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.
FloorEgg•1h ago
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.
andsoitis•1h ago
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.
FloorEgg•1h ago