There are two realities of rhetoric that bother me. Not enough to prevent me from deploying them in particular situations, but it is a guilty pleasure. The first is the sweeping generalization. Yes, we are supposed to hate these. No, that doesn't mean they aren't often highly accurate. The second is the extension of a metaphor. Yes, these are supposed to be trite too. No, that doesn't keep them from exposing idiots where they live. (Though this just may be the effect of a massive concentration of idiots skewing the appearance of causality). Allow me to demonstrate:
If I were to give the always savvy Going Private reader some socio-economic and demographic information of an op-ed author along with a subject, I think we could safely assume that she could pretty much call the tenor of the article. Let's try it out:
California state representative * Rampant brown-outs = Price controls for electricity!
UAW representative * Labor cost competitiveness = Buy American!
French waiter in Paris * Seasonal downturn in tourism = Strike immediately for higher pay!
Fun, no?
Ok, try this one (no peeking):
Public Policy Professor at University of California Berkeley, former U.S. Secretary of Labor (Clinton administration) * CEO pay = ??
Yes, of course: "This economic explanation [market forces] for sky-high CEO pay does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think CEOs are worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove."
This brings me to the second rhetorical device, the extended metaphor. It works quite well here. For instance:
"This economic explanation for sky-high gold prices does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think gold is worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove."
"This economic explanation for sky-high oil prices does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think oil is worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove."
"This economic explanation for sky-high baseball ticket prices does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think watching a game is worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove."
"This economic explanation for sky-high [x] does not justify it socially or morally. It only means that investors think [x] is worth it. As citizens, though, most of us disapprove."
Yep. Exactly. Notice the distinction between "citizens" and "investors." You can't be both, apparently. I know, I know. I'm nitpicking. Ok, so how do we fix this?
"But if America wants to rein in executive pay, the answer isn't more shareholder rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on the super pay of those in super demand."
Or perhaps:
But if America wants to rein in gold prices, the answer isn't more gold holder rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on gold returns."
But if America wants to rein in oil prices, the answer isn't more gasoline rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on the gains to petroleum ventures."
But if America wants to rein in baseball ticket prices, the answer isn't more baseball fan rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on ball players."
But if America wants to rein in [x], the answer isn't more shareholder rights. Just as with the compensation of Hollywood celebrities or private-equity and hedge fund managers, the answer -- for anyone truly concerned -- is a higher marginal tax rate on the returns to [x]."
Or perhaps: "To rein in prices, just increase costs."
Genius. Pure genius. Play ball!
