If you are a young professional in a major city, you experience inequality firsthand. But the inequality you experience most acutely is not inequality down, toward the poor; it’s inequality up, toward the rich.
You go to fund-raisers or school functions and there are always hedge fund managers and private equity people around.
Is Mr. Brooks an idiot? Does he realize that for 98% of the population, this is simply not true.
The inequality problem is not between the 90->99% and the 1%. To think that is to basically discount 90% of the population. The 90% plus of the population that simply doesn’t see the inequality first hand and his eyes, isn’t even worth bringing into the discussion.
emphasize that the historically proven way to reduce inequality is lifting people from the bottom with human capital reform, not pushing down the top. In short, counter angry progressivism with unifying uplift.
Piketty argues that r > g, that return from financial capital is greater than overall economic growth. Brooks totally ignores this point in his criticism of Piketty.
He argues for unifying uplift; a phrase that sounds like it comes from an American Apparel bra ad. What exactly is unifying uplift? If he is talking about increasing social spending, why not actually say that? Is he really just saying we can stop the formation of vast oligarchies if we come up with the right platitudes?
