http://disqus.com/people/9e6373a67a372cadc04f089841d88a9f/enFri, 18 Jul 2008 03:56:59 -0000http://willwilkinson.disqus.com/the_argument_for_preemptive_redistribution/#comment-930145&lt;&lt;If it is possible for Obama and a Democratic Congress to become elected under historically high levels of income inequality, and to raise taxes and increase transfers, is this evidence for or against the imminence of a plutocracy that calls for preemptive redistributive action?&gt;&gt;<br><br>Why must the general will of the economic plutocracy be determinate? As noted in the post, elites interests are not homogenous, but they undoubtedly lean in to one side on certain policy matters. <br><br>&lt;&lt;First of all, the level of income inequality in Denmark, which has the lowest Gini coefficient in the world, is high enough to permit government capture by the wealthy were the wealthy to effectively coordinate. The question is whether they want to. They don’t.&gt;&gt;<br><br>Why not? With this you apparently commit yourself a deeper contradiction: people who refuse to pursue their rational self-interest. Homo Economicus is dead? You're also apparently assuming enrichment happens in a vacuum -- the rich could do it if they want to -- without imagining the possibility of an effective counter-balance, one enabled by a more vibrant, engaged democracy. <br><br>It's also mighty curious how decreasing taxes on the rich will "unleash a little more entrepreneurial energy." One of the problems with high rates of inequality is that it threatens meritocracy. I think Buffett compared it to choosing the 2008 Olympic team on the grounds that their ancestors were previously victorious.CainFri, 18 Jul 2008 03:56:59 -0000