My intention was not to imply that Ayn Rand's philosophy is the universal truth, though I find it very logical. My intention was to say that the author, who refers to Rand in the opening paragraphs in a manner suggesting philosophical opposition, goes on to make a weak argument. If the author was really familiar with Rand's work (which the reference implies), she (the author) would hardly lump all the rich under the same common denominator, without consideration for the source of their wealth (ability vs. privilege), and conclude that they are all awaiting the same grim fate - turning either into victims or dictators.
"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: iconic libertarian, preeminent defender of the free market, and (at least until recently) the nation’s foremost devotee of Ayn Rand. When the high priest of capitalism himself is declaring the growth in economic inequality a national crisis, something has gone very, very wrong."
The above paragraph suggests that the author is aware of Ayn Rand and disagrees with both her (who was not libertarian) and the libertarians. Then the author goes on to imply that the free market is responsible for the rising income inequality and to put all the rich under the same common denominator, with no regard for the source of their wealth (note how many names are cited and the widely varying reputations of the businessmen in question). Ayn Rand is very explicit on the distinction of gaining wealth through thoughtful and productive effort on the one hand and through special privileges on the other. It is this observation that the author has ignored.
Second, the author concludes that "the lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth", so they must choose one of these options. This message ends an article that would constitute a weak response to Ayn Rand (if the article was meant to be one). It sanctions a systems that says: the rich, no matter how they got to be rich in the first place, should either abuse the rest of the population, as they often did in feudal times, or will have to see their property seized by force, as it is done in socialist and communist countries. Otherwise, they cannot survive. Well, that's a very dangerous proposition for individual rights.
Rich people already have power. Trying to minimize their political power, in favor of a more "democratic" system, is just denying the reality that the rich are powerful. If the government antagonizes rich people, the rich will fight back economically until they get what they want anyway (with lots of collateral damage). On the other hand, if you give the rich political power to begin with, you are merely acknowledging that they have power. Then they can wield it more effectively, and (Ayn Rand hopes) society will be better off.
Edit: Also, income inequality is no big deal if the rich aren't stepping all over the poor. As the article points out, the super-elite in Shanghai haven't stopped the middle class in China from exploding, and average income is growing strongly despite the financial crisis. The super-elite aren't hurting anything.
You know I've wanted to read Atlas Shrugged for a long time but I can't find a copy that isn't in microscopic brain-hurting print and crappy paper. Any ideas?
The super-elite aren't hurting anything - in China. In that article the author draws a connection between the faster-than-expected recovery in wealth of the American-super-elite vs. the still struggling middle and lower classes. This connection suggests (but certainly doesn't prove - not by a longshot) that the super-elite are affecting the economic recovery of the non-super-elite.
