This article performs certainty ("no longer need be debated," "virtually guaranteed," "the virus in action") on contested empirical claims, which is usually a tell for advocacy dressed as diagnosis.
Some specific critiques I have are: the counterfactual math is doing a lot of rhetorical work it can't actually bear. "Haig-Simons is real income" is asserted, not defended against its well-known problems. The "virus" metaphor smuggles in causation the evidence doesn't support. Income concentration and political "oligarchy" are treated as the same phenomenon. The Oligarch Act pitch gets a free pass from its own author.
The article is gesturing at real problems that warrant solutions but is riddled with intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't seem designed to make a valid actionable case for change. It seems it's designed just to get people who don't understand the concepts it's discussing to get upset.
This article performs certainty ("no longer need be debated," "virtually guaranteed," "the virus in action") on contested empirical claims, which is usually a tell for advocacy dressed as diagnosis.
Some specific critiques I have are: the counterfactual math is doing a lot of rhetorical work it can't actually bear. "Haig-Simons is real income" is asserted, not defended against its well-known problems. The "virus" metaphor smuggles in causation the evidence doesn't support. Income concentration and political "oligarchy" are treated as the same phenomenon. The Oligarch Act pitch gets a free pass from its own author.
The article is gesturing at real problems that warrant solutions but is riddled with intellectual dishonesty. It doesn't seem designed to make a valid actionable case for change. It seems it's designed just to get people who don't understand the concepts it's discussing to get upset.