Not the people, per se, but the system. He does seem to be implying that the gap is what is causing all the problems and closing the gap -- by redistributing wealth or taxing the rich or just not allowing it -- results in better outcomes across all kinds of parameters. Maybe it also changes ways of thinking and ways of seeing and naming problems. That's what he seems to be saying, yes. Close the gap, not just fight poverty -- fight wealth as well. It's not just that some plants are in the closet, but the ones in the light need more shade. I'm not an economist, and my bottom line is I wish I knew more. I like Paul Graham very much, but haven't read his piece yet. Too much great stuff to read... I'm still working on the big bang article from Harpters last week.Do the wealthy people "take away" the health of the poor people? Do they take away money from the poor people? I never get clear answers to these questions.
I think we have a mental image of an anonymous "wealthy capitalist" who takes away from the system. The wealthy people whose names we know become wealthy by contributing. Bill Gates directed the creation of software that became extremely popular. People were happy to exchange their money for Windows. Madonna is worth almost a billion dollars. People were happy to exchange their money for her music. She did not have to extract anything from the system, and the music world is richer for her contributions. I mentioned folk hero Jacques Cousteau earlier. He made money inventing and selling scuba gear. That's fine, right? Would it become bad if he sold a lot more scuba gear, and made a lot more divers happy, and became a billionaire? Some wealthy people use legal leverage to dodge competition, or deceive customers into making decisions they will regret, but I don't think that's the norm. When the law gives unfair advantage, the law should be reformed. "Fight wealth as well" seems misguided. Poor people have a little wealth too, let's not fight them. Well-intended changes meant to close the gap can hurt everyone (e.g. by stifling innovation, as Paul Graham argues, adding "economic inequality per se is not bad"). Bill Gates already paid more in taxes than the rest of us combined, and what he has left he is spending in the fight against disease and poverty. He is not alone. If the "wealthy plants" need more shade they can take care of themselves. We do best by helping the poor become less poor, continuing the beneficial, positive trend that been continuing since the Industrial Revolution. I wanted to link to a chart of rising incomes here, but when I search for "global income history" all the links are about inequality. That's all anyone wants to talk about.