There is a follow-up by Mr. Graham [1], and there is a follow-up to his follow-up by the original open-letter author [2]. I would like to add one thing. Given

There is a follow-up by Mr. Graham [1], and there is a follow-up to his follow-up by the original open-letter author [2]. I would like to add one thing. Given that Mr. Graham has put forth an essay on an (macro) economic topic, and his employment of the 'per se' argument method, there is an obvious lack of proper treatment of the basic and foundational economic concept of 'ceteris paribus'. Without employing the tool of 'ceteris paribus' in his his essay Mr. Graham has left the door wide open for discussion of all sorts of things which might form a critical response to his argument: "But economic inequality per se is not bad." On the same topic, in his follow-up he weakens his argument substantially by prefacing it with: "I thought it might help clarify matters if I tried to write a version so simple that it leaves no room for misinterpretation." Less words does not necessarily make for a smaller room, Mr. Graham. [1] http://www.paulgraham.com/sim.html http://www.paulgraham.com/sim.html [2] https://medium.com/@RickWebb/paul-graham-s-second-inequality-essay-is-only-slightly-better-here-s-what-s-still-wrong-with-it-9b57ba8e516d#.hum2bsuur https://medium.com/@RickWebb/paul-graham-s-second-inequality...