There is a follow-up by Mr. Graham [1], and there is a follow-up to his follow-up by the original open-letter author [2].<p>I would like to add one thing. Given that Mr. Graham has put forth an essay on an (macro) economic topic, and his employment of the &#x27;per se&#x27; argument method, there is an obvious lack of proper treatment of the basic and foundational economic concept of &#x27;ceteris paribus&#x27;.<p>Without employing the tool of &#x27;ceteris paribus&#x27; in his his essay Mr. Graham has left the door <i>wide</i> open for discussion of all sorts of things which might form a critical response to his argument: &quot;But economic inequality per se is not bad.&quot; On the same topic, in his follow-up he weakens his argument substantially by prefacing it with: &quot;I thought it might help clarify matters if I tried to write a version so simple that it leaves no room for misinterpretation.&quot; Less words does not necessarily make for a smaller room, Mr. Graham.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;sim.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.paulgraham.com&#x2F;sim.html</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@RickWebb&#x2F;paul-graham-s-second-inequality-essay-is-only-slightly-better-here-s-what-s-still-wrong-with-it-9b57ba8e516d#.hum2bsuur" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;@RickWebb&#x2F;paul-graham-s-second-inequality...</a>