Kidding aside, I don't understand why Mr. Willkinson doesn't account for the possibility that money and political power has a large say in what obscure academic's scribblings see the light of day.

I'm sure that Will must have noticed how liberal ideology has gradually made itself more comfortable with policies that benefit the interests of those with more and more wealth. Neo-liberalism at first was designed not to offend the middle class, (and to distance liberalism from the ravings of the liberals who really kept it real) and has since become more and more deferential to those progressively wealthier. There's something about shaking hands with powerful people that turns a radical into a neocon. And there's something about being a neocon that raises your candidacy to getting a job in a policy institute, or a newsmag, or a nice federal bureaucracy. And so on.

What Will does is perfectly illustrate how at ease liberals are with our technocratic elite and why they are at ease with it. They identify with it and are empowered by it. If I can graduate Harvard and work at a policy institute, it allows me to put all my social good-will (i.e. my liberal prejudices) into effect. Of course, it may be that I have to modify my attitudes somewhat so as not to offend the sensibilities of my peers and employers; but that's no big deal. We're all good liberals after all, regardless of what the word means.

But does Wilkinson really believe that our economy is ruled by a benign technocracy? Let’s just start with the US tax code: Wilkinson believes technocrats designed it? Decided that retroactive tax cuts are necessary to stimulate productivity among people with time machines? That a child tax credit is arguably a good idea because child-rearing is a social good, but the tax credit should not be refundable to people who don’t pay enough income taxes because, well … I dunno, but I’m sure the answer is perfectly sound and has nothing to do with social class?

Yes, technocrats wield influence out of proportion to their numbers. But obviously other factions do as well and, to my mind, much less benignly. As Krugman – and damned near everyone else – observes, powerful factions steer government policies to promote their interests at the expense of everyone else.

This problem seems intractable to me. Indeed, the Cato Institute seems pretty familiar with it.

At least two conclusions follow for promoting the general welfare: First, we should make government no more powerful than necessary, thereby reducing everyone’s incentive to control it. Second, if government is inevitably going to be controlled by powerful factions, we should create policies that promote the power of factions that have the most interest in promoting the general welfare. Arguably this includes technocrats. And arguably this includes the middle class. The virtue of the middle class is not its selflessness, but rather its size. As the largest group ever to wield a modicum of power, its self-interest coincides more closely to the public interest than does the self-interest of any other group.

And what is one reason wealthy people are better educated? Because they had wealthy parents.

Why did George W. Bush get into Yale? Because his daddy went there.

Your last paragraph just discusses differences between rich and poor and there is no mention of a middle class. What are we become? A banana republic?

The middle class was the source of this country (go read your history, Mr. Tory) and its long term strength. Changes in the social contract that weaken the middle class, weaken this country. That's the problem symbolized by increasing inequality despite the sophisticated sophistry of its apologists.

“meritocratic inequalities ” … what the heck? So like Paris Hilton or Prince Williams? Those kinds of Meritocrats? At some point they become Autocrats and that's what we fought the last revolution against.

The meltdown you see ever day you read the paper is a result of Meritocratic rule. Yeah if Paul Krugman was so powerful we'd have universal healthcare and not the Pharma lobbyist written Medicare Part D drug bill.

Come on man open your eyes. But indeed the crap you wrote was eloquently written enough to make some thing it was deep and thoughtful.

How do you determine what is “just” by looking at outcomes? If my roommate and I have the same job and make equal pay but over the years he invests his savings and I spend it on partying every weekend, would it be unjust that he can retire early and I must remain working until I am very old? Should his savings be divided up between us so I can retire earlier? How differences come about seems more important when determining justice than simply looking at the outcomes.

However, I don't believe I have ever said anything even remotely like “markets will always produce justice,” which would be silly.

How do we determine which rules are “just” without looking at outcomes? If justice is the aim of a set of rules, and if justice aims at “roughly meritocratic inequality”* (I agree with this), then apparently countermeritocratic income inequality at the very least suggests the rules aren't just.*

* What counts as “meritocratic”? Good question — but whatever evaluative content you give the term, surely the judgment will be a function of whether outcomes track the goals that underlie adopted rules.