Envy Too Excess

In the inequality post, I puzzled over the next conundrum:

Why does it affair at all to a vegetable picker inwards Fresno, or an unemployed teenager on the due south side of Chicago, whether 10 or 100 hedge fund managers inwards Greenwich direct maintain individual jets? How create they fifty-fifty know how many hedge fund managers wing private? They direct maintain difficult lives, in addition to a lot of problems. But just what work does top 1% inequality actually stand upwards for to them? 

I emphasized the quantity number here. His granddaddy inwards the 1930s watched movies in addition to saw glamorous lifestyles way beyond what he could achieve. Increasing inequality is well-nigh larger numbers who alive a lavish lifestyle. And the claim is that increasing inequality is changing behavior.

There is a view motivating the left that inequality is just unjust so nosotros - the federal regime is ever "we" -- direct maintain to halt it. If they'd order that, fine, nosotros could direct maintain  productive discussion.

But they say, in addition to I was going subsequently inwards the post, all sorts of other things. That inequality volition elbow grease miserable people to pass also much, that it volition elbow grease them to rising inwards political rebellion, for example. For that to happen, for the presence of the rich to impact their deportment inwards whatsoever way, they direct maintain to know well-nigh how the exploding 1/10 of 1% live, in addition to how many of them at that spot are. Which just doesn't brand whatsoever sense.

Paul Krugman had a few revealing columns over the weekend. (No, non the endlessly repeated Say's Law calumny. I trust you lot all empathize how empty that is.)
In "Our invisible Rich,"

In fact, most Americans direct maintain no thought just how unequal our fellowship has become.

The latest slice of evidence to that number is a survey bespeak people inwards diverse countries how much they thought top executives of major companies brand relative to unskilled workers. In the U.S. the median respondent believed that principal executives brand well-nigh thirty times every bit much every bit their employees, which was roughly truthful inwards the 1960s — but since in addition to then the gap has soared, so that today principal executives earn something similar 300 times every bit much every bit ordinary workers....

So how tin people hold upwards unaware of this development, or at to the lowest degree unaware of its scale? The main answer, I’d suggest, is that the really rich are so removed from ordinary people’s lives that nosotros never run across what they have. We may notice, in addition to experience aggrieved about, college kids driving luxury cars; but nosotros don’t run across individual equity managers commuting past times helicopter to their immense mansions inwards the Hamptons. The commanding heights of our economic scheme are invisible because they’re lost inwards the clouds.  

Finally, hither is something I tin handle with him about. The rich are invisible. The average somebody has no idea actually well-nigh the divergence betwixt taking a limo or a helicopter to the Hamptons, boring every bit that may hold upwards to Paul. And less thought of whether at that spot are 10 such people, implying no alter inwards the distribution of income, or 1000, a large increase inwards the upper tail.

But this seems to play exactly to my point. If most Americans direct maintain no thought how the superwealthy live, or how many superwealthy at that spot are, just how tin their existence influence the deportment of people who don't know they are fifty-fifty there?

If a tree falls inwards the woods in addition to nobody hears, did the tree fall? If a hedge fund managing director has a $2,000 bottle of vino inwards his Hampton estate, how create you lot rank for that improve beer you lot can't afford?

Again (before comments create total upwards with "heartless shill of the rich" nonsense)  Inequality every bit a symptom of problems I'm all on board with -- cronyism, connections getting you lot access to education, to favorable handling past times Federal Regulatory agencies, in addition to so on are problems. That nosotros demand to fix rotten teaching in addition to other problems of the miserable I'm on board with.  But the claim is that inequality by itself, fifty-fifty if fairly gained, causes changes inwards deportment with people who don't fifty-fifty know it's there.

In "David Brooks piece, Krugman went on,

..for many of the rich flaunting is what it’s all about. Living inwards a 30,000 foursquare human foot menage isn’t much nicer than living inwards a 5,000 foursquare human foot house;...So it’s largely well-nigh display — which Thorstein Veblen could, of course, direct maintain told you.

... If you lot experience that it’s bad for fellowship to direct maintain people flaunting their relative wealth, you lot direct maintain inwards number accepted the view that neat wealth imposes negative externalities on the residue of the population — which is an declaration for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue. 

This is all quite revealing. But if the average American doesn't know how the super-rich alive -- rootage column -- it is but impossible to direct maintain "negative externalities" of wealth per se --not, I demand to continue reminding you, every bit a symptom of something else. So the mo column flatly contradicts the first.

And, if the "average American" has no thought how the rich alive -- rootage column --  they are certainly non "flaunting" or "displaying" their wealth to the average American -- mo column. Again, that's a apartment out contradiction.

As I surveyed inwards the inequality post, the other large economical "problem" resulting from inequality is that the rich don't swallow enough, so nosotros direct maintain secular stagnation. Well, are the rich consuming also much or also little? Let's brand upwards our minds here.

But 2+2 create brand 4. "We," you lot in addition to I, may non "see individual equity managers commuting past times helicopter to their immense mansions," but Paul certain sees it in addition to knows well-nigh it. The super-wealthly aren't causing whatsoever "negative externalities" to you lot in addition to me, in addition to the less fortunate who environment us. But they certain are bugging Paul.

So what I run across expressed crystal clear hither is an age-old sentiment. The established liberal institution aristocracy bemoans the garish tastes of the nouveau-riche. Plus ca change.

Except instantly it's non just, "let's non permit them inwards the terra firma guild deah." It's "an declaration for progressive taxation that goes beyond the maximization of revenue. " Read that again. It agency bring it, non to fund programs but but to lop off their heads because Paul doesn't similar their fancy haircuts.

As for Veblen in addition to the theory of conspicuous consumption, if you lot haven't read H.L. Mencken's review, halt everything in addition to create so now. (Google found me this one, at that spot may hold upwards better) It ends,

But why don’t nosotros continue flocks? Why create nosotros renounce cows in addition to hire Jugo-Slavs? Because “to the average pop apprehension a herd of cattle so pointedly suggests thrift in addition to usefulness that their presence . . . would hold upwards intolerably cheap”. Plowing through a bad mass from destination to end, I could detect zilch sillier than this. Here, indeed, the whole “theory of conspicuous waste” was exposed for just what it was: 1 per cent. cliché in addition to ninety-nine per cent. nonsense. Had the genial professor, pondering his neat problems, ever taken a walk inwards the country? And had he, inwards the course of written report of that walk, ever crossed a pasture inhabited past times a moo-cow (Bos taurus)? And had he, making that crossing, ever passed astern of the moo-cow herself? And had he, therefore passing astern, ever stepped carelessly, in addition to —