Far from lazy, you pack a lot into a few paragraphs. I wish I could learn to be so concise.

I agree with you that public policy is frequently harmful, enriching big business at the expense of the poor. Why do I get a tax break on my mortgage now, but not when I was renting and had much less income? Tax law is complex, and there is probably some benefit, or at least intended benefit, in promoting home ownership and domestic energy production. But it also seems as crooked as a barrel of snakes.

Large, successful corporations spend vast amounts of money on advertising. They make this investment because advertising works; they know they will get something for their money. They also invest plenty of money in lobbying, often donating to both parties, reasonably expecting that they will get something in return.

This is sad, and frustrating, but not surprising. Legislators are human beings, subject to the same self-interested incentives as anyone else. What surprises me is how often people hope that more, better legislation is the solution.

It's true that corporations benefit from public infrastructure. Despite the loopholes, I suspect that successful corporations pay more in taxes than the poor. If you don't think they pay a fair share, but they pay according to the rules, I think your objection should be with the rules, not the corporations.

the backs of whom break for the profit of those employing them

Why would anyone sacrifice their back for Comcast, or General Electric? What's in it for the worker?

There is a kind of vilification of the corporation that I find mysterious. Employees work for a salary. They are free to take any better option that is available. They may be obligated by harsh realities to work hard and sacrifice, but they aren't obligated by anyone who provides a job opportunity. If Walmart makes an offer to someone to exchange work for money, that's one more option they have available. It's more than I am doing for that person.

(Same for consumers: we love to bash Verizon and Delta for crappy service, but we are free to discontinue giving them money, something not true of taxes. Poor California workers must pay their 1% paycheck tax, whether they use or know of the Paid Family Leave program it supports or not.)

But we started by talking about inequality. My position is to not worry about it, because I can't find any victims.

Jon Stewart is funny, and he does us a service by mocking the ridiculous things said on Fox News. I think he picks on easy targets, though.

When Fox reports that 99.6 percent of poor households have a refrigerator, I am happy to celebrate that as good news. It is stupid and tactless for Fox to suggest that households with appliances aren't really poor, but what's the point in arguing with Fox News on the basis of tone and innuendo? The sample chapters of the book reviewed in this post describe what life was like before electric appliances, and it is absurd to deny that the poor are materially richer thanks to the prevalence of these machines.

Maybe you can discover a way to get refrigerators into the majority of households that does not end up with people who sell the best appliances at the lowest prices making a lot of profit. Every person who buys a refrigerator gains, and I have no objection to General Electric receiving something in exchange. I don't see it as especially unequal: millions of people receive the benefit of an appliance, a small number of people receive money proportional to the benefit provided. Would we want to reduce inequality by reversing some of these transactions?

In the Buffet video (at 3:00), Jon talks about income inequality specifically. The Gini Index measures inequality, so he shows the beginning of the CIA Gini Index list, with the most equal countries like Sweden (Gini 23) and Norway (25) at the top. After four seconds, before the audience might have spotted Albania (26.7) in ninth place, he quickly scrolls the list way, way down, ululating to keep the audience entertained as numbers zoom past, until he gets to the United States of America, shamefully nestled between Ivory Coast (44.6) and Uruguay (45.2). The USA is "worse than Cameroon" and we barely beat Jamaica (45.5) and Uganda (45.7).

Television viewers had to take Jon's word for it, but if we pause the video and examine some of the intermediate entries, we find some strange neighbors.

Italy and Spain, tied with Romania at 32. Canada and France adjacent to Mongolia and Tajikistan. Switzerland (33.7) "worse than Bangladesh" (33.2).

At what point do we wonder if the Gini Index of inequality is perhaps not a very good indication of quality of life? On the CIA site, Ukraine and Belarus appear in the top ten. Hong Kong is among the "worst." What if someone told us that France, Japan, and New Zealand were all "worse" than Antarctica? I can't find good data but I suspect it is true; there are few homeless or billionaires in Antarctica.

I don't think the Gini Index tells us anything useful about how people live, rich or poor. When I see the headline "San Francisco's income inequality is worse than Rwanda's" I think we would be better off rating places by how many letters they have in their names.

There are millions of people waiting to immigrate to the Land of Inequality. A household in the United States has a 50% chance of enjoying annual income over $43,000, among the five highest countries. We have refrigerators for everybody.

We have poverty too, and that's an issue I hope will continue to improve as it has for two hundred years, especially in places that welcome innovation and trade.