*If the gap between rich and poor doesn't exist, it means that people aren't creating wealth or are not creating anything that people want. This causes stagnation.
*Since wages are determined by supply and demand, in a free market the wage someone is able to earn is actually commensurate to the wealth that they create. Thus it is not surprising that there is huge income inequality.
*Corruption in countries tends to die as easier ways to generate wealth become apparent. And when we see rich countries that are growing in income disparity, we tend to think they are becoming more corrupt - Paul argues those countries are, instead, a step ahead of corrupt countries.
*More expensive, luxury items used to do the job better than the mass-produced, cheap option. No more. (The only point to buying a custom-made car is to display that you can). Brand, though, still matters.
*Technology has helped weed out corruption by shifting how wealth is attained, because it helped change the perception of how people obtain wealth. The value of wealth creation isn't the resulting jobs, but the fringe benefits of the productivity that led to that wealth. The output makes our lives richer.
*Technology may widen the gap between rich and poor, but can also unveil paths for upward mobility.
*Is corruption not pervasive in wealth countries as Graham claims? *What about the responsibility of people for the society in which they live? Heavier taxation on the rich means that the poor can be taxed a little less, and the money they are taxed goes to support society: Good schools to educate workers (adding value to each well-trained worker who will be able to produce more), police to keep us safe from those who would steal wealth. These are things taxes pay for that benefit the rich and poor alike.
*How can a society with high income disparity be healthy if the people at the low end of that disparity can't afford to buy the wealth being sold by the rich manufacturers?
*Is it the guiding hand or is high income disparity not a sign of a prosperous nation? In today’s globalized economy I'm not sure that a few rich people help a country.
*How would Paul would feel about the current most hated group of highly paid individuals: bankers? Would he feel that they too had created their wealth or would he, like many, feel that some of them were closer to stealing wealth
*I think that there are some places where the disparity of wealth between people of dissimilar skillsets can be unjust. I absolutely believe that public school teachers should receive a better salary than bank managers on purely moral grounds.
*His argument about rich people creating all types of innovation is questionable. What about rich people that aren't creating wealth?
*This is a purely capitalist view of make your own way. Not a lot of people are in a place where they can pull themselves up from their own bootstraps. I am not one for handouts, but limited education in certain areas limits the likelihood that people will be able to use technology to create their own wealth.
*There are times when the author uses richness and wealth synonymously but then swears they are not the same. This contradiction is troubling and detracts from themes in the essay.
*The CEO example does not necessarily make sense in terms of being paid fairly for worth. there are many cases where a CEO simply gets paid more because he was there first or has worked his way up the ladder and has been asked to head up a new company. There are most likely people who create more worth who are paid less. There are probably many people in government for whom my argument applies as well.
*The rich are not evil. They're just more productive.
*The income gap is not something that we should try to avoid, but something that is necessary for innovation
*We need to be more realistic in our perception of wealth. Creation, not equality, is what moves us forward