How Paul Graham Gets It Wrong in “Economic Inequality”

> This is the problem right here. The "ideal that all people are created equal." The truth is, they are not. There are differences in IQ, differences in emotional capacity, differences in physical strength, differences in programming ability, etc.

Here's what that phrase originally meant: European-style nobility is a mistake. It's not that you are better than me, not because of IQ, emotional capacity, physical strength, or anything of that nature. Instead, the idea was that you were better than me because your great-great-great-grandfather helped the king put his trousers on every morning, and got rewarded with a hereditary title, and you inherited it, and therefore you are my "better" because you have a title and I don't. And the older the title, the better it was, even though that means the less it had anything to do with you!

So when the Declaration of Independence says "all men are created equal", it's not talking about IQ or physical strength. It's not even talking about different economic outcomes. It's talking about social/political standing conferred by birth.

I'm not saying that you are wrong in your conclusions...

"...yet the US is now the most prosperous nation on earth and our poor still have cell phones, a basic roof over their heads, and aren't eating rocks in the dirt."

Lot of reasons for this, don't need to go into it. People have written books on it, and I am assuming you aren't directly correlating it with the tax rate.

"The 'uber wealthy' pay more in taxes than they will ever use in their lifetime..and probably 10,000 or more people's lifetime."

This isn't true, yea maybe they won't pull or have the need for a social security check, but their businesses and investments rely on public infrastructure, education, and the federal military protecting their international assets and trade rights MUCH more then the average joe. This is compounded by the fact that our corrupt system of government you so aptly pointed out, has allowed the policy making to overwhelming favor the established crony capitalists.

"Instead of focusing on how much more money we can appropriate from the wealthy, we should first be making politicians and governments accountable for the money we are paying into the system now. Without this accountability, we will continue to run out of money."

You are totally right, we should be figuring out how to be less wasteful -- and there is also plenty of legislation that creates unnecessary waste and bureaucracy. I think this is beyond a discussion about taxes though, and more about restructuring our government in a bipartisan effort -- which starts with who we elect. I think you can separate the two arguments. But yea, totally agree. One thing to keep in mind though, all large human organizations become less efficient and wasteful -- so this is not just a government problem. See HP.

Lastly, I don't think that the NBA analogy really works here. Just because someone is born with athletic ability doesn't automatically make them draft ready. They spend 10-15 years honing their skills, spending time with world class coaches, and working hard to get to the NBA. Someone born into obscene wealth usually comes with years of investment management and financial teams built around the family to maintain that wealth -- with a high potential for the child to be very disconnected from reality and never have that same urge to work that the NBA player had. See the affluenza case for example. I am not suggesting we should punish someones children by any means for your own success, but there is a difference between providing your kids a nice life and supporting modern day princes and kings.

Obviously this last bit is more of a generalization, but I hope it shows the fault in your NBA analogy. Otherwise I do agree with the sentiment that yes, there are natural vagina lotteries, but being smarter or more athletic is a net positive for a society -- whereas being born into inordinate amounts of wealth could actually end up being a negative over the long term when your ruling class is further removed and further concentrated from the average.

I'm also from Denmark, and I find it hilarious that you think it's a problem that people prioritise free time. Do you think that all a society should aspire towards is to have people working as hard as they possibly can? To what end? So that a few people can get so rich that they (and their heirs) don't have to work hard while the rest of us do? Isn't it a testament to the success of the nordic model that most people, not just the elite few, can afford to prioritise leisure?

Your statement about how 66% of the population is payed for by the private sector is not only not right, it's not even wrong. It assumes that the public sector does not create any wealth at all. But obviously it does. And all the money that is spent in the public sector, eventually ends up in the pockets of private citizens or companies in the private sector. The public sector is as much a boon to the private sector as it is a burden.