass and discarded syringe needles.

But I digress.

What we need to start examining more forthrightly is the terrible psychological chasm that has opened up of late between, the "merely rich" and the "really, really, REALLY rich."

It's the plight few of us will even acknowledge. We bitch and moan about how we are going to raise our kids without jobs or healthcare; that's fair enough. But what about the humiliation rich kids must endure when they are forced to drive to school in limousines while the really, really, REALLY rich kids have the schools built around them? And what about the rich folks who are still forced to hire a team of CPAs and tax attorneys to deal with the IRS when the really, really, REALLY rich folks who receive a blank check from the IRS and are invited to make up whatever numbers they choose.

And this, sadly, barely cracks the surface of a tumultuous world where the rich are viewed as gnats by the really, really, REALLY rich.

Maybe it's time for Noam and Zubin to start working on some new charts.

gw

- iambiguous

August 11, 2009 at 2:03am

Jon- decreasing marginal utility is a worthwhile point to make, but you shouldn't cede the ground on investment. Government programs, and even handouts, can be considered investment of a type with far greater returns to society than that which might be harnessed by lessening capital costs a few basis points (freeing up by definition only the least wealth creating endeavors). That is true even when the handouts are consumed.

Consider for example a family living at or near the poverty line, whose quality of life is reasonably improved by these programs whether they provide health care, job training or money to pay the rent on a livable dwelling. What will be the impact of that greater quality of life on that family's children? On the neighborhood? Even, in the case where the recipient belongs to a minority demographic that is disproportionately poor, on that demographic? And what will that mean ad infinitum for the society as a whole. These questions- the effect of government investment, broadly defined- turn out to immeasurably bear on the true merits of progressive policy. So little wonder then conservatives spend so little time on the subject. Far better to hew religiously to the trite, safe and predictable close form solutions.

As for Wilkinson's denial that highly concentrated wealth leads to undemocratic government, well, you can take the sterile offspring of horse and mule to water...

- I Majorajam

August 11, 2009 at 11:34am

Nicholas Schmidle, fellow at the New America Foundation and author of To Live Or To Perish Forever ,

- Anonymous

August 11, 2009 at 1:31pm

Why worry about income inequality and its moral significance when millions of Americans, inter alia, are out of work; loosing homes through foreclosure; filing for bankruptcy; witnessing their retirement savings disappear and paying extortion money to private medical insurance companies?

Why should we think that we are on a slippery slope to to the destruction of democracy and rule by the rich?  Didn't we elect BHO and has he not protected us from the amoral lobbyists of K Street?

The unstated assumption of the right-wing is that economic inequality is the natural order of society. The slippery slope they concern themselves with is the slide to totalitarianism. Government  programs to ameliorate poverty,etc, erode freedom, liberty and the persuit of happiness.

The new right-wing theory is the Liberals are really fascists--"Liberal Fascists." The totalitarian state is right around the corner under Democratic Party rule. The "death panels" are going to take over and send our old and defenseless to their early deaths.  

Sarah Palin: Democrats=Fascists=Nazi=death panels. It is so easy to understand. Hell, yes!!

- LawrenceGulotta

August 11, 2009 at 3:01pm

Simon Johnson , professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute

- Anonymous

August 13, 2009 at 2:07pm