Discussion about this post

User's avatar
H. W. Brands's avatar

I think you are absolutely right on the emotional aspect of the inequality debate. We do judge ourselves by comparison with others. But should emotion be the basis for policy? If a person is suffering objectively (as opposed to subjectively), is there not a stronger case for government assistance? To put the matter perhaps too bluntly, is envy a sound basis for mobilizing the power of government? There's always a tradeoff: the attention we devote to bringing John D. Rockefeller down might better be spent lifting John Q. Public up.

On the other hand, in a democracy, people are going to vote their emotions, whether that's a good idea or not. Maybe we should just get used to it.

Expand full comment
Bob Baumgartner's avatar

I feel that the two strategies presented to the president would perform to increase so either would be fine. However, I feel perhaps it's not inequality that is the root issue as much as the want for which you do not have. Our culture puts emphasis on material things which we as individuals may or may not hold. Thus those who have what we have not we view that our lives are not equal. But what is true equality? It almost feels like a mathematical principle of solving algebraic equations. Do to one side what you do to the other. But what if doing so would create waste or force something not needed? We solved for the unknown or inequality in principle, but what about practical?

Expand full comment
8 more comments...

No posts