The Brie-fing vs. Common Sense: Exercises in Disagreement

George Shay and I don't agree on much of anything; we keep talking anyway.

Let me state LOUD AND CLEARLY right at the top: I purposely had ChatGPT write a big chunk of this article. You’ll understand why in a moment, and everything is clearly marked.

A few weeks ago, one of my articles happened to find itself in front of George Shay, a Substacker somewhere in America with a combative tone (and a clear preference for MAGA’s politics), who publishes the newsletter Common Sense. Whether he identifies as MAGA is another story… You see, there was something about George that convinced me to keep engaging.

If a commenter has nothing to provide except insults, I’ll simply block: way better things to do, you know? It seemed at first like that’s the path George would end up taking… but he never did. In fact, when I asked him to be just a shade nicer talking to me, he did exactly that! Since that has not been my experience of MAGA voters on the internet (and since smart people who disagree with you can be the very best teachers), his views have been welcomed on my page.

Below is a snippet from the conversation George and I had earlier today about billionaires. It occurred to me that others might find it useful to see two Americans disagreeing vehemently without the conversation ending with some version of “fuck you!”, peppered with clown emojis. You’ll see that our conversations are still not easy… but they are based on ideas.

George Shay
Common Sense

The Democrats’ obsession with billionaires is ill-advised. It's part of the long-standing class warfare mindset that lost its political power in the ‘80s. It’s the politics of jealousy and envy, a peasant mentality that rewards failure and punishes success.

Voters saw through this hypocritical pandering decades ago.

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

Whoooooaaaaa... There it is. We finally found the source of our disagreement George!

You know the slogan of my newsletter is Content for US peasants right? Lol

George Shay
Common Sense

Indeed. The peasant mentality is a problem. Better to be an aspiring billionaire. This is the land of opportunity, not serfdom.

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

I beg to differ, I'm afraid 🤷 Billionaires are the biggest problem facing our country. This administration has put the problem front and center in Americans' faces by building a cabinet whose net worth exceeds several other countries.

I think comparing today's class warfare with that of the 1980's is like comparing the first Nokia cell phone to the latest iPhone today; sure, there are hints of the original design, but you'd be missing a lot of features by concluding it's the same phone as yesteryear.

George Shay
Common Sense

Nonsense. Every billionaire is a policy success. What would the country look like with no billionaires? No Microsoft. No Apple. No Amazon. Millions of jobs lost. Billions of tax dollars lost. Tons of GDP vaporized.

Be careful what you wish for.

The era of class warfare lasted from the late 19th Century through the 1970s. Reagan’s election in 1980 was a paradigm shift. The pendulum began to swing again with the election of Obama. The communist-socialist movement aims to divide the country with class warfare. It has embedded itself in our higher education system and incorporated other ways to divide and rule by setting Americans against each other along gender and race lines in addition to class. It’s a constant, never-ending struggle to preserve the political and economic freedoms that have made the US the most successful, prosperous country in the history of the world.

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

Yes yes, SO successful, SO prosperous!

Except 16 days ago, two homeless children froze to death in Detroit.

Except it's not normal in other countries to go bankrupt for needing surgery.

Except Americans are fatter, more depressed, more suicidal, more cancerous, more anxious, less educated, have less work-life balance, less social safety nets, and lower life expectancy than other countries with a lot less money.

I just wanna make sure we're acknowledging that the prosperity you're so proud of is only enjoyed by 10% of our citizens, at best.

George Shay
Common Sense

Nonsense. The US has the highest per capita GDP in the history of the world. You have a very pessimistic, morose worldview which probably has more to do with you than the country.

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

Which part was nonsense, exactly? Can you actually refute anything I said?

George Shay
Common Sense

Your entire argument is nonsense. We’re the most prosperous, successful, powerful country in the world. People who have problems bring them on themselves. In a free country with a free market, personal responsibility is rewarded. Our safety net is calibrated on a regional basis to incent productivity. As a result we have a much more dynamic, robust economy than the rest of the world. Why do you think so many people uproot themselves at great expense to come to this country?

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

"Your entire argument is nonsense"

Right, we've established how *you* feel... What I asked was which parts you can refute?

