<HTML>This isn't another mealy-mouthed request for answers to right-wing arguments, but the following passages are interesting (and maybe the next big thing in Sullivania). Along with pleas that our big-hearted immigration policy is the main contributor to inequality in America, we now have the insistence that, since Bill Gates is no more powerful today than Andrew Carnegie was during the Gilded Age, Paul Krugman is mostly wrong to fret over the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a lucky few. This comes from http://janegalt.net, one of the homes of KrugmanWatch on the web. Actually, I do have one question: How is this "negative income tax" thing supposed to work? Wouldn't it simply depress wages, just like the repeal of the minimum wage that's supposed to go along with it? [Krugman] " But the Gilded Age looked positively egalitarian compared with the concentration of wealth now emerging in America. Pretty soon denial will no longer be possible. What will the apologists say next? " [Galt] On the contrary, we live in the most egalitarian age in history. Think about it: how much better is Bill Gates' life than Andrew Carnegie's? He's healthier and will probably live longer. But is his house more comfy? His art better? His life more convenient? His clothing better quality? His food tastier and better prepared? Nope. Healthcare and Gadgets aside, Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie have little between them. Now compare the worst paid guy in Carnegie's empire to the worst paid guy in Bill's. The worst paid guy in Carnegie's empire lives in a couple of rooms with his wife, several children, and extended family. He eats meat once or twice a week. He owns one or two sets of work clothing and a good suit, probably the one he was married in. He has an ordinary hat, a good hat, and some seasonal apparel. He works twelve hours a day. He has no personal transportation; he walks or takes a horsecar. He does not vacation. He cannot afford books, plays, or other entertainment. His entertainment is church, conversation, and possibly music. He probably cannot read. In human terms, it may be a rich life. In material terms, it wouldn't do a modern welfare mother for a camping weekend. I don't think I need to itemize the fate of Bill Gates' mail boy for you to see the difference. The rich were comfortable then and are comfortable now; the improvements are strictly marginal. The poor, on the other hand, have improved their lot immensely. Plutocracy, my Aunt Fanny. Now, in fact, I am under the impression that inequality is increasing broadly. The problem is that Krugman knows as well as I do why that is: technology puts a higher premium on skilled than unskilled labor. If all you're good for is your muscle power, a machine will work cheaper and quicker and won't unionize. Bye bye human draft horses. Neither the estate tax nor any other law man can make will remedy this. Only three things might: a subsidy to employers to hired unskilled labor, which is massively unproductive and distortionary, and would involve rolling back productivity increases in some industries; training, which has a dismal record last time I looked; or a negative income tax combined with a repeal of the minimum wage, enabling workers to labor with dignity at a price they are worth. As you can see from the spin, that last is my prescription. </HTML>