Statists always demand the redistribution of money as a step necessary for equality and social justice, but why stop there? Why not redistribute other valuable things too, such as influence? That is Don Boudreaux’s question in the letter below.
Editor, The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
Dear Editor:
On the same day that Paul Krugman agonizes over data that show high American
income inequality ("How Fares the Dream?" Jan. 16), Bill Knapp offers in the
Washington Post a data-rich argument that questions this basis for this agony
("Middle class is moving forward, not backward"). Data on this matter clearly
are unclear.
So ignore questions of 'what the data say' and grant, arguendo, Mr. Krugman's
case that income inequality in America is excessive. Ask instead: why focus on
inequality of monetary incomes? What of other inequalities, such as the
inequality of influence in public-policy debates? Mr. Krugman is certainly a
one-percenter on this front. (Indeed, he's a 0.001-percenter!)
Shouldn't government 'redistribute' parts of Mr. Krugman's New York Times column
to me and other pundits who (according to the theory) can't help but seethe with
soul-shriveling envy at Mr. Krugman's good fortune - good fortune that (also
according to the theory) has less to do with Mr. Krugman's merits as a columnist
and more to do either with chance or with his pernicious and unfair influence
with the Powers-that-Be?
Surely every 'Progressive' believes that those of us who now possess far less
access than does Mr. Krugman to the opinion pages of the Times deserve to enjoy
more of the access that he currently "controls." And no 'Progressive' would let
mere bourgeois obsessions with property rights block the state from forcibly
redistributing private property in the name of "social justice."
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
