Mr. Laurits slips a few things past us in all his details. His “worth it” criterion is a valid one, in my opinion. Income from doing something that is of value to society does make the income “worth it”. (I’m really over-simplifying here. Try not to search too hard for some exception or other.)

His green and gray pie slices meet that standard. His descriptions of the red slice, about half the total income, are skimpy, and his examples leave the reader with the vague feeling that that half is not “worth it”. Which I surmise is his intent. But it’s not entirely true; mostly not true, in fact.

That red half can be further divided roughly into three groups. The first is things like landlords charging rent. If I spend my money building an apartment building, and the tenants pay me rent, I have earned that money by providing value for the renter. Value for value, a willing transaction — the essence of capitalism.

Similarly, Laurits notes that capitalists would not have their assets if workers did not provide the labor and services to build them. True, but only half the story. “Business magnates…need working classes — working classes do not need them.” Not really correct; how can workers not need employers? The workers would not have had those jobs if the capitalists had not purchased those assets. That’s capitalism: both sides of the transaction willingly provide commensurate value — money for labor, labor for money. Both profit, and the profits are “worth it”.

One example among many — Microsoft (or Apple if you prefer) makes tens of billions selling their products. They offer value and their customers pay with value — the essence of capitalism. They both profit, one in money, the other in products, and the profit for both is “worth it”. The business owners profit, the employees profit, and the customers profit.

The second part of the red slice is financial profits, things like interest earned on bank loans or government debt, capital gains (or losses) on investments, risks taken with venture capital, things like that. I won’t get into details, but here too both sides of these transactions give and receive commensurate value. The lender and the borrower both provide and receive value. These activities are valuable, essential even, to the economy. Try running a small business or buying a home without access to credit. These profits are “worth it”.

The third part of the red slice is, in my opinion, not at all “worth it”, because these profits accumulate while doing nothing of value for society or for the people from whom the money is skimmed. Here you will find, for example, Congressmen who use their privileged positions to learn insider information and trade on it for profit. (Which is illegal for you and me, but Congress exempts themselves from many laws which apply to you and me.)

Here you will find hedge fund operators like George Soros, who took positions in a nation’s currency, and then used his political leverage and dirty tricks to create financial crises in that nation, reaping billions from his currency position. Hedge funds make billions but provide no value to the societies or taxpayers whose wallets get picked.

Here you will find too-big-to-fail banks who can run any get-rich scheme they wish, like the recent mortgage scams, not only getting rich in the process but passing the losses on to the taxpayer when the schemes go bust. As they always do. Profits are theirs to keep; losses are the taxpayers’ to suffer. And the millions’ who lost their homes. And the millions’ who lost their jobs. But it all balances out; the scum who ran the schemes got big bonuses, and not one went to jail. So we’re even.

Here you will find the “it’s who you know” category for those well-connected to government. Like Pelosi throwing lucrative government real estate deals to her husband. Or the Clinton Foundation getting brib…sorry, “donations”, from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. Like all the many, many people of both Parties who enter Congress with modest means and leave multi-millionaires many times over.

I think Laurits’ point is valid, but it isn’t a half-and-half proposition. I know it sounds worse when he alleges all the people who earn their money get only half the pie, but in fact it’s a lot more than half.

It wouldn’t have the same rabble-rousing impact to simply focus on the piece of the pie inhabited by all the scum that reap billions corruptly, but it would be more honest.