<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Cause Of Inequality: Institutions, Culture Or&nbsp;Taxes?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>David B. Grusky <a href="http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.2/ndf_david_b_grusky_inequality.php" target="_self">blames</a> the first:</p> <blockquote> <p>There’s much empirical evidence suggesting that Americans are prepared to accept even substantial inequality as long as it’s generated under competitive market rules. It’s therefore wrong to interpret public outrage about CEO pay as a protest against high compensation in and of itself. This outrage is&#0160;<em>not</em>&#0160;driven by the class envy about which the GOP presidential candidates so frequently complain. It is, rather, a protest against rationing, corruption, sweetheart deals, and foxes guarding the henhouse. It is a protest, in other words, against the corruption of markets by power. The rush to a tax agenda leaves the corruption untouched and instead fixates on a redistributive band-aid that Americans have never much liked. The market principle is, by contrast, one of our core commitments and a more promising base upon which to take on extreme inequality.</p> </blockquote> <p>Glenn Loury <a href="http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.2/ndf_glenn_c_loury_inequality.php" target="_self">picks</a> the second - culture:</p>]]></html></oembed>