George Shay
Common Sense

I wouldn't bother. You're not citing any statistics on your allegations about the health and well-being of Americans, most of which are lifestyle and attitudinal issues. Anecdotal reports of unfortunate deaths are just that-anomalies in the wealthiest country in the world.

You want a comfier safety net. I get it. That's what our politics are about to a great extent.

We have been running a test on what works best.

Blue states have more robust benefits. As a result, they attract the homeless, refugees, and other tax takers. They have high deficits and debts and high and rising tax rates that drive taxpayers (including billionaires) out. It’s an unsustainable doom loop.

Red states have less generous benefits. They repel tax takers and attract taxpayers (including billionaires). They run surpluses and amass reserves. They attract businesses which create jobs. It’s a virtuous circle.

The Federal government is the wild card. In Democrats’ hands, it subsidizes failing blue states and serves as an enabler for unsound policies. In conservative hands, it doesn't subsidize failure and forces blue states to reform. In the end, it’s the tough love those woebegone states need.

Eventually, if the federal government continues to subsidize failed policies at the state level, it will bankrupt itself. That’s why we need to restore common sense to government before it’s too late.

Brie McReynolds
The Brie-fing

Just out of curiosity, how do you square this assertion with the long-standing knowledge that blue states tend to subsidize red states?

George Shay
Common Sense

If you don't like that, you should support federal tax cuts. Welcome to the GOP.

Initially, I planned to carefully and thoroughly refute every single point with a bevvy of sources; however, the thought lost luster when considering what readers would find most useful. You’ve heard how George and I feel in our own words, so I decided next to simply plug the conversation above into ChatGPT… I asked it to summarize our arguments, then I asked it to provide an impartial assessment of the factuality and validity of our arguments. The response from ChatGPT is posted below; from there, readers can decide for themselves how they feel about billionaires.

ChatGPT: An Impartial Assessment of Claims Regarding Billionaires, Economic Prosperity, and State Fiscal Policy (full thread here)

Introduction

The debate between George Shay and Brie McReynolds highlights key ideological differences in how economic success, wealth inequality, and government policy are perceived in the United States. Shay argues that billionaires drive economic prosperity, personal responsibility dictates financial outcomes, and red states flourish due to lower government intervention. McReynolds, conversely, asserts that billionaires exacerbate wealth disparities, economic success is not evenly distributed, and blue states subsidize red states. This paper evaluates the factuality and validity of these claims using empirical data and scholarly sources.

Claim 1: Billionaires as a Success Story vs. a Problem

Shay’s Position: Billionaires are a net positive, fueling innovation, job creation, and economic growth.

McReynolds’ Position: Billionaires worsen economic inequality and contribute to systemic financial imbalances.

Assessment:

Empirical data supports the idea that billionaires contribute to economic growth through business creation and job provision. For example, companies founded by billionaires such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Tesla have significantly impacted employment and technological advancement (Chetty, Friedman, Hendren, & Stepner, 2020). However, research also suggests that wealth concentration among billionaires exacerbates economic inequality. The top 1% of earners in the U.S. now control over 32% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 50% collectively own just 2% (Saez & Zucman, 2019). Wealth concentration leads to reduced social mobility and economic distortions, as billionaire wealth is often reinvested in financial markets rather than in direct productive activities (Piketty, 2014).

Thus, while billionaires contribute to economic growth, the extent to which their wealth benefits the broader population remains contentious. Policies addressing wealth inequality, such as progressive taxation and corporate regulation, could mitigate adverse effects while maintaining economic dynamism.

Claim 2: U.S. Prosperity and Economic Well-Being

Shay’s Position: The U.S. is the most prosperous country in history, and economic struggles result from individual choices.

McReynolds’ Position: U.S. prosperity is not widely shared; quality-of-life indicators lag behind other developed nations.

Assessment:

While the U.S. has the highest GDP in the world ($26.8 trillion as of 2023) and a high per capita GDP of approximately $80,000 (World Bank, 2023), economic prosperity does not necessarily translate to broad-based well-being. Studies indicate that the U.S. ranks below other developed nations in key social indicators such as healthcare access, education, and life expectancy. For example:

• The U.S. has the highest healthcare costs among OECD countries but lower life expectancy (CDC, 2022).

• The U.S. ranks 38th in global education performance, trailing nations with stronger public education investments (OECD, 2023).

