Well, it's a 700 page book that (I'm guessing) few of the reviewers have read, so it's entirely possible that you and many others are missing something.
That said, if the main point of a huge book, even among many other smaller points, is an observation so ho-hum that it would make a college freshman's eyes roll, something else is going on. Maybe he proved his obvious thesis in an unusually gripping way. Maybe he proved the obvious threat to democracy in an unusually gripping way. (But why would it matter? Does anyone still think this is a democracy?)
Or maybe all the lefty economists decided implicitly to push this particular warmed-over cliche as a great innovation. Who knows.
I'm still looking for a proof that income inequality is a "threat" to "democracy"... Or as he put it, the "meritocratic values of democracy". As if we have anything remotely resembling a "meritocratic" society, even if it was a democratic one.
The threat is of wealth becoming political power and the government becoming an oligarchy... which has happened in the US, as shown by the recent study Northwestern and Princeton. When the few have the majority of the influence, that is no longer democracy, and there is no reason to believe that the control exerted by the wealthiest players is made for the benefit of those at the bottom. This a flaw of government more than of capitalism itself, but it's a flaw nonetheless, seeing as the two — capitalism and government — are intertwined.
I agree with you, of course. Though I'd say it's not just wealth, but political clout and "connectedness" as well. There are quite a few influential community/union leaders that aren't all that wealthy, but command a great deal of political power. Both by virtue of the people who they "lead" and the contacts they have in various levels of government.
What I'm trying to point out with the above is that: We are already assuming that the wealthy have a selfish or non-altruistic motive behind their actions, simply by virtue of them having wealth. If we go down that route, then we essentially need to admit that the problem isn't that the wealthy are selfish, but that their wealth enables them to exert that selfishness much more.
You are most certainly right that this is a flaw of government, or democracy in general. However, it is not a flaw of capitalism. It is, in fact, a virtue of capitalism: that money represents our "vote". But that vote doesn't magically stay with us, it get's transferred every time we "vote", or buy things.
They don't have to be intertwined, Anarchocapitalism seeks to do away with the institution of political authority entirely to deal with this problem, for example. This absolutely terrifies the kinds of people who don't understand that the state is the cause of the problems with capitalism because they always attempt to address the problems by handing more political authority to the state, which sells it off in a process of regulatory capture.
You assume that these people are trying to address problems with capitalism and not, you know, quality of life. That's exactly like saying that an atheist is simply angry at God when the majority of atheists don't even think God exists.
These people invariably see "hand more power to the state and petition for more aggressive control of the free market" as the solution to increasing their quality of life, or whatever else they're trying to accomplish.
What difference do their goals make if their suggestions are always the same and guaranteed to turn out badly?
> As if we have anything remotely resembling a "meritocratic" society, even if it was a democratic one.
It's not a threat in that sense. Income inequality has existed since the concept of income was relevant. Democracy, as viewed through economics, is part of the long march towards removing that inequality. It's less accurate to say that democracy is threatened by income inequality as it is to say that income inequality is threatened by a well-implemented democracy.
A well-implemented democracy--and I use this qualifier emphatically because I hardly consider America to be one; I barely consider Scandinavian countries well-implemented--depends on equal voice. Equal voice depends on two things: minimum thresholds of education and the strong dissemination and accessibility of information. Or shorter, understanding proposed policy and being able to talk about it.
These dependencies do not function cooperatively with income inequality. Look for people who argue that laws are overly arcane and complex precisely in order to keep lawyers in business. They have a point. Notice that tax code reform is opposed by companies making software to simplify it. Notice the sheer quantity of disillusionment among the population for the ability to do anything. Look at that iconic Tea Party sign demanding that the government leave a government program alone. Keeping income inequality in place is an important profit driver; it is rational to become a monopoly, to have full control over supply of a product, to gouge prices. The paradox of the price mechanism is that, when you subvert it, it reinforces that subversion. It only becomes rational to encourage competition when you look outside of your own self-interest.
The practice of maintaining any income inequality is, at the end of the day, kicking the feet out from underneath democracy. It's by no means a direct attack; it's just intelligent self-defense.
That said, if the main point of a huge book, even among many other smaller points, is an observation so ho-hum that it would make a college freshman's eyes roll, something else is going on. Maybe he proved his obvious thesis in an unusually gripping way. Maybe he proved the obvious threat to democracy in an unusually gripping way. (But why would it matter? Does anyone still think this is a democracy?)
Or maybe all the lefty economists decided implicitly to push this particular warmed-over cliche as a great innovation. Who knows.