Fenster writes:

Another right-leaning pundit acknowledges inequality as an issue, which is better than the historic brush-off.

Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner quotes research on how inequality can be a drag on growth:

Sutirtha Bagchi of the University of Michigan’s business school and Jan Svejnar of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs studied how inequality correlates with economic growth. In general, more inequality meant slower growth, and less inequality meant faster growth.

But he goes on to point out that as the authors looked further, the concluded that “inequality hurts the economy when ‘a large share of the national wealth is held by a small number of politically connected families'”.

In other words: “(i)nequality itself doesn’t hurt the economy. Cronyism hurts the economy.”

That’s an acknowledgement of sorts, and it furthers the needed debate on the Right on this issue.  It is welcome, too, that Carney didn’t spin it to argue that cronyism is solely a Democratic habit, or a uniquely liberal vice, or invented by Obama.  Anti-cronyism is a non-partisan “anti” that I can get behind.

Sooner or later, though, the Right side of things may have to look a little closer at how the 1% gets its money.  I don’t think it is simply a matter of virtuous and heroic capitalists versus the corrupting influence of politics and government–though it is also that.  There is still a little too much of Horatio Alger in Carney’s account for my taste.

Sure, there are entrepreneurs in the 1% who invented things, financed them at great risk and actually made them.  But at The Economist points out, a lot of inequality is explained simply by the outsized success of the financial sector.  Used to be the finance sector was quick to point out that those funky derivatives fueled economic growth and were not simply a means by which pockets were lined under the greater fool theory.  Today, I think the finance sector is chastened, at least temporarily, and is appropriately leery about that kind of shameless self-promotion.   

BONUS Pundit Watch

Mickey Kaus jumps in on inequality here.  As a mostly Democrat you can’t call him a Right pundit, but he is popular on the conservative side (this article is in the Right-leaning Daily Caller) because he often attacks liberal received wisdom.

As usual, Kaus tries hard to look at underlying realities as they are rather than use his predispositions to explain.  And here, too, he takes note of both the contribution of liberal policies in fostering dependence as well as the underlying technological and globalization forces that makes inequality more than a partisan pinata.  I find Kaus’ notion of social equality, and the possible policy approaches to further that, very appealing.