To the Editor:

“Americans’ Meager Income Gains” (editorial, Aug. 29) sees a pattern in which “the spoils of the nation’s economic growth have flowed almost exclusively to the wealthy and the extremely wealthy”:

Suppose the wealthy had shared just a little more of the profits with the general working public. Then more of the workers could have paid for their health care, more could have paid their monthly mortgage increases, more consumers would have bought more goods, and the current financial panic might have been averted.

Extreme greed is incompatible with healthy, long-term economic planning.

Roy Freedle
Lambertville, N.J., Aug. 29, 2007

Note from KBJ: I agree with the letter writer that if the wealthy gave away some of their money, the beneficiaries would be better off. I even agree that the wealthy ought to do so. Charity is a virtue. It doesn’t follow that it’s right to coerce the wealthy into giving away their money. That’s the mistake progressives make. They don’t grasp the elementary distinction between justice, which is obligatory, and charity, which is not.

Note 2 from KBJ: Note the imputation of greediness to the wealthy. Are the poor then envious? Why would only one group or class of individuals be badly motivated? Why the asymmetry?

Note 3 from KBJ: The letter writer assumes that if “the general working public” (i.e., “workers,” as if the wealthy aren’t working) had more wealth, they’d use it to pay for health care, their mortgages, and essential commodities. Isn’t it just as likely—if not more likely—that they’d use it for fattening foods (which make them less healthy), more expensive houses, and frivolous items? And what about the workers’ self-respect? How is that affected?