Don Luskin and philosopher Keith Burgess-Jackson are talking about growing gap between rich and poor, as decried by a number of left-leaning economists. Keith points out this an example of "appeal to authority" fallacy, in which an authority in one area is cited to support some view outside their expertise.

Like a starlet to politics, for example.

In this case, the view in question is that there's something wrong with a widening gap between the rich and poor, something I first encountered, as far as I can recall, in the disingenuous book America, What Went Wrong?, published to discredit Reagan's economic policies.

If you wanted to criticise a sitting president economically, what would be one of the easist routes?

You'd want to say people were getting poorer.

If you couldn't say that, honestly, then you'd try to at least make the case that the middle class or the poorest folk were getting poorer.

And if you couldn't make that case, you'd then be stuck doing what these fine fellows do: Pointing out the "gap" between the rich and poor is increasing. Which means, quite frankly, that the poor are getting no poorer -- and possibly richer, and the rich are getting wealther at a higher rate.

Who cares?

I don't care if Bill Gates gets weathier. I don't care if there are more millionaires in the US. Okay, actually I do: I want there to be more of them. That's a good thing. It means they'll be buying more stuff or investing more money.

As long as I'm not declining, someone else's good fortune doesn't hurt me.

To feel otherwise is simply greed, envy, and covetousness.

But that's what's being sold here: The "gap between rich and poor" isn't about you or even a poor person doing worse -- it's about the fear that there's someone else out there gaining wealth faster.

So the next time you hear the media nattering about the "widening gap between rich and poor", just remember: This generally means we're doing better, economically. If we weren't, trust me, you'd be hearing that instead.

See also this article.