pp. 260-261 
This analogy of a fishing versus a gold-prospecting society is useful. It raises clearly the question of "what can we expect" in terms of inequality (based on how our society supplies and sustains itself). And if we are a gold-prospecting society, it reminds me that maybe 'merit' matters less than 'luck'. I'm no expert, but it seems to me that even a lazy gold miner who is lucky to get a stretch of river with big gold nuggets is more likely to get rich than the hardworking gold minor who digs for years in a place with only a little bit of gold dust in the ground.

Also, in this section, Beeghley reminds us of the difficulties (but importance) of making international comparisons. You might want to think about how Weber Towers would look different if we had imagined it built not in a US city, but let's say, in rural China or the steppe of Russia, or in Mexico City or Djakarta.

pp. 262-267 
In pages 262-264 see if you can detect evidence for why Beeghley says at the top of p. 264 that increases in inequality in the US are the result of political choice.

His excursus (digression) acquaints students with the work of Wallerstein who is given credit by sociologists for being an early and articulate analyst of what we all see now - the globalized, world-system of nations - where some nations oppress others and also where nations are inter-dependent. Take note of how his work answers the question of why there is so much poverty around the world.

pp. 267-268 
In this section, Beeghley turns attention again to comparing the US with other Western industrialized countries. I'll admit here that we sociologists do this a lot - we look (sometimes naively) at Europe and point out how swell things are there (even though many of us have never been there), and we also point out how oppressive we are of other "peripheral countries". It seems to me that we need to make these comparisons, and that we do well to acknowledge how the international linkages work and how social conditions in the US don't have to be the way they are (i.e. Europe seems to be making some different choices to change such things.) However, we would be remiss to just say that it's an easy fix. My impression is that the challenges of multi-racial, multi-cultural complexity, as well as the history of expansion and our geographical size (lots of people, lots of places), influence the kinds of problems we face in the US. And our international leadership in the world economy has had perverse effects - benefits for many here, and serious damage to others. Hence, our American 'exceptionalism' may not be that we are the most open society in the world, but that among industrialized countries, we are the most oppressive to our poor while also creating more opportunities for great wealth. In other words, as a gold-prospecting society, the stakes are higher (to a point) than in other industrialized countries. But compared to so-called peripheral countries, we manage to create a larger middle class. I'm rambling. The point is that Beeghley is introducing us to a very big topic here in a very short few pages. You would do well to locate a class on international inequality and world systems if you ever get a chance.

p. 269 
All good ideas, but each is worthy of much more attention. I wish that he could have expanded on these issues at length (beyond the treatment he has already given them elsewhere in the book.)