The left’s attack of her shows an ignorance of economics, though, rather than a subtle understanding of the proper handling of a technology business.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/02/14/cobuyitaphobia-blogosphere.html

She also took heat for almost driving HP into the ground during her disastrous time as HP CEO. Seeing her advising McCain doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy about him. If she wasn’t a photogenic woman, she would never have been heard from again in the public space.

Thanks for the questions!

Is growing inequality a cause of social unrest?

In the short-term yes.

Increasing inequality seems to go along with sustainable economic growth. The creation of capital by a society is typical unequal, with those who invest the most capital typically harvesting the most rewards. Those who have only their labor to invest enjoy the benefits of rising wages, but otherwise don’t harvest the excess capital.

This is true whether the capital invested is from saved cash, or from superior genes or learning environment (“human capital”).

If so, what can be done about it?

There are two general approaches, one that can be described as buying-off the losers, and the other as investing in them.

Consider education in the United States, for example. [1] As Fareed Zakaria notes in “The Post-American World,” the top third of American schools perform roughly on par with Singapore [2]. The real problem is with the worst American schools, which tend to be disproportinately poor and black. The “buying-off” plan seeks to transfer wealth to the capitalless class in a way that does not depend on performance or investment. So, for instance, we have race-based affirmative action, class-based affirmative action, and so on. These are wealth-transfer programs that purposefully tilt the playing field in favor of the least competent.

The alternative approach is to invest in the capitalless class. This separates out the wheat from the chaffe, making society more meritocratic but does little to help those without the skill or ability to help themselves. Vouchers, for instance, are a great way for the best of the capitalless class to move up. The may be a bad thing for the lazy, slow, and impulsive, however, as the high-achieving peers who would remain near them are instead given the opportunity to better themselves, and thus leave.

In the United States, the investment approach is associated with the Republican Party, while the buying-off approach is associated with the Democratic Party. Considering that the Chinese Communist Party operates as if the country-club and military wings of the Republican Party had established one-party rule, I imagine you will see an analogous approach by China in the years and decades ahead.

In addition…. what will America’s response be (not politically in a foreign policy sense, but in a domestic, social “competition” sense)?

Carli Fiorina once took a lot of heat for saying that “There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore.” [4] This represents the pro-Investment approach to the social inequality caused by economic growth.

I imagine an analogous statement would be “There is no gene that is America’s God-given right anymore.” If America will wish to sentimentally attach itself to unproductive genes, in the way it does to unproductive jobs, that will hurt it on the world stage.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/07/08/decapitating.html
[2] http://www.fareedzakaria.com/books/index.html
[3] http://essence.typepad.com/news/2008/07/mccain-right-ob.html
[4] http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/06/20/fiorina-history/

Yes. Those are my questions.

In addition…. what will America’s response be (not politically in a foreign policy sense, but in a domestic, social “competition” sense)?

Is growing inequality a cause of social unrest?
If so, what can be done about it?

?

Not that I disagree with all this (well of course I do, I think its playing God and that’s rather disturbing but I understand why countries and people will do it, and I cannot stop them, so I will have to reconcile it with my worldview somehow) altogether, but how exactly will this not have terrible repercussions throughout these societies that may outweigh the positives?