Missing the point

Edward Conard Says What Romney Won't - Michael Kinsley, Bloomberg

 

“Let’s accept the thesis that people have earned their wealth if their contribution to society outweighs the contribution to their own pocketbook.” – Let’s not.  “Let’s accept the thesis that people have earned their wealth”.  The benefit comes automatically.

 

“Conard clearly believes that he is in the Alpha elite that should get more money, not less. He was a partner of Mitt Romney at Bain Capital until he retired a few years ago at age 51. This makes him a counterexample to his own theory. His rapid accumulation of huge wealth (estimated in the story to be “most likely in the hundreds of millions”) did not cause him to buckle down and work even harder. It caused him to retire and follow pursuits more satisfying to him than making more money. ”  Has the argument gone astray here?  Should or should not the rich strive to make their incomes even more inequitable?  If a person had made more than the average contribution to the wealth of the country, isn’t that enough? And “follow pursuits more satisfying” is the very reason the hidden hand works.