• Income inequality in the U.S. is among the highest in the developed world, as measured by the Gini coefficient (World Inequality Database, 2022).

Shay’s claim about the prosperity of the U.S. is valid in terms of economic output but overlooks disparities in wealth distribution and quality-of-life metrics. McReynolds’ assertion that prosperity is concentrated among a minority aligns more closely with empirical findings.

Claim 3: The Role of Personal Responsibility in Economic Outcomes

Shay’s Position: Financial success is primarily dictated by personal responsibility and choices.

McReynolds’ Position: Systemic economic barriers limit upward mobility.

Assessment:

Economic mobility in the U.S. is lower than in many other developed nations. The “American Dream” concept, wherein hard work guarantees success, is increasingly challenged by data showing that economic background heavily influences individual financial outcomes. Research from the National Bureau of Economic Research (Chetty et al., 2020) found that individuals born into the lowest income quintile have only a 7.5% chance of reaching the top quintile, compared to 13% in Canada and 14% in Denmark.

Furthermore, systemic factors such as wage stagnation, racial wealth gaps, and healthcare access significantly impact economic mobility. While personal responsibility plays a role, structural disadvantages mean that individuals from lower-income backgrounds face greater challenges in achieving financial success. Thus, McReynolds’ argument aligns more closely with empirical research, though Shay’s perspective is not entirely incorrect in emphasizing the role of individual agency.

Claim 4: Fiscal Sustainability of Red vs. Blue States

Shay’s Position: Red states are fiscally responsible, attracting businesses and taxpayers, whereas blue states attract welfare recipients and struggle with deficits.

McReynolds’ Position: Blue states contribute more in federal taxes and subsidize red states, contradicting claims of red state fiscal superiority.

Assessment:

McReynolds’ assertion is supported by federal tax and spending data. According to IRS and Census Bureau reports, blue states generally contribute more in federal taxes than they receive in federal spending, while red states tend to receive more federal funds than they contribute. For example:

• In 2022, New York, California, and New Jersey were among the top net federal tax contributors, whereas Mississippi, Kentucky, and West Virginia were among the largest net recipients (Rockefeller Institute of Government, 2023).

• A 2019 study by WalletHub found that eight of the ten states most dependent on federal aid were Republican-leaning.

However, red states often have lower tax burdens, which can attract businesses seeking favorable tax environments (Tax Foundation, 2023). While this strategy can promote business growth, it also leads to reliance on federal transfers to cover budgetary gaps. Shay’s claim that red states attract businesses is valid, but the notion that they are fiscally self-sufficient is contradicted by data. McReynolds’ argument is more empirically substantiated.

Conclusion

Both Shay and McReynolds present arguments with varying degrees of factual validity. While billionaires contribute to economic growth, their disproportionate wealth exacerbates inequality. The U.S. is economically dominant but experiences disparities in well-being and mobility. Economic success is influenced by both personal responsibility and systemic barriers. Finally, red states benefit from federal subsidies more than they contribute, contrary to the narrative of fiscal independence.

Ultimately, the data suggests that wealth concentration and economic inequality are significant issues, though the debate over policy solutions remains ideological. A balanced approach—recognizing both the benefits of wealth generation and the need for equitable distribution—would likely offer the most pragmatic path forward.

References

• CDC. (2022). Mortality in the United States, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hendren, N., & Stepner, M. (2020). The fading American Dream: Trends in absolute income mobility since 1940. National Bureau of Economic Research.

• OECD. (2023). Education at a glance. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

• Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Harvard University Press.

• Rockefeller Institute of Government. (2023). Federal tax burden and spending by state.

• Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). The triumph of injustice: How the rich dodge taxes and how to make them pay. W.W. Norton & Company.

• Tax Foundation. (2023). State business tax climate index.

• World Bank. (2023). GDP per capita (current US$). World Bank Group.

• World Inequality Database. (2022). Income inequality in the United States.

I started this post intending to write about billionaires, and I guess I have… it’s just that I can’t really take the credit for what you might have learned today; for that, you’ll have to thank the sources cited and ChatGPT.

Still, as this post came together and I wrote the blurbs in between, I realized there was a higher lesson here… a bigger takeaway, tucked in between the facts and figures.

I hope I’m not the only one who finds